Why do the Paranoid in this movement want to march backwards?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

After our economy is in ruins, I have no doubt that China or Russia could easily stage an invasion and easily overpower any kind of militia we could muster. Perhaps private defense agencies could defend parts of the country. In the absense of a state, would all regions between Canada and Mexico but protected from invasion? Who would be responsible for paying for such a thing? What if I don't want to pay for it? Don't I still benefit from it?

I'm afraid to say that states are here to stay. I understand the ideal you're trying to work towards, and perhaps it would work if all states were somehow abolished overnight. I should expand upon what I said originally: where there is no government, government will arise, and where there is no state, a state will arise. I see no other option, unless you know of a way to abolish the state and keep another one from taking its place.

It would cost hundreds of billions just for China to invade Taiwan! If it wasn't immediately successful, then the cost would escalate into the trillions. So, how could it invade the United States? It is a logistical nightmare to invade the United States because of its numerous ports. And consider that, whle it has a declining population, Russia doesn't even have enough people to man its own borders. What would happen if China got bored, yawned, and then decided to move north taking 2/3's of Russia's territory while doing so? That would be the bigger fear.

 

[jmdrake]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

Different people came to this movement for different reasons. When I threw my support behind Ron Paul I was specifically looking for someone who was 1) against the war in Iraq, 2) against the Patriot Act and 3) against the department of homeland security. Later I added being against the bailout and wanting an audit of the federal reserve. Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich fit my most important criteria. I didn't support DK over his gun control position. But why should I support someone else who's less "communist" than DK, but fails on some or all of my main criteria?

When Ron Paul gave his speech at the "joint 3rd party press conference" he outlined 4 core principles shared by himself, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. They were in agreement on 1) foreign policy 2) privacy 3) national debt and 4) the federal reserve. For me it's still important that someone is "perfect" on these 4 positions. I care not where they fall on some artificial scale.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is foolhardy in a very practical sense. Say you don't pay for police, and I do. You and I have a disagreement about who owns a piece of property. I call my bought and paid for police, and they show up. You can't call them because you haven't paid. Who then get's arrested. I know, I know, you'll shoot me or whatever before I call them or whatever, but if you don't or can't, what would you do then?

Beyond the police, what about the Judicial? Would you like to have your trail in a private court room whom is a subcontractor of my paid for police agency?

Think of the old wild west, before Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. were States. There existed out here mostly a form of Anarchy for the settler and gold rushers. Why did townships and settlements choose to elect a Sherrif and a Judge rather than pay a gang of men to enforce the law? The reason is almost self-explanatory. An elected Sherrif and Judge have a much better chance of achieving equal application and execution of the law than anyone for hire. The people of the Old West made a practical market decision. Equal application of the law and a reliable law enforcement service was better left to a governing body than in private hands. In private hands, one might hire the James-Younger gang, call them police, and use them as hired muscle to enforce their will on others.

The idea of privatizing law enforcement, trials, and punishment is a joke, and would never be even remotely practical. The only ways for men to protect their individual rights is to move to a remote desert island where no one lives, or institute a governing body period. Once a governing body is instituted the only way men can protect their rights to keep said government limited to it's proper role of protecting those rights. There is no two-ways about it.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

If we have a disagreement about who owns a piece of property, it's not a police matter. It would be a matter between my judicial services, and yours. For example, today, many companies work together. In the banking industry, my Visa card works at other companies ATM's, transfers, etc. I can name numerous other industries where this also happens. Contractual easements. It happens quite a lot in the cell phone sector where my Verizon service can call and connect with AT&T and vice versa. It would obviously be in everyones best interest to have fair outcomes, or else both parties lose customers. Consumer Reports, and other independant agencies would rate the quality of service. People would be free to shop around who has the best service and who most closely follows their own morals.

If you want to join a home owners association with their own judicial services and law, then why not?

Seriously, you don't honestly believe that some of the smartest men in the world working on this Governmental theory would overlook something that is in plain sight?

