Why is it so hard to elect pro-liberty people to government?

Because most people put their material self-interest above the common good.

...and even those few who do prioritize the common good don't understand that liberalism is the best means of achieving it.

...in large part because they get all their information from media owned by those who prioritize their material self-interest.
 
Because most people put their material self-interest above the common good...liberalism is the best means of achieving it.

Your solution is not moral. Any idea of attempting to do "good" by force and through coercion of Man by Government is contrary to as well as aggressive toward the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. The notion that the end justifies the means is anti-moral. The idea is patently contrary to the moral foundation that establish the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself. Any foolish and ill-thought notion that anti-moral means can be separated from the end falls on its face when judged morally.
 
Last edited:
Your solution is not moral. Any idea of attempting to do "good" by force and through coercion of Man by Government...

Using force against criminals is not aggression.

i.e. libertarianism allows for the defensive use of force

Now, if you're referring to the taxation required to finance that state security apparatus, yes that's aggression, but there's no possible alternative. Anarcho-capitalism, though a fine ideal, is impossible in practice. There will always be a state; the only choice we have is what kind of state it will be: more aggressive or less aggressive. I'd like one which practices minimal aggression, i.e. only enough to raise the taxes necessary to finance its otherwise rights-defending security operations.

The notion that the end justifies the means is anti-moral.

I disagree.

Morality is about choosing the best of the available courses of action.

Any morality which requires one to reject the good in favor of an unattainable perfection is worse than useless.
 
Using force against criminals is not aggression.

The question was "Why is it so hard to elect pro-liberty people to government?"

You said...

Because most people put their material self-interest above the common good...liberalism is the best means of achieving it.

My thought stands until you address it in the context in which it was offered in response to you.


Which was...

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

Because most people put their material self-interest above the common good...liberalism is the best means of achieving it.
Your solution is not moral. Any idea of attempting to do "good" by force and through coercion of Man by Government is contrary to as well as aggressive toward the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. The notion that the end justifies the means is anti-moral. The idea is patently contrary to the moral foundation that establish the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself. Any foolish and ill-thought notion that anti-moral means can be separated from the end falls on its face when judged morally.




Morality is about choosing the best of the available courses of action.

No it isn't.
 
Last edited:
I did address it in context.

No, you didn't. Nor will you. You're promoting the idea of doing "good" by force and through coercion of Man by Government. This is contrary to as well as aggressive toward the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. To repeat, any notion that anti-moral means can be separated from the end falls on its face when judged morally. And this cannot be refuted.

Well, gee whiz, you convinced me...

I think it just comes down to that fact that you aren't a moral person. Your postings generally reflect a lack of proper moral judgment. In fact, I often find myself refraining from using actionable words when you're present in discussion. You stink, man. You stink bad.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure there are pieces of this in previous responses, but the answer isn't quite as simple as "because Government is inherently anti-liberty." The OP's premise is to elect pro-liberty people to Government, which can be done and has been done.

Here are just some of the pitfalls:

By the time someone is whitewashed enough to become elected to a very high office, there are normally all kinds of shady deals or euphemisms in place to knock their skeletons into the closet. This has been done for so long that any "scandal" can be used to leverage against an opponent. Have you ever had a speeding ticket? Then you don't think the law applies to you and you're playing with the safety of others... you're playing with children's lives! *Ominous music over the photo of a little child killed by a speeder recently* Greasing palms and getting into office tends to take money, and a great deal of time. Most of us definitely don't have either of those things to spare, because we're busy working for a living. Taking the Trump narrative at its word (not going to argue otherwise here), he has a bunch of underlings to run various parts of his companies. He is not needed daily. If I took time off to run for even a local seat, I would not have a job to come back to. Moreover, I need that job since I'm not filthy rich. This leaves most of us effectively ineligible, lacking the funds, time, and squeaky clean background.

