# Start Here > Guest Forum >  I'm almost ready to abandon the conservatives and the Republican Party.

## Unregistered User

Almost. I didn't vote for Romney, and I'm almost certain I'll not vote for another republican presidential nominee unless his last name is Paul. I have been stabbed in the back for the last time by the senators that I helped send to Washington. (I'm from Kansas.) This spending has got to stop. The ever-growing police-state nonsense has got to stop. I'm done with the left/right paradigm.

I have seen the light, but there are some dim spots that I need help with. Liberty...I get it now. I should be free to do what I want as long as it does not hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. I'm a preacher, but that doesn't mean that I want to legislate morality. It just doesn't work. I looked into the Constitution Party, and that's their game, so I'm not joining them. That leaves me with the Libertarians.

So here I am...BUT! I have some questions about deregulation, and I came up with some a hypothetical to illustrate one of them.

Hypothetical #1) The government builds a road. Citizens are free to travel on the road in a manner that does not harm others. They go as fast as they want, and as long as they do not cause an accident, they get to their destination unencumbered and without harassment.

What about the trucks, though? Are they allowed to carry loads so heavy that they cause the roads (that I helped pay for with my tax dollars) to deteriorate more quickly, and thereby cost me more money? If so, how is that fair to the taxpayers? If not, does the government get to build a weigh station that ensures that they are in compliance? 

My other hang up with the Libertarian Party is its stance (I guess it's more of a non-stance) on abortion. I'm with Ron Paul on this one...LIFE, liberty and the pursuit... Not sure I can join the party as this is an issue near and dear to my heart.

Someone enlighten me!

Mark

----------


## Kotin

Welcome to the forums!

You sound like a lot of us here..

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> Almost. I didn't vote for Romney, and I'm almost certain I'll not vote for another republican presidential nominee unless his last name is Paul. I have been stabbed in the back for the last time by the senators that I helped send to Washington. (I'm from Kansas.) This spending has got to stop. The ever-growing police-state nonsense has got to stop. I'm done with the left/right paradigm.
> 
> I have seen the light, but there are some dim spots that I need help with. Liberty...I get it now. I should be free to do what I want as long as it does not hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. I'm a preacher, but that doesn't mean that I want to legislate morality. It just doesn't work. I looked into the Constitution Party, and that's their game, so I'm not joining them. That leaves me with the Libertarians.
> 
> So here I am...BUT! I have some questions about deregulation, and I came up with some a hypothetical to illustrate one of them.
> 
> Hypothetical #1) The government builds a road. Citizens are free to travel on the road in a manner that does not harm others. They go as fast as they want, and as long as they do not cause an accident, they get to their destination unencumbered and without harassment.
> 
> What about the trucks, though? Are they allowed to carry loads so heavy that they cause the roads (that I helped pay for with my tax dollars) to deteriorate more quickly, and thereby cost me more money? If so, how is that fair to the taxpayers? If not, does the government get to build a weigh station that ensures that they are in compliance? 
> ...


Let me start with your question about roads.

In an ideal libertarian world, all the roads would be privatized, and the business or charity that owns them would set rules on how their private property may be used, and how much you will pay for it.

Personally, I would restrict my own travel to roadways with high tolls or club membership and strict rules with private bouncers that would keep out the riff-raff.

Now, given that I don't see that happening in my lifetime, I recognize that in public settings, the public appoints a government to set rules, tolls, and punishment for those rules, but that government is restricted by state and federel constitutions.  As such, they cannot assault you for anything if a crime has not taken place.  Damage to the publically owned property from overweight vehicles is a legitimate property crime in Libertarian understanding.  It is Vandalism, and can be punished as such.  Arresting a driver who is creating damage to the publically owned property is a legitimate function of the government.   Now, the weight limits to avoid damaging the roads should be well published, and the punishment for going over should fit the crime.  Weigh stations as they work now, are essentially that.  They monitor the weight of trucks.  If you are over the limit, the police basically ask for a confession, in the form of a ticket.  Paying the ticket is admitting to the crime and paying for the extra damage repairs that will be needed for the road.  You can contest the ticket in court, which is your due process should you choose to pursue it.

Speeding beyond what the paving was designed to handle is also Vandalism.

Drunk Driving is reckless endangerment and a crime against others' lives.

Some anarchists will disagree with me, but I think most Libertarians understand that some acts like drunk driving may appear victimless, but are essentially the same as communicating a threat which is recognized as a form of assault.

The biggest problem with Drunk driving is actually that it is handled as a traffic violation, instead of the crime of Reckless endangerment.  Treat all traffic crimes for the real crime they represent.  If there isn't a real crime, such as running a sign or light at an empty intersection, then there should be no proceedings.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Most people here aren't blinded in the left/right paradigm but likely many would consider themselves libertarian republicans. Of course, there's plenty of halfass republicans out there but the party base/grassroots seems to be Tea Party-ish and allied up w/ most of us in the liberty political movement. My advice is to stay active in your local GOP and coalition build w/ fellow activists and have a say in local and state party leadership. If you don't that's one less liberty minded person in a spot of some level of influence. I've been in the LP for 10 years as a dues paying member and finally realized what a waste that was once Ron came through and injected the remnant in his faction of the GOP making it stronger. Ron would've never ran LP again because 3rd parties are unfairly restricted from ballot access and otherwise just not taken seriously by people. They're protest votes, nothing else usually.

Rand has capitalized on this and has made much more traction and developed more allies in the Congress and many more foot soldiers on the ground. During Ron's last run, my district's cmte was about 20% in our camp. Now, it's 90%+ including the officers and state cmte members. I may donate money to my local party because I can trust those using it but I'd likely not donate to my state party until the top structure changed, tho I have donated to the IAGOP since our peeps are in charge. Mostly, I reserve my money for pro-liberty republicans in winnable situations or primaries where the incumbent has really pissed me off. Reclaiming liberty will be slow and arduous but it's a marathon that one should never quit. It's a hobby or quest to help release the captives from their bondage, including our own. However, I do my agorism activism in the BTC ecosystem.

----------


## thoughtomator

I would be perfectly fine with having governments to maintain roads as public domain properties, if that were the limit of it. Such a scenario would be infinitely preferable to what we have today.

----------


## Mahkato

> I would be perfectly fine with having governments to maintain roads as public domain properties, if that were the limit of it. Such a scenario would be infinitely preferable to what we have today.


What do you mean by public domain properties? Anybody can do anything the want on a road?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I have seen the light, but there are some dim spots that I need help with. Liberty...I get it now. I should be free to do what I want as long as it does not hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. I'm a preacher, but that doesn't mean that I want to legislate morality. It just doesn't work. I looked into the Constitution Party, and that's their game, so I'm not joining them. That leaves me with the Libertarians.
> 
> [...]
> 
> My other hang up with the Libertarian Party is its stance (I guess it's  more of a non-stance) on abortion. I'm with Ron Paul on this one...LIFE,  liberty and the pursuit... Not sure I can join the party as this is an  issue near and dear to my heart.


You may already be aware of this, but just in case: keep in mind that "little l" libertarians are NOT the same thing as "big L" Libertarians. The latter are just a political party. The former are adherents to the moral/social/political philosophy of libertarianism. "Big L" Libertarianism (i.e., the Libertarian Party) does NOT represent libertarianism. It is a political party, and as such, its _raison d'être_ is electing politicians. In other words, not all libertarians are Libertarians, and not all Libertarians are libertarians (if you catch my meaning ...). Just like Republicans and Democrats, there are some Libertarians who are "for" abortion and some who are "against" - and the same goes for just about every other issue as well.

I highly recommend Ron Paul's advice in such matters. Vote for whatever candidate truly represents the cause of liberty, regardless of party. (And I would add: if there is no such candidate in a given race, then don't vote in that race at all.)