If I was inside their jurisdiction (IE your property) and committed a crime according to the laws of your property (Under their services), then yes it should be held in their court room and under their jurisdiction. This is no different than if I go overseas and commit a crime. You don't see foreigners being unfairly handled and persecuted on an intentional basis overseas do you?

In private hands, one might hire the James-Younger gang, call them police, and use them as hired muscle to enforce their will on others.

Who's going to hire them? Say if they start to steal from others, who is going to pay for their services? No one. So, how then, do you plan on paying them to rampage around for you? If they then, do violate others liberties, thats when your private police and judiciary get involved and protect you, no differently than the "public" police now, except that private police couldn't be as barbaric as they are now because you could simply stop paying them and choose another police department that has better customer service. A wonderful thing about voluntary services, they actually have to provide something someone wants. With taxes, they can do whatever the hell they want and have no repercussions.

 

[JustinTime]

Did you just sign up here to start slinging your high-road?

Remember one thing, liberty candidates ARE the minority in this game. There are things called tactics. So lets not assume anything.

I see no logic is derailing a good solid chance to win with someone who you *think may not be perfect, only to allow a proven neocon take their place.

Where is the logic there?

I see no logic in that either, but who said they wanted to do that? Not me.

Ill support somebody who is only 80% good, but that doesnt mean I wont push them to be better than 80%, or continue to support them if they drift below 50%.

Its just common sense. The more pro-freedom you are, the more I will support you.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
If I was inside their jurisdiction (IE your property) and committed a crime according to the laws of your property (Under their services), then yes it should be held in their court room and under their jurisdiction. This is no different than if I go overseas and commit a crime. You don't see foreigners being unfairly handled and persecuted on an intentional basis overseas do you?

God forbid, you step on a neighbours property by mistake, where trespassing carries a mandatory death penalty.

Who knows, you may have been drunk or something, but the LAW (which your neighbour wrote just the other week for his nation) is the LAW.

You're going to hang.

You should have brought a truck, containing books with the codes applicable to all neighbours in the surrounding 10 miles, or further if required.

Everytime you deal with a new person, you ask them for a pointer to their code and read it thoroughly.

Maybe the market would deal with this, by using just one code for regions to make things more standardised?
(based on majority opinion of what constitutes reasonable punishment for any given crime, does that sound familiar?)

You have a de-facto government, already.

Someone will enforce this code for all the residents in the region and I would venture to say that if someone violated these laws and
used the defence that they don't apply to him/her because he personally never agreed to be subject to them,
the rest would not look too kindly on him/her, for if that's all it takes to mount a successful defence to a charge,
then you might as well not have a law at all.

Repeat after me:

THERE
WILL
ALWAYS
BE
A
FORM
OF GOVERNMENT
AND
A
CERTAIN
AMOUNT
OF COERCION
THE
GOAL
IS
TO
HOLD
GOVERNMENT
TO
ITS
PROPER
DEFENSIVE
ROLE
TO
DEFEND
LIFE
PROPERTY
AND
LIBERTY
AND
NOTHING MORE

and the constitution for a constitutional republic is an excellent framework, why re-invent the wheel?

 

[LibForestPaul]

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is people in general are terrified of freedom. Freedom to endure the consequence of their decisions, freedom to walk down any dark path, freedom to fail, freedom of others we judge reprehensible.
Sheeple like law and order, their bellies full, and no pain. Mussolini did bring that, did he not, and the sheeple were happy the trains ran on time.

 

[cbc58]

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is people in general are terrified of freedom.

I have to disagree. I beleive the reason is that it is often presented as an "all or nothing" proposition by over zealous supporters. 98% of people don't think like that -- and telling them "that's the way it has to be" turns them off. A more middle road tact is needed and that will result in more support and members in the long run.

 

[Met Income]

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is people in general are terrified of freedom.

I have to disagree. I beleive the reason is that it is often presented as an "all or nothing" proposition by over zealous supporters. 98% of people don't think like that -- and telling them "that's the way it has to be" turns them off. A more middle road tact is needed and that will result in more support and members in the long run.