Once you get to Washington, or even your state-level government, you find that legislation is presented in huge blocks, proposed and scrutinized by committees, and stuffed full of pitfalls. Usually there are provisions to make you look bad in the press. Want to vote to restrict some kind of Presidential power? Well there's a provision in that same vote that says you want to evict veterans from homeless shelters, you heartless bastard! It doesn't look good at re-election.

People vote based on a few issues, and have the media interpret for them. Are you pro-life? Well so's candidate such-and-such. Whether you two agree on the definition of pro-life, or what should be done about it, or whether/how people should be punished for it, does not fit in the ad, nor does where funding would come from to do whatever the candidate wants to do. The only way to get a pro-liberty person in is to have them adhere to an over-arching philosophy that they will stop government overreach, and even pull their hands out of our pockets whenever possible. If they apply that test to everything they do, they'll be moving in the right direction. The trouble again is how you can tell that they're not just telling you what you want to hear.

There is also very little chance of getting something meaningful done. When there are a couple of Senators and a few Congressmen with the same ideals, nothing is going to move forward. If they attempt to make a deal to get something greater done, then they're a sellout to their base and don't attract anyone new (read: not re-elected).
 
No, you didn't. Nor will you. You're promoting the idea of doing "good" by force and through coercion of Man by Government. This is contrary to as well as aggressive toward the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. To repeat, any notion that anti-moral means can be separated from the end falls on its face when judged morally. And this cannot be refuted.

Asserting that I took your comment out of context (without explaining how I allegedly did so), and repeating yourself verbatim is not a rebuttal.
 
Asserting that I took your comment out of context (without explaining how I allegedly did so), and repeating yourself verbatim is not a rebuttal.

As I said, I think it just comes down to that fact that you aren't a moral person. Your postings generally reflect a lack of proper moral judgment. You're more of a libertine. I don't think you should speak on matters of Individual Liberty. Your basis for jusdment is contrary to its foundation for moral code.
 
Last edited:
As I said, I think it just comes down to that fact that you aren't a moral person. Your postings generally reflect a lack of proper moral judgment. You're more of a libertine. I don't think you should speak on matters of liberty.

*shrug*

I'm just going to ignore you now.
 
I was doing some reading about Paul Nehlan who is challenging House Speaker Paul Ryan in his districts republican primary. I read the most recent poll only gives Nehlan 13 percent of the vote to Ryans like 70+ percent. Paul Ryan represents everything that is wrong with government and America while Nehlan generally represents what is right and our pro-liberty ideas yet he basically has no chance to beat Ryan from the info I read. This isnt the only time when pro-liberty patriots with our ideas lose badly to pro- big government RINO traitors. There is only a handful of good politicians in congress. Why? Why are most of our politicians whores of corporations and against the regular Americans they are supposed to represent?

Please let me know your opinion.

Is the question about Ryan or Liberty candidates? Two very different scenarios.

Ryan is the incumbent. Voters are generally ignorant, politically lazy and status quo. It's never their person that is the problem. They are proud of their guy, especially if the politician has become more prominent and important. Voting against Ryan is voting against themselves, and pulling the lever for the name they recognize is maintaining the status quo.

Liberty candidates as a generalization is another matter, but once again, it is usually secondary to the above factors.
 
Liberty, then, is the sovereignty of the individual, and never shall man know liberty until each and every individual is acknowledged to be the only legitimate sovereign of his or her person, time, and property, each living and acting at his own cost.
-Josiah Warren

The concept of individual sovereignty was snuffed out in it's infancy by the rise of the nation-state. People are collective by nature; they simply traded in their crosses for flags.
 
You're not listening. I've posted articles and examples already showing how he would massively grow government, the police state, create debt, and ignore the constitution. If you're too blinded by your dislike of brown people... not much I say is going to change that.

You're right. He will create debt according to your article but most of what you said was untrue or incorrect. I did the research. You are right Donald Trump is for the patriot act and supports waterboarding and eminent domain. but I doubt he wil "ignore the constitution" when he wants to give rights back to states and believes in the tenth amendment. But anyways while I disagree with a little amount of stuff Donald Trump says, he is still way better than everyone else. Your candidate is like an Angela Merkel but worse.