> So here I am...BUT! I have some questions about deregulation, and I came up with some a hypothetical to illustrate one of them.
> 
> Hypothetical #1) The government builds a road. Citizens are free to travel on the road in a manner that does not harm others. They go as fast as they want, and as long as they do not cause an accident, they get to their destination unencumbered and without harassment.
> 
> What about the trucks, though? Are they allowed to carry loads so heavy that they cause the roads (that I helped pay for with my tax dollars) to deteriorate more quickly, and thereby cost me more money? If so, how is that fair to the taxpayers? If not, does the government get to build a weigh station that ensures that they are in compliance?


Your questions regarding this hypothetical are excellent and they get right to the heart of the problem of letting government do things like build & maintain roads. When government gets involved in this kind of thing - almost always in the name of addressing some supposed "need" or "problem" that the private sector allegedly can't deal with - you inevitably end up having to address a dozen new "needs" or "problems" that arise because of the previous "solution." For example, the government decides to build a road to solve the problem of there not being a road. Then it has to impose taxes to solve the problem of paying for the building & maintenance of the road. Then it has to pass trucking regulations to solve the problem of reducing wear-and-tear on the road. Then it has to impose more taxes to solve the problem of paying for the enforcement of the trucking regulations. Then it has to ... and on and on and on.

So the answer to the problems you mention is that there *is* no answer to them. There is just a never-ending series of ever more complicated taxes, laws, regulations, etc., each of them being "justified" by the problems caused by the previous taxes, laws, regulations, etc. (Politicians, of course, absolutely love this situation.)

A different but related issue comes up in the arena public education. Should government schools teach evolution or creationism? Or both? Or neither? (And what about "sex education" ?) There is NO "answer" to these questions that isn't going to make a lot of people extremely unhappy. And so you always end up with a whip-saw tug-of-war between various groups seeking to impose their preferences upon everyone else. That's precisely because of the fact that government schools are "one size fits all" affairs - just like government roads.

----------


## pcosmar

> What do you mean by public domain properties? Anybody can do anything the want on a road?


As long as they are neither destroying the road,, or harming anyone on it.

Roads have always been public,, and were maintained locally,, by those that used them.

When did government ever get ownership of roads?

They were foot paths,, that became commonly used.. Then horse or cart paths..
Well used trade routes were sometimes paved,, and with the advent of cars this became more common. It was done on the  town or county level,, and eventually on the state level..
Such improvements were voted on and approved..Locally.

Roads have always been public.

----------


## pcosmar

Until the automobile.. there was no license.. and no registration..
No permission to be asked..

and yet there were roads.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/190...enseplates.htm

----------


## mosquitobite

> Almost. I didn't vote for Romney, and I'm almost certain I'll not vote for another republican presidential nominee unless his last name is Paul. I have been stabbed in the back for the last time by the senators that I helped send to Washington. (I'm from Kansas.) This spending has got to stop. The ever-growing police-state nonsense has got to stop. I'm done with the left/right paradigm.
> 
> I have seen the light, but there are some dim spots that I need help with. Liberty...I get it now. I should be free to do what I want as long as it does not hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. I'm a preacher, but that doesn't mean that I want to legislate morality. It just doesn't work. I looked into the Constitution Party, and that's their game, so I'm not joining them. That leaves me with the Libertarians.
> 
> So here I am...BUT! I have some questions about deregulation, and I came up with some a hypothetical to illustrate one of them.
> 
> Hypothetical #1) The government builds a road. Citizens are free to travel on the road in a manner that does not harm others. They go as fast as they want, and as long as they do not cause an accident, they get to their destination unencumbered and without harassment.
> 
> What about the trucks, though? Are they allowed to carry loads so heavy that they cause the roads (that I helped pay for with my tax dollars) to deteriorate more quickly, and thereby cost me more money? If so, how is that fair to the taxpayers? If not, does the government get to build a weigh station that ensures that they are in compliance? 
> ...


I am a libertarian leaning Republican.  Not a Libertarian.

I like having the Rand Paul's and Justin Amash's in power.  They wouldn't be there if they had ran as Libertarians.

You don't have to be a Libertarian.  Since you've always considered yourself a conservative Republican, get involved and TAKE BACK YOUR PARTY!

----------


## mczerone

Welcome, I hope you stick around and register.

Gentle Response: We all had these issues. Whether with supporting Paul or believing in libertarianism to one extreme or another. Just remember: THE OTHER CAMPS HAVE CRAPPIER ANSWERS. So it doesn't really matter if you get the "roads" thing nailed down in theory.


Cynical Response: Give up on issues. Don't worry about how this will be run or that will be run. What shape this law or that law should take.

Start focusing on the fact that there's a monopoly agency in charge of the roads and laws. It doesn't listen to you and it doesn't respect you. It gouges you and gives you a crappy product. And it tells you that it's constrained by rules (that it enforces on itself) and by you, that you're the boss, all while tormenting you that you don't have a picture of what you could do without it.

I don't know what the best solution is for roads. I'm not a pavement specialist, traffic planner, or owner of long, thin, strips of property. I don't need to be any of those things as long as there is a market for roads.

I'd say the same thing about laws, too. And defense, and lighthouses, and due process, and holiday light displays, and drinking water, and sewage, and railroads, and science, and space exploration, and ports, and regulations, ad infinitum.

----------


## dannno

> Welcome, I hope you stick around and register.
> 
> Gentle Response: We all had these issues. Whether with supporting Paul or believing in libertarianism to one extreme or another. Just remember: THE OTHER CAMPS HAVE CRAPPIER ANSWERS. So it doesn't really matter if you get the "roads" thing nailed down in theory.
> 
> 
> Cynical Response: Give up on issues. Don't worry about how this will be run or that will be run. What shape this law or that law should take.
> 
> Start focusing on the fact that there's a monopoly agency in charge of the roads and laws. It doesn't listen to you and it doesn't respect you. It gouges you and gives you a crappy product. And it tells you that it's constrained by rules (that it enforces on itself) and by you, that you're the boss, all while tormenting you that you don't have a picture of what you could do without it.
> 
> ...


This is pretty much my though process on the subject.

But honestly, when libertarians hear people say stuff like, "What would we do without the government? Who would build the roads?"

What most libertarians hear is: "We need the government, for without it, who else could possibly mix gravel and tar together and lay it down on pathways?"

It just becomes a ridiculous question at that point.

----------


## DamianTV

> Almost. I didn't vote for Romney, and I'm almost certain I'll not vote for another republican presidential nominee unless his last name is Paul. I have been stabbed in the back for the last time by the senators that I helped send to Washington. (I'm from Kansas.) This spending has got to stop. The ever-growing police-state nonsense has got to stop. I'm done with the left/right paradigm.
> 
> I have seen the light, but there are some dim spots that I need help with. Liberty...I get it now. I should be free to do what I want as long as it does not hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. I'm a preacher, but that doesn't mean that I want to legislate morality. It just doesn't work. I looked into the Constitution Party, and that's their game, so I'm not joining them. That leaves me with the Libertarians.
> 
> So here I am...BUT! I have some questions about deregulation, and I came up with some a hypothetical to illustrate one of them.
> 
> Hypothetical #1) The government builds a road. Citizens are free to travel on the road in a manner that does not harm others. They go as fast as they want, and as long as they do not cause an accident, they get to their destination unencumbered and without harassment.
> 
> What about the trucks, though? Are they allowed to carry loads so heavy that they cause the roads (that I helped pay for with my tax dollars) to deteriorate more quickly, and thereby cost me more money? If so, how is that fair to the taxpayers? If not, does the government get to build a weigh station that ensures that they are in compliance? 
> ...