You can't compromise at the choice to put a gun in someone's face or not. It's absolutely wrong and obvious and if someone doesn't get that, they're just not going to be convinced.

 

[Romulus]

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is people in general are terrified of freedom. Freedom to endure the consequence of their decisions, freedom to walk down any dark path, freedom to fail, freedom of others we judge reprehensible.
Sheeple like law and order, their bellies full, and no pain. Mussolini did bring that, did he not, and the sheeple were happy the trains ran on time.

I think this is completely true. My family is very independent minded but is very much turned off to the truth. They simply aren't comfortable discussing it. They'd rather live a comfortable lie.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is people in general are terrified of freedom. Freedom to endure the consequence of their decisions, freedom to walk down any dark path, freedom to fail, freedom of others we judge reprehensible.
Sheeple like law and order, their bellies full, and no pain. Mussolini did bring that, did he not, and the sheeple were happy the trains ran on time.

Yup, that^^^

 

[ChaosControl]

There are some things I'll never compromise on.

I will never support someone who is not pro-life, no matter how close they are to be politically otherwise.

I also would not support someone who favors deficit spending, or foreign interventionism.

Fiscal responsibility, pro-life, and non-interventionism are the three most important areas to me. Other things are highly important, but I can compromise on some things if someone agrees with me on those three.

 

[YumYum]

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is people in general are terrified of freedom. Freedom to endure the consequence of their decisions, freedom to walk down any dark path, freedom to fail, freedom of others we judge reprehensible.
Sheeple like law and order, their bellies full, and no pain. Mussolini did bring that, did he not, and the sheeple were happy the trains ran on time.

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is because nobody knows what the movement is. What is the movement?

 

[Romulus]

the movement needs to be ending the fed. period. they start the wars, the fuck up our currency and god knows what else. they are the true power. with them in place, we can have no true sovereign country or freedom.

 

[YumYum]

the movement needs to be ending the fed. period. they start the wars, the fuck up our currency and god knows what else. they are the true power. with them in place, we can have no true sovereign country or freedom.

So why have we stopped? Why are we focused on all this other bullshit?

 

[Romulus]

good question. lots of little battles are important to win the public war though.

 

[Akus]

Because some of us are sick of "compromise".

Then may be you shouldn't be in politics, because politics is ALL about compromise

 

[jmdrake]

So why have we stopped? Why are we focused on all this other bullshit?

Maybe it's about more than just ending the fed? Maybe tyrants can think of new ways to steal your money? If the fed gets replaced with a global "crap and trade" bank have we accomplished anything? Maybe there are a lot of smaller battles that if we lose we'll never get the opportunity to end the fed? Maybe we need to bring in others like myself who weren't initially thinking that much about the fed, but were "fed up" with our neocon foreign policy and domestic police state? Ron Paul laid out 4 common principles in 2008. Only one of them was the fed.

 

[jmdrake]

Then may be you shouldn't be in politics, because politics is ALL about compromise

Or maybe we need more non compromising people in politics.

To be a good negotiator you need some core things that you won't compromise on.

 

[Matthew Zak]

Think about it this way. If we are continuously, persistently electing people who are closer and closer to 'Libertarian', every time someone is elected, they are replacing somebody less Libertarian than themselves. That is the only way to reach perfection. Expecting every candidate to be exactly as you want them to be is as unrealistic as expecting yourself to throw a no hitter the first time you pitch a game. Maybe that's a bad analogy, but you get the point.

 

[Romulus]

Think about it this way. If we are continuously, persistently electing people who are closer and closer to 'Libertarian', every time someone is elected, they are replacing somebody less Libertarian than themselves. That is the only way to reach perfection. Expecting every candidate to be exactly as you want them to be is as unrealistic as expecting yourself to throw a no hitter the first time you pitch a game. Maybe that's a bad analogy, but you get the point.

I get your point and I agree with it. When libertarian candidates start to increase in power and size, so will the ideals of Libertarianism. I think it'll become more self perpetuation as guys like Rand, Sciff, etc get elected into office. One by one we must root out the collectivists, the best way we can. I think we should all be united behind that principle.