First, lets try ditching any fasionable Labels if you're looking to wear one.  Im not.  Im not a Tea Partier.  Im not a Libertarian, or a Liberal.  Im not a Conservative.  Im not a Republican, Democrat, Facist, Anarcho-Capitalist, Academic, or any of the Labels that people like to throw around.  Im me.  I make my own choices for myself.  

Problem with Labels is that it falls in line with Group Psychology.  You might find that on one topic, you fully agree with someone, but on another topic you dont.  For hypothetical purposes, we will create the new Scrooge McDuck Political Party.  The thing is, once you join this party on the basis of "I like money", as part of the Group Psychology, you are supposed to blindly accept ALL ideas pertaining to the Party / Label.  This means that although "I like money" and "you like money", we're both expected to be Vegetarians because Scrooge McDuck and his ilk are Ducks and dont want to become dinner.  Thats the premise of Group Psychology.

I've recently made a couple of posts about the Suspension of Disbelief and how it pertains to fictional storytelling.  With Group Psychology, the Suspension of Disbelief also appies as that is how one is expected to endorse the ideas of the Label / Party.  So say the Scrooge McDuck Party came out and said something absurd like "we must pass a law prohibiting eating ice cream while opening the trunk of your car".  Most people wont care as it probably wont affect them.  Some people will respond with the attitude of "dont tell me what to do".  But those in the party are expected to first Suspend Disbelief where they offer absolutely no resistance to the idea because it is supposed to be a Party Idea.  Next, they are supposed to defend the Party Idea because it is the Party Idea.  Group Psychology.

Heres the problem with Groups.  Take a bunch of morons.  Individually, they are not smart enough to tie their own shoes.  Now lump them all together and slap a Label on em.  Suddenly, they're all Polymathic Geniuses?  I think not.  Its just a Group of Morons.  Next big issue is that Groups get Labels slapped on them when they are bound together by Ideologies.  Which is more a less where the Tea Party came from.  But those that claim the Tea Party wear it like a Badge of Authority while abandoning its Ideology.  The Label of Tea Party became very useful to the Status Quo because of the convenience of Discrediting of the Group based on Emotional Responses, not Rational and Logical ones.  When the Tea Party was getting started, it was really a Grassroots effort.  It was the Ideology that bound us together, not the Label.  Establishment Republicans look at the Label as being more important than the Ideologies that they are supposed to promote and uphold.

For many people, not just you, there is a mass awakening that the Democrat / Republican paradigm is nothing more than an Illusion.  Two wings of the Same Bird.  You know that bird, the one that is flipped to you every time someone wants to be offensive to you.  None the less, its still an Illusion.  Its an Illusion of Choice.  It limits the number of choices you can make.  Vote for Evil #1 or Evil #2 or Evil #3, it makes no difference as the Choice itself is an Illusion to garner your trust.  Republicans do not adhere to Republican Principles, and Democrats do not adhere to Democratic Principles.

Labels are an Extension of the Illusion of Choice.

Now, as far as the community itself.  It isnt going to be better or worse than the Republican Party.  What it is going to be for you at first is a Change of Perspective, and that is going to be quite difficult to get used to, at first.  Like getting a new pair of glasses, this Change of Perspective is going to be disorienting, so it takes some getting used to.  Now, the reason that I said it isnt better or worse is because those are really very subjetive terms.  You'll find things here that you wont find in other places, but you'll also find a complete lack of things that you find quite frequently in the Republican Party.  The first of those things is basically a form of religion (as explained earlier with Suspension of Disbelief) that we address constantly as State Worship.  We see a LOT of people that do not question anything that comes from the State.  And it is that lack of Critical Thinking that causes us to be at ends with people that do not think.  You'll find quite a few Thinkers around here.  So just expect to see us challenge every idea that comes our way.  It isnt the intent to discredit the idea, but to challenge and test the idea to see if it works or it doesnt.  We have our share of Trolls that come in and try to win intellectual debates by provoking Emotional Responses about the people stating the opposing ideas.  They disappear soon enough.

---

Lets address your two hang-ups in one single word.  Balance.

Both the concept of roads being built and maintained by Govt, as well as Govt involvement in abortion, can be addressed by Balance.

Put a man on a High Wire.  Lean too far one way and he will fall.  We recognize that the solution is not to push the man on the High Wire as far as possible the other way as the same consequence will occur.  The man will fall.  With too much Govt, you have oppression and people die at the hands of the abuses of an Unaccountable Govt.  But at the opposite end of the spectrum, Zero Govt, you are also not Free because in order to protect your home and family, you are unable to leave it.  The Essence of Freedom is the Proper Limitation of Govt.  Which is what a Republic is, and the Ideology that the Republican Party is supposed to promote.  Most of us here feel that Govt has grown out of control and is now the greatest threat to the people.  It needs to be restrained and held accountable for Criminal Actions.  But we also know to be very careful as to not completely eliminate all Govt completely, as that is when Dictators come to power.  Anarchy is much like a vacuum where something quickly rushes in to fill the void.  So some Govt is a Necessary Evil, yet it is a dangerous tool.  Small communities can learn to get along very well with each other without strict adherence to Community Law.  But, on occasion, you'll find the one jackass that wants to have the most extreme form of justice when anyone so much as offends them with odoriforous eminations.  Those are the people that rise up to become Dictators in the absence of all Govt.

We're not perfect.  We dont claim to be.  We come here to undo the damage to our minds that has already been done with the Group Psychology / State Worship.  We come to understand why many of us are getting our front doors kicked in by cops with no-knock warrantless drug raids.  We come here to understand why our dogs are shot.  Our guns are confiscated.  Why our pensions and 401ks disappear the moment we go to collect them.  We come to understand why the only time Jesus became violent in his life was with the Money Changers.  We come here to be a part of a community and find where we fit in.  We come here to challenge the ideas of others in an effort to strenthen those ideas, and let go of the ones that do not work.  We come here to figure out how to FIX these problems.

And most of all, we need likeminded people who believe that words such as "... Liberty and Justice for all" still have meaning and value in our hearts.  

We welcome people that have realized their previous Labels have betrayed them.  We welcome people who now want nothing more than to cast off those Labels and be as they intend themselves to be.  

Welcome to the forums.

----------


## puppetmaster

> Let me start with your question about roads.
> 
> In an ideal libertarian world, all the roads would be privatized, and the business or charity that owns them would set rules on how their private property may be used, and how much you will pay for it.
> 
> Personally, I would restrict my own travel to roadways with high tolls or club membership and strict rules with private bouncers that would keep out the riff-raff.
> 
> Now, given that I don't see that happening in my lifetime, I recognize that in public settings, the public appoints a government to set rules, tolls, and punishment for those rules, but that government is restricted by state and federel constitutions.  As such, they cannot assault you for anything if a crime has not taken place.  Damage to the publically owned property from overweight vehicles is a legitimate property crime in Libertarian understanding.  It is Vandalism, and can be punished as such.  Arresting a driver who is creating damage to the publically owned property is a legitimate function of the government.   Now, the weight limits to avoid damaging the roads should be well published, and the punishment for going over should fit the crime.  Weigh stations as they work now, are essentially that.  They monitor the weight of trucks.  If you are over the limit, the police basically ask for a confession, in the form of a ticket.  Paying the ticket is admitting to the crime and paying for the extra damage repairs that will be needed for the road.  You can contest the ticket in court, which is your due process should you choose to pursue it.
> 
> Speeding beyond what the paving was designed to handle is also Vandalism.
> ...


I am not an anarchist and I disagree. There is no victim in this action any more than someone who is driving that has sub par driving skills or capabilities. There is also no direct threat conveyed 

Semi trucks pay higher permit fees so the extra strain on roadways should be offset

----------


## Dianne

> Almost. I didn't vote for Romney, and I'm almost certain I'll not vote for another republican presidential nominee unless his last name is Paul. I have been stabbed in the back for the last time by the senators that I helped send to Washington. (I'm from Kansas.) This spending has got to stop. The ever-growing police-state nonsense has got to stop. I'm done with the left/right paradigm.
> 
> I have seen the light, but there are some dim spots that I need help with. Liberty...I get it now. I should be free to do what I want as long as it does not hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. I'm a preacher, but that doesn't mean that I want to legislate morality. It just doesn't work. I looked into the Constitution Party, and that's their game, so I'm not joining them. That leaves me with the Libertarians.
> 
> So here I am...BUT! I have some questions about deregulation, and I came up with some a hypothetical to illustrate one of them.
> 
> Hypothetical #1) The government builds a road. Citizens are free to travel on the road in a manner that does not harm others. They go as fast as they want, and as long as they do not cause an accident, they get to their destination unencumbered and without harassment.
> 
> What about the trucks, though? Are they allowed to carry loads so heavy that they cause the roads (that I helped pay for with my tax dollars) to deteriorate more quickly, and thereby cost me more money? If so, how is that fair to the taxpayers? If not, does the government get to build a weigh station that ensures that they are in compliance? 
> ...


I attended several monthly libertarian party meetings in North Carolina; and all the people I met were not in line with the Libertarian party on everything.   It is just that the Libertarian party is the closest to their political views.     For example, all those attending the meeting were voting and campaigning for Ron Paul; not the libertarian candidate.

There is no such thing as a Party that you agree with 100% of the time.    Even if you look at RP Forums, there are sometimes arguments and conflicts on certain issues.    But when you read Democratic Underground or some Neo con website; you can't return to RP Forums fast enough.

I was registered as a Libertarian, then changed to republican only to vote for Paul.    I have nothing in common with the RINO's that run the GOP currently.

----------


## klamath

In the wonderful wonderful world of privatizing all roads, what is never looked at is the fact that the current roads required thousands upon thousands of acres of land being seized by the government to build them. Now sell that land all back to a private business that can or cannot restrict the very people that the land was stolen from access, I don't think so.  I am old enough to remember the bulldozers rolling over the houses and olive orchards of people that didn't want to sell when the interstates were built.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> In the wonderful wonderful world of privatizing all roads, what is never looked at is the fact that the current roads required thousands upon thousands of acres of land being seized by the government to build them. Now sell that land all back to a private business that can or cannot restrict the very people that the land was stolen from access, I don't think so.  I am old enough to remember the bulldozers rolling over the houses and olive orchards of people that didn't want to sell when the interstates were built.


The railroads managed to do it.  They simply bought the mortgage of the land, and increased the rates until the residents couldn't pay, then foreclosed on it.  Wala! Lets build the railroad!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Almost. I didn't vote for Romney, and I'm almost certain I'll not vote for another republican presidential nominee unless his last name is Paul. I have been stabbed in the back for the last time by the senators that I helped send to Washington. (I'm from Kansas.) This spending has got to stop. The ever-growing police-state nonsense has got to stop. I'm done with the left/right paradigm.
> 
> I have seen the light, but there are some dim spots that I need help with. Liberty...I get it now. I should be free to do what I want as long as it does not hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. I'm a preacher, but that doesn't mean that I want to legislate morality. It just doesn't work. I looked into the Constitution Party, and that's their game, so I'm not joining them. That leaves me with the Libertarians.
> 
> So here I am...BUT! I have some questions about deregulation, and I came up with some a hypothetical to illustrate one of them.
> 
> Hypothetical #1) The government builds a road. Citizens are free to travel on the road in a manner that does not harm others. They go as fast as they want, and as long as they do not cause an accident, they get to their destination unencumbered and without harassment.
> 
> What about the trucks, though? Are they allowed to carry loads so heavy that they cause the roads (that I helped pay for with my tax dollars) to deteriorate more quickly, and thereby cost me more money? If so, how is that fair to the taxpayers? If not, does the government get to build a weigh station that ensures that they are in compliance? 
> ...


Hi Mark.

My dad's a preacher, and I'm a strong believer myself, so I'm culturally conservative but politically very libertarian. 

I've gotten frustrated with Rand several times, although I freely admit he's significantly better than any of the other two-party options.  I'm glad to see that you are fed up with the rest of the Republicans. 

I am not a member of any party, and unless I decide to run for office myself some day, this fact will likely not change.  I agree with you, and Ron Paul, on the abortion issue.  A lot of other libertarians are pro-life too.  There was a guy by the name of Kevin Craig who is pro-life who ran for congress under the LP (Admittedly, his pure pacifism, which I don't agree with, may water down his pro-life stance in the eyes of some, since by definition a pacifist cannot support the use of force against anyone, including abortionists.)  His website is here, although, as I said, there are a few things I do not agree with him on.

That said, the LP platform is indeed leaning in the "pro-choice" direction on that issue, and I don't agree with that.  I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party either, despite being libertarian.  I wouldn't worry too much about whether you should join the party or not.  From what I've heard, the party is getting watered down anyway.  I am much, much more libertarian than the LP when it comes to principles.

Regarding roads, the ultimate libertarian conclusion is that they should be privatized.  If that cannot happen, the second best option is probably something that libertarians would argue over.  My personal stance, however, is that "public" (read: government occupied) property is truly not owned at all, and thus the rules of non-aggression would absolutely apply.  While I do have a right to make rules that limit risk on my own property, I have no right to initiate force against those who do not use it against me on anyone else's property, including "public" property, if that makes sense.  In much the same way that smoking a cigarette in a public park is not properly a crime (since there is no victim) yet I could prohibit smoking in my own restaurant if I wanted.  In the same way, if I owned a road, I could set speed limits or weight limits or whatever I wanted to reduce the risk to my customers (And suffer the economic consequences of any poorly considered rules) but I have no right to aggress against my neighbor because he is driving at a speed that I consider too fast, or with weights I consider too heavy, on a "public" road that they have just as much right to as I do.

I hope that helps:

FF

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In the wonderful wonderful world of privatizing all roads, what is never looked at is the fact that the current roads required thousands upon thousands of acres of land being seized by the government to build them. Now sell that land all back to a private business that can or cannot restrict the very people that the land was stolen from access, I don't think so.  I am old enough to remember the bulldozers rolling over the houses and olive orchards of people that didn't want to sell when the interstates were built.


It seems to me that shared ownership amongst the people who the land was stolen from in the first place would make more sense.

----------


## erowe1

Welcome here.

You zeroed right in on a problem. Great insight. Here's the solution. When you get to the part where you say, "government builds a road," just change it to "government doesn't build any roads," and everything else you mention just falls right into place.

----------


## pcosmar

> The railroads managed to do it.  They simply bought the mortgage of the land, and increased the rates until the residents couldn't pay, then foreclosed on it.  Wala! Lets build the railroad!


Not always. They stole land, they murdered land owners.. and they used Government force to take land.

I would have no issue if they bought land legitimately.. but that was not always the case.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> In the wonderful wonderful world of privatizing  all roads, what is never looked at is the fact that the current roads  required thousands upon thousands of acres of land being seized by the  government to build them.


No one has "overlooked" anything. You have merely inserted an extraneous condition (seizure of land by government) that is not in any way necessitated by or inherent to the concept of private roads in and of itself. Siezure of property by government in order to give that property to someone else is unjustifiable. It seems more than a little silly to suggest that that fact is "never looked at," especially around here. It is, after all, exactly the kind of thing that pisses us all off, anarchist/minarchist/whatever alike ...




> Not always. They stole land, they murdered land owners.. and they used Government force to take land.
> 
> I would have no issue if they bought land legitimately.. but that was not always the case.


It was almost never the case. Massive subsidies, price controls, eminent domain land-grabs - and of course, let's not forget the outright slaughter of any Indians who took exception to being shunted off into unlivable reservations in order to make way for "progress."

The only exception to this that I've heard of is J.J. Hill, who built the Great Northwestern. If what little I've heard is correct, Hill refused to take any subsidies at all - and he insisted on making private deals with any landowners (including Indians). He just detoured around anyone not willing to sell their land.

Most interesting of all (and again, if what I have heard is true), the Great Northwestern was the most profitable railroad of Hill's day. The others were mired in low or no profits, debt, etc. (although their owners & board-members made out like bandits, of course).

I've always meant to study J.J. Hill & the Great Northwestern to get the details & determine the accuracy of what I've heard.
If it's true, Hill is a truly great man whose story deserves to be better known.

----------


## compromise

I would not advise doing so when libertarian ideas are more prolific among Republicans at this time than any other time in the last 50 years.

----------


## I<3Liberty

I registered libertarian once I turned 18. Some people like to remain republican since the system is stacked up against third parties or they still have faith in reversing the republican party from the inside out. Others (like myself) want nothing to do with the republican party and go independent or libertarian. I don't really care what people pick, it's the ideas they hold and who they vote for that matters (like you, I would also vote for Rand if he's the 2016 GOP nominee.) That being said, it would be nice if the LP got to the point where it had 1% of registered voters, so we could put more money into campaigning instead of fighting to get candidates on ballots.

As for your question about weight compliance for trucks and the alike, some libertarians do believe this should be privatized while others support some gov involvement. There are a variety of libertarians with a variety of beliefs (hence why it's difficult for the LP to take a position on some issues and libertarians to agree on certain things.)

As for the whole "pro-life" debate. As a student in the life sciences who has also formerly studied bioethics, this just so happens to be my thing. One big issue I have is that the first thing that comes to mind when people think about being "pro-life" is abortion when there are so many other things that pose threat to life and human rights like: end of life decisions, embryonic stem cell research, the illegal organ trade, ethical issues with drug toxicity testing, the death penalty, war, poverty, carcinogenic and mutagenic toxins from super fund sites, lack of access to healthcare etc. I'm Christian, yet I dislike the term "pro-life" since the movement (for the most part) has only focused on abortion and has lacked decent rhetoric or viable approaches. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows when you remove the supply without decreasing the demand, a supply will be provided through creation of a black market (look at the stats for how many people have smoked marijuana in countries where it is illegal.) People do not realize how simple of a procedure abortion is and that there was a black market for it, as well as DIY approaches, far before Roe V. Wade. There is a variety of opinions on how to approach it: Ron Paul has mentioned that the solution to abortion is not government involvement and he believes it should be left to the states. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, supported a federal abortion ban post quickening of the fetus, as well as a federal ban on the death penalty. 

When I was like 14, I was also like you and concerned about abortion. I agreed with and supported McCain and Palin on gov bans. #facepalm Thankfully, I now think like Ron Paul and believe the solution is far more complex. I believe we need a blend of cultural, technological, and political change with technological change as the main driving factor. Replacing abortion with a technological alternative that would allow women the liberty to choose without ending unborn life, is what we need. There are some long-term reversible 100% effective contraceptives in the works, but release to the American market has been delayed to 2015 due to the slow approval process (which would benefit from deregulation and funding, but federal funding goes to profit-driven big pharma who would never make such a low cost long term effective product due to the lack of profit.) With this rant, I wish more libertarians and liberty-minded republicans quit worrying over the LP's position arguing about what it should be, and focused more on what we can do to actually get to the bottom of the problem.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Let me start with your question about roads.
> 
> In an ideal libertarian world, all the roads would be privatized, and the business or charity that owns them would set rules on how their private property may be used, and how much you will pay for it.
> 
> Personally, I would restrict my own travel to roadways with high tolls or club membership and strict rules with private bouncers that would keep out the riff-raff.
> 
> Now, given that I don't see that happening in my lifetime, I recognize that in public settings, the public appoints a government to set rules, tolls, and punishment for those rules, but that government is restricted by state and federel constitutions.  As such, they cannot assault you for anything if a crime has not taken place.  Damage to the publically owned property from overweight vehicles is a legitimate property crime in Libertarian understanding.  It is Vandalism, and can be punished as such.  Arresting a driver who is creating damage to the publically owned property is a legitimate function of the government.   Now, the weight limits to avoid damaging the roads should be well published, and the punishment for going over should fit the crime.  Weigh stations as they work now, are essentially that.  They monitor the weight of trucks.  If you are over the limit, the police basically ask for a confession, in the form of a ticket.  Paying the ticket is admitting to the crime and paying for the extra damage repairs that will be needed for the road.  You can contest the ticket in court, which is your due process should you choose to pursue it.
> 
> Speeding beyond what the paving was designed to handle is also Vandalism.
> ...


I used to agree with the drunk driving laws, but I've been convinced by other posters here that I was wrong.  As long as there aren't the ridiculous unconstitutional random searches (which there currently are, and which most people who I know that support DWI laws do not agree with) its not the hill I'm going to die on.  But ultimately, if you're driving recklessly, or safely, why does it matter how much alcohol you have in your system?  Some drivers might be better at .08 than others are at .07.  Either you're driving in a reckless manner, or you're not.

As for traffic lights/stop signs, I understand that there are times where it is usually dangerous to cross the road, so I can see red lights to advise drivers to stop or whatever.  But... I've seen times where it was CLEARLY possible to cross the road safely while the light was red, due to a lack of traffic.  If that's the case, and a good driver chooses to take advantage of this, should he be ticketed even though he didn't actually hurt anyone just because "its the law"?  I don't think so.  A  private road owner would have the right to have such a "zero tolerance" policy, but I don't think the government has that right, because the government is an illegitimate institution and not a legitimate property owner.  In the exact same way that most people probably don't want to listen to a WBC style "God hates ****" type demonstration, yet government is still rightly powerless to stop them on public property.  Few, if any, places would probably allow this on private property, but it nonetheless should, must, be permitted on public property.  I have no doubt most people would prefer that "zero tolerance" policy when it comes to driving speeds they consider "excessive", or crossing red lights, but that's still not OK on the government roads.

Now, I agree with you on threats to aggress, and I don't necessarily think the only time anyone could justly act is if a car was actually hit.  For instance, if a car is recklessly swerving in and out of lanes at 100 MPH in the middle of the city, I'd agree that you shouldn't necessarily need to watch them hit another car before you do something about that.  They are already threatening all the other cars on the road.  But that's because they are being reckless, not because they break a statuatory law.  That said, in those extreme cases (That rarely, if ever, happen) It would probably be impossible to do much until they actually hit someone and their car breaks down.




> I registered libertarian once I turned 18. Some people like to remain republican since the system is stacked up against third parties or they still have faith in reversing the republican party from the inside out. Others (like myself) want nothing to do with the republican party and go independent or libertarian. I don't really care what people pick, it's the ideas they hold and who they vote for that matters (like you, I would also vote for Rand if he's the 2016 GOP nominee.) That being said, it would be nice if the LP got to the point where it had 1% of registered voters, so we could put more money into campaigning instead of fighting to get candidates on ballots.
> 
> As for your question about weight compliance for trucks and the alike, some libertarians do believe this should be privatized while others support some gov involvement. There are a variety of libertarians with a variety of beliefs (hence why it's difficult for the LP to take a position on some issues and libertarians to agree on certain things.)
> 
> As for the whole "pro-life" debate. As a student in the life sciences who has also formerly studied bioethics, this just so happens to be my thing. One big issue I have is that the first thing that comes to mind when people think about being "pro-life" is abortion when there are so many other things that pose threat to life and human rights like: end of life decisions, embryonic stem cell research, the illegal organ trade, ethical issues with drug toxicity testing, the death penalty, war, poverty, carcinogenic and mutagenic toxins from super fund sites, lack of access to healthcare etc. I'm Christian, yet I dislike the term "pro-life" since the movement (for the most part) has only focused on abortion and has lacked decent rhetoric or viable approaches. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows when you remove the supply without decreasing the demand, a supply will be provided through creation of a black market (look at the stats for how many people have smoked marijuana in countries where it is illegal.) People do not realize how simple of a procedure abortion is and that there was a black market for it, as well as DIY approaches, far before Roe V. Wade. There is a variety of opinions on how to approach it: Ron Paul has mentioned that the solution to abortion is not government involvement and he believes it should be left to the states. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, supported a federal abortion ban post quickening of the fetus, as well as a federal ban on the death penalty. 
> 
> When I was like 14, I was also like you and concerned about abortion. I agreed with and supported McCain and Palin on gov bans. #facepalm Thankfully, I now think like Ron Paul and believe the solution is far more complex. I believe we need a blend of cultural, technological, and political change with technological change as the main driving factor. Replacing abortion with a technological alternative that would allow women the liberty to choose without ending unborn life, is what we need. There are some long-term reversible 100% effective contraceptives in the works, but release to the American market has been delayed to 2015 due to the slow approval process (which would benefit from deregulation and funding, but federal funding goes to profit-driven big pharma who would never make such a low cost long term effective product due to the lack of profit.) With this rant, I wish more libertarians and liberty-minded republicans quit worrying over the LP's position arguing about what it should be, and focused more on what we can do to actually get to the bottom of the problem.


Regarding government bans of abortion and black markets, here's my problem... With drugs, prostitution, machine guns, basically any other issue you can think of, I'd agree with you.  But with abortion, that, in my mind, is clearly murder.  To me this argument is kind of like saying "Well, if we allow people to hire assassins, the price will go down".  Now, I understand there are a lot of people who don't believe that fetuses are human lives, yet they still don't like abortion for some reason.  I think this type of economic argument is really more to appeal to them than to those of us who genuinely believe that a fetus is exactly equivalent to a human life.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that many  "pro-lifers" are hypocrites because they support war and what have you.  But I don't think that the economic supply and demand argument can be applied to real crimes with real victims.  That argument, for me, needs to be limited to victimless "crimes" where only the person doing the action, or other consenting parties, are directly harmed.  Otherwise, you could apply the same economic arguments to murder and theft as you do abortion and support making those things "legal."

To be clear, as an ancap I do support free market courts, defense, security, etc.  But I do agree with laws against abortion the same way I do laws against murder.  I'm fine with privatizing all of it.  But any laws that are going to exist to protect those who have already been born should alos apply to the unborn.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> I used to agree with the drunk driving laws, but I've been convinced by other posters here that I was wrong.  As long as there aren't the ridiculous unconstitutional random searches (which there currently are, and which most people who I know that support DWI laws do not agree with) its not the hill I'm going to die on.  But ultimately, if you're driving recklessly, or safely, why does it matter how much alcohol you have in your system?  Some drivers might be better at .08 than others are at .07.  Either you're driving in a reckless manner, or you're not.


I agree, which is why I think the traffic violation of "Drunk Driving" should be eliminated, but that the crime of Reckless endangerment should be heavily prosecuted.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree, which is why I think the traffic violation of "Drunk Driving" should be eliminated, but that the crime of Reckless endangerment should be heavily prosecuted.


The only question is, who gets compensated?  Normally, when a crime is committed (in a libertarian society) the victim would be compensated.  But in reckless driving cases, there's not one particular victim, its everyone on the road.  So... what's the punishment?

I agree with you that it should be prosecuted though, I'm just not sure HOW, short of having private roads as we should.  We'd also probably need a working definition of "reckless driving".  "I know it when I see it" is good enough for regular people, but I wouldn't trust the statist clowns with that kind of discretion.

----------


## The Free Hornet

For the new ones:

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> The only question is, who gets compensated?  Normally, when a crime is committed (in a libertarian society) the victim would be compensated.  But in reckless driving cases, there's not one particular victim, its everyone on the road.  So... what's the punishment?
> 
> I agree with you that it should be prosecuted though, I'm just not sure HOW, short of having private roads as we should.  We'd also probably need a working definition of "reckless driving".  "I know it when I see it" is good enough for regular people, but I wouldn't trust the statist clowns with that kind of discretion.


Banned from the roads.  Vehicle impounded, sold at auction, and used for highway maintenance?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

The enemies of liberty want you to become cynical.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Banned from the roads.  Vehicle impounded, sold at auction, and used for highway maintenance?


Banned forever, or only for a certain length of time?

That said, that's probably the best solution.  I felt like locking someone up for driving dangerously would almost always be too much.  What you suggest is probably good.




> The enemies of liberty want you to become cynical.


No, the enemies of *insanity* want you to become cynical.

Cynicism = common sense.



> I would not advise doing so when libertarian ideas are more prolific among Republicans at this time than any other time in the last 50 years.


And yet, ever since Ron Paul has left I can't  think of a single libertarian Republican in either the House of the Senate.  I question how many of them even actually UNDERSTAND libertarianism.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Some anarchists will disagree with me, but I think most Libertarians understand that some acts like drunk driving may appear victimless, but are essentially the same as communicating a threat which is recognized as a form of assault.
> *


These are victimless.*  You're going to have to prove these are "assault" because it is neither obvious nor written in existing law.

*See "Defending The Undefendable". Block, Walter.

----------


## I<3Liberty

> Regarding government bans of abortion and black markets, here's my problem... With drugs, prostitution, machine guns, basically any other issue you can think of, I'd agree with you.  But with abortion, that, in my mind, is clearly murder.  To me this argument is kind of like saying "Well, if we allow people to hire assassins, the price will go down".  Now, I understand there are a lot of people who don't believe that fetuses are human lives, yet they still don't like abortion for some reason.  I think this type of economic argument is really more to appeal to them than to those of us who genuinely believe that a fetus is exactly equivalent to a human life.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I agree that many  "pro-lifers" are hypocrites because they support war and what have you.  But I don't think that the economic supply and demand argument can be applied to real crimes with real victims.  That argument, for me, needs to be limited to victimless "crimes" where only the person doing the action, or other consenting parties, are directly harmed.  Otherwise, you could apply the same economic arguments to murder and theft as you do abortion and support making those things "legal."
> 
> To be clear, as an ancap I do support free market courts, defense, security, etc.  But I do agree with laws against abortion the same way I do laws against murder.  I'm fine with privatizing all of it.  But any laws that are going to exist to protect those who have already been born should alos apply to the unborn.


I don't want this thread to stray too far from the OP's post, but I wanted to clarify that I wasn't using the economic explanation to say libertarians should oppose any laws against it. There are so many different views. In 2012, I voted for Gary and he and Jim Gray agreed that there should be a federal ban post quickening. Some agree while others felt that violated libertarian principles and just wanted to leave it to the States. I can totally understand drawing a line post quickening, but I don't believe any legislation will be effective like people might hope. If there is a will there will be a way through the black market, medical tourism, and DIY methods that existed far before Roe. V. Wade. If people truly want to end it, they need to decrease the demand through means of contraceptive education, PSAs, and getting 100% effective contraceptives to market.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't want this thread to stray too far from the OP's post, but I wanted to clarify that I wasn't using the economic explanation to say libertarians should oppose any laws against it. There are so many different views. In 2012, I voted for Gary and he and Jim Gray agreed that there should be a federal ban post quickening. Some agree with the while others felt that violated libertarian principles and just wanted to leave it to the States. I can totally understand drawing a line post quickening, but I don't believe any legislation will be effective like people might hope. If there is a will there will be a way through the black market, medical tourism, and DIY methods that existed far before Roe. V. Wade. If people truly want to end it, they need to decrease the demand through means of contraceptive education, PSAs, and getting 100% effective contraceptives to market.


I support banning it from conception, at the state level (or ideally, under private market law, but I'm starting with the constitution.)  I oppose ANY federal law, even against PBA.

Yeah, I guess I don't fit with any stereotypes

----------


## Unregistered

I have been feeling out of place lately, too.  There seems to be so much corruption in DC.  Seems all of them are apt to abandon their constituents at the drop of a few bucks.  Seems like they have no concern for the future of this country.   
But why NOT vote for Romney?  I know that's all history now, and if there was voter fraud (is that just tea party fiction?) why isn't it being dealt with?    I've been reading so much today my thoughts are probably very confused.   
I took the little test that's supposed to tell you where you fit and the answer was definitely libertarian.   Too much government in our lives.  Romney was for less government.  Romney was for putting people to work, as a businessman he knows how to make that happen, why not vote for him rather than not and letting Obama get elected again?  I guess I blame libertarians for that, Obama getting elected again, just because they wasted their votes and let o in again.   I'm very confused.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I have been feeling out of place lately, too.  There seems to be so much corruption in DC.  Seems all of them are apt to abandon their constituents at the drop of a few bucks.  Seems like they have no concern for the future of this country.   
> But why NOT vote for Romney?  I know that's all history now, and if there was voter fraud (is that just tea party fiction?) why isn't it being dealt with?    I've been reading so much today my thoughts are probably very confused.   
> I took the little test that's supposed to tell you where you fit and the answer was definitely libertarian.   Too much government in our lives.  Romney was for less government.  Romney was for putting people to work, as a businessman he knows how to make that happen, why not vote for him rather than not and letting Obama get elected again?  I guess I blame libertarians for that, Obama getting elected again, just because they wasted their votes and let o in again.   I'm very confused.


Romney was NOT for less government.  Just more efficient government. 

I seriously doubt Romney would be about to veto Iranian sanctions right now, nor would he even sort of leave Colorado and Washington alone.

Romney has been pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-individual mandate.

In what way was Romney actually less government than Obama?

I absolutely despised both, but if I had to pick... Obama was marginally less bad.

----------


## Unregistered

> Romney was NOT for less government.  Just more efficient government. 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way was Romney actually less government than Obama?
> 
> I absolutely despised both, but if I had to pick... Obama was marginally less bad.


Because Romney actually has been in business and actually knows the horrors of gov regulations in business.   And he has a long family history in this country, and he is actually proud of being a patriotic American.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Because Romney actually has been in business and actually knows the horrors of gov regulations in business.


Mitt Romney doesn't know jack-$#@! about the horrors of government regulation.
If he did, he would never have foisted a horror like RomneyCare on Massachusetts ...

And even if Romney was something other than a politically well-connected crony "businessman," government is not a business and cannot be run like one. For just one thing, businesses are subject to profit and loss and have customers who can go elsewhere if they don't like a product. Government does not face any such (dis)incentives, and the notion that businessmen are somehow able to whip government into shape and make it more effective or efficient is utterly idiotic.

----------


## erowe1

> Because Romney actually has been in business and actually knows the horrors of gov regulations in business.   And he has a long family history in this country, and he is actually proud of being a patriotic American.


I kept hearing this line about Romney loving America. It's like somebody programmed people to say it. Oh yeah, that someone was Romney. He made that into an argument for people to support him, and apparently his supporters just swallowed it.

But apart from Romney's own boasts, how do people know it's true? What kind of patriotism is it that he has, the kind that supports the federal government? And why does it matter if the policies that would result under his tenure would have ended up being worse than Obama's (and they clearly would have)?

If you youtube "Romney love America" you'll find all kinds of examples of him pushing that on us. But I'll never forget this gagworthy one.

----------


## emilynghiem

I almost gave up as a Democrat. No explanation needed there! Though most people ask how could I ever be a Democrat in the first place if I am a Constitutionalist.
But I am prochoice and for equal inclusion. Though both concepts were totally negated and defied by ACA mandates that are contradictory to free and equal choice.
There is no reconciling or justifying ACA which is clearly antichoice and exclusionary, even penalizing people who believe in other means of health care and funding.
I still believe it is my responsibility as a Constitutionalist to correct the problems with the very people who passed it, thus working through the Democrat party.

I encourage you not to give up either, but to add to all parties what they are missing from their agenda, including and especially whatever you see wrong with either Republicans or Libertarians. Why not work with both? You can be totally against abortion and still be prochoice in terms of not wanting laws that criminalize free choice.
There are much more effective ways to end problems with abortion, even prevent abortion, abuse and rape altogether, without the threat of laws burdening or punishing women more than men.  There are ways to reconcile prochoice and prolife to avoid conflicts between them in the legislation, that does not have to cross the line or impose either way. Please do not give up on any person or party. A truly Constitutional law would include and respect all views and would not threaten any side.




> Almost. I didn't vote for Romney, and I'm almost certain I'll not vote for another republican presidential nominee unless his last name is Paul. I have been stabbed in the back for the last time by the senators that I helped send to Washington. (I'm from Kansas.) This spending has got to stop. The ever-growing police-state nonsense has got to stop. I'm done with the left/right paradigm.
> 
> I have seen the light, but there are some dim spots that I need help with. Liberty...I get it now. I should be free to do what I want as long as it does not hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. I'm a preacher, but that doesn't mean that I want to legislate morality. It just doesn't work. I looked into the Constitution Party, and that's their game, so I'm not joining them. That leaves me with the Libertarians.
> 
> So here I am...BUT! I have some questions about deregulation, and I came up with some a hypothetical to illustrate one of them.
> 
> Hypothetical #1) The government builds a road. Citizens are free to travel on the road in a manner that does not harm others. They go as fast as they want, and as long as they do not cause an accident, they get to their destination unencumbered and without harassment.
> 
> What about the trucks, though? Are they allowed to carry loads so heavy that they cause the roads (that I helped pay for with my tax dollars) to deteriorate more quickly, and thereby cost me more money? If so, how is that fair to the taxpayers? If not, does the government get to build a weigh station that ensures that they are in compliance? 
> ...


I suggest to form teams among ALL parties to address and correct each issue, and write out solutions and points to present to legislators before they write bills or reforms.

Why not include the best of all the groups, and write out what points people agree on and what has to be left open where the sides believe in separate choices? 
and use that to correct the flaws or shortcomings that every group also has?
no group is perfect, so why not delegate duties to each party to address the areas they specialize in and have the best solutions for.
why not limit govt by keeping the federal policies and funding reserved for areas of universal agreement,
and delegate the rest to state or local levels where parties have different solutions they want to fund independently through their own members reps and structure.

----------


## emilynghiem

> Mitt Romney doesn't know jack-$#@! about the horrors of government regulation.
> If he did, he would never have foisted a horror like RomneyCare on Massachusetts ...
> 
> And even if Romney was something other than a politically well-connected crony "businessman," government is not a business and cannot be run like one. For just one thing, businesses are subject to profit and loss and have customers who can go elsewhere if they don't like a product. Government does not face any such (dis)incentives, and the notion that businessmen are somehow able to whip government into shape and make it more effective or efficient is utterly idiotic.


I would not rely on the good sense of any one person, but promote the idea of enforcing Constitutional ethics and standards across the board,
where everyone is equally responsible for upholding consistent ethics -- citizens and businesses alike, public and private organizations not just govt.

I would add provisions when corporations applying for license to operate in each state agree to abide by the same Constitutional
standards that govt has to follow to prevent from imposing on individual rights and protections. [example policies I would promote as standard principles and ethics: Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment, Code of Ethics for Govt Service, http://www.ethics-commission.net]

If any collective organization, whether religious business political or nonprofit, has to respect the same protections of due process
as in the Bill of Rights, then grievances and policy issues can be redressed directly with each organization WITHOUT going through govt every time to try to regulate from the federal level. Then the lawyers just get involved in how to bypass, revoke or weaken the regulations and you go in circles.

We need to petition and resolve conflicts directly if there is going to be consistent check on business and political parties, just like the Bill of Rights protects individual liberties and representation from unchecked abuse or oppression by collective govt, why not with other "collective" entities and organizations too?

----------


## pcosmar

> Because Romney actually has been in business and actually knows the horrors of gov regulations in business.   And he has a long family history in this country, and he is actually proud of being a patriotic American.


LOL,, "horrors of gov regulations"

He counted on them.. He was a Corporate Raider. He loves Govt to destroy the companies so he can pick the bones for profit.
Romney was a Corporate Welfare Queen. He never had a company that built or produced anything.

And a full blown socialist.. ObamaCare was his design.

----------


## erowe1

> LOL,, "horrors of gov regulations"
> 
> He counted on them.. He was a Corporate Raider. He loves Govt to destroy the companies so he can pick the bones for profit.
> Romney was a Corporate Welfare Queen. He never had a company that built or produced anything.


Great point. And he explicitly ran on the promise of more, not less regulations, and on expanding our regulations into other countries that are more free than ours.

I don't know where the idea came from that he was against government regulation of business, but it's so ridiculous, you might as well say that Obama is against taxes.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Because Romney actually has been in business and actually knows the horrors of gov regulations in business.   And he has a long family history in this country, and *he is actually proud of being a patriotic American.*


What does that even mean at this point?  People gasp if you say you're not proud to be an American, but WTF is there to be proud of right now?  They can call me unpatriotic....been there, done that.  Things need to change _for our own survival_,  and they won't change as long as we cling to the old cliches and talking points of the past.

Proud?  Meh.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What does that even mean at this point?  People gasp if you say you're not proud to be an American, but WTF is there to be proud of right now?  They can call me unpatriotic....been there, done that.  Things need to change _for our own survival_,  *and they won't change as long as we cling to the old cliches and talking points of the past.*
> 
> Proud?  Meh.


Do you realize that most everything that has come out of Ron Paul's mouth are "talking points of the past"?

----------


## emilynghiem

> Romney was NOT for less government.  Just more efficient government. 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt Romney would be about to veto Iranian sanctions right now, nor would he even sort of leave Colorado and Washington alone.
> 
> 
> Romney has been pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-individual mandate.
> 
> 
> ...



1. just because laws are prochoice in not restricting or penalizing abortion does not mean they are proabortion
you can be against drugs but also against criminalizing them. same with legalizing prostitution, doesn't mean you approve it
2. isn't there a huge difference politically and with elected representation and voting
between STATE implemented mandates and FEDERAL?
so there is a big difference if states opt for mandatory insurance
vs. federal govt trying to mandate, enforce or regulate health care, right?
3. I seriously seriously doubt Romney would have pushed the health care as far as Obama did,
especially not mixing corporate/private insurance mandates in with federal taxes to make a hybrid beast impossible to check when people keep changing its label
Romney may not have gotten much done, but at least he would not have pushed things that caused greater problems and damage to fix like Obama did


I appreciate your being honest and unapologetic with criticism
but I would say Obama is not just worse marginally but terribly so


I see advantages to his presidency in that he fulfilled the idea that a Black man could ever get elected President
and that his race and views prevented a greater backlash after finding and killing Bin Laden without a formal trial
If a White Republican had been in office when that happened, we'd never hear the end of it


4. I'm sure Romney would give in to the same corporate interests that all the presidents do
but not actively pushing for gun control or federal mandated health care as Obama did


these things should be left to the states, and I believe Romney's overall approach would be
for greater control reserved to the states and to the people, not abusing the executive office for control of public opinion through the media


Romney does not have that kind of control and the media would not give him that like they did Obama


So his presidency would be better checked by the various representatives including both parties


if you see his views as more moderate that means more inclusion of both sides,
unlike Obama who excluded opposing views in ways that are clearly not constitutional 
and gets away with it because of the opinions pushed by the media on the public


Romney does not have that so he would not abuse it.
Huge difference, not just marginal.

Note: If Romney were to have abused his big business connections to push legislation
that favored certain corporations or industries, I doubt he (a) has the degree of connections
that Obama had to do the same (b) he would be as corrupt and shameless as Obama.

I heard from a couple who had met Romney in person and could vouch that he was
truly a man of God, of integrity who cared about serving the good of the nation
and not for selfish political gain. it makes all the difference in leadership, and who
follows you and who supports you to do what.  Obama effectively cut out all the people
who would have checked or reigned in his agenda. Even if Romney played political favorites
to his financiers, what kind of policies could he have passed that would do equal or more damage compared with Obama?

I think by being more moderate he would allow greater check on policies
instead of demonizing and cutting out the opposition through the media, which wouldn't work anyway.
He wasn't even shameless enough to cut down Obama, so why would he cut down anyone else?
so his governance would give room for people to participate, not punish their free choice by imposing federal mandates as Obama did.
Sorry I don't see Romney going that direction, at worst he might give corporations free reign to take advantage, but so did Obama.

----------


## emilynghiem

I think the greatest thing we can to to instigate change and save this country and the economy
is work to overcome political barriers and discrimination by labels.
There are plenty of people coming from the left and right who are opposed to ACA.
but one side is lobbying for "singlepayer" and the other groups want "free market" solutions.
Why not invest directly in medical education and programs that provide services to the public.
and write the business, charitable or school donations/investments off federal taxes
so it is our tax money paying for greater access and coverage for health care.

Why not push for reform to state budgets and policies on criminal justice, prisons, crime and capital punishment.
Save tax dollars wasted on corrupt or ineffective systems that fail,
and invest in paying for public health for lawabiding citizens not just convicts incarcerated.

We can do a lot more as citizens by teaming up across party lines and focus on solutions
that would address issues, satisfy grievances, and resolve conflicts with the current govt.

That is the next stage of political and democratic development.
It has to come from the people and cannot be legislated or mandated from the top down.
it has to be built from the grassroots up, to take input and objections from one another,
and put together real solutions that will have the support of the various parties and thus the public.
if not, if we cannot agree, then why not fund separate solutions per party and quit pushing agenda nationally that not all groups agree to follow or fund?

either push legislative reforms we all agree on,
or agree to keep them separate, and use the parties to set up the funding and representation for local agenda.
it does not have to be imposed outside that group. 

so only the solutions we all agree on as public will be run by govt.
so we will get the limited govt under the Constitution by shifting the rest to local institutions and networks to fund and operate
especially where people don't agree on the same policies.

We should respect each other's political views and beliefs
similar to religious views and allow each person or group to fund what they believe in.
and not impose conflicting policies publicly trying to make one size fits all like a national religion.
people have to choose freely or its as unconstitutional as imposing religious beliefs people don't believe in or  haven't been proven first and freely chosen

the key to changing the political dynamic is to recognize and accept 
the fact that the different political views are like religious beliefs and keep these separate, outside of govt
if we can even establish that mutual respect and protection of personal views,
we may learn to negotiate and work out solutions in that atmosphere
but not in this hostile environment where no communication or ideas can get through the media blocks, bullying and political obstructions going on

change the attitude the political environment and you might see different solutions and reforms come through and get publicized and gain supprot

----------