If anything its your candidate who is ignoring the constitution (or at least the parts he doesn't like) and making excuses why laws against illegal immigrants cant be enforced without any effort on his part.

I do appreciate this conversation though as it has enlightened me.
 
You're right. He will create debt according to your article but most of what you said was untrue or incorrect. I did the research. You are right Donald Trump is for the patriot act and supports waterboarding and eminent domain. but I doubt he wil "ignore the constitution"

You said it better than me. That is Trump double speak. "He's 100% for ignoring the constitution, but he will support the constitution!"

and who is 'my candidate'? If you know please tell me because I don't have a candidate..... lol.
 
You said it better than me. That is Trump double speak. "He's 100% for ignoring the constitution, but he will support the constitution!"

That is what I thought you meant. Well I see your point, he wants to renew the patriot act and go through congress as with everything else. again, there is no perfect candidate and while I don't like some of these things, I like more of what he says than what I dislike so he got my vote.

and who is 'my candidate'? If you know please tell me because I don't have a candidate..... lol.

I thought Rand Paul is because you have the "Stand with Rand" sign on your profile.
 
That is what I thought you meant. Well I see your point, he wants to renew the patriot act and go through congress as with everything else. again, there is no perfect candidate and while I don't like some of these things, I like more of what he says than what I dislike so he got my vote.



I thought Rand Paul is because you have the "Stand with Rand" sign on your profile.

Rand hasn't been a candidate for months. I stand with Rand on principle, as I stand with anyone who actually bothers to support and defend the Bill of Rights. Trump is an enemy of liberty and literally advocates for the destruction of the Bill of Rights. He's a pompous windbag who would steal everything you own on a whim if it made a small profit for him... He bribes politicians to grease the skids of corruption... he would execute Snowden, an American hero, imo...

Again... there's no convincing his supporters. It is simply sad to witness people voting for someone who is such a danger.
 
Rand hasn't been a candidate for months. I stand with Rand on principle, as I stand with anyone who actually bothers to support and defend the Bill of Rights. Trump is an enemy of liberty and literally advocates for the destruction of the Bill of Rights. He's a pompous windbag who would steal everything you own on a whim if it made a small profit for him... He bribes politicians to grease the skids of corruption... he would execute Snowden, an American hero, imo...

I disagree with executing Snowden.

Again... there's no convincing his supporters.

I will say its for two reasons. The first reason is because most people agree a lot with his positions and policy. And the second reason is who is an alternative? Most politicians suck far more than Trump. I do believe he is the most worthy of the office, and that is why he won the primary.

I had a teacher once and he explained to me that its usually unrealistic to convince someone on the far right of an issue to move to the far left of an issue and vice versa. But it is realistic to nudge them a little more to the center. I believe that is true and it has stuck with me for a long time.

It is simply sad to witness people voting for someone who is such a danger.

I think you are exaggerating the threat.
 
I think you are exaggerating the threat.

I think you are underestimating it. Trump executive orders would be horrible. You can expect impeachment proceedings almost immediately.

Clinton would be just as bad, but she will be restrained by her own party to a degree. Because, unlike Trump, Clinton wants to be a legend in the Democratic party. She's not going to do something they can't sell to their constituents. Trump has no such restrictions.

I also disagree with your statement that people agree with his policy. What policy?!!! Holy shit, man! His policy of calling people names?! His policy of saying stupid things that he has to walk back?! His policy of not concerning himself with reality?! No, his campaign has nothing to do with policy. It's all smoke and mirrors and a con.
 
What policy?!!! Holy $#@!, man! His policy of calling people names?!

[h=1]Donald Trump's top 10 campaign promises[/h] By Linda Qiu on Friday, July 15th, 2016 at 11:45 a.m.
newsinconebyone.png
Patrick Murphy ad misleads about whether Marco Rubio missed vote for his own bill
Politifact.com






Donald Trump will become his party's official nominee at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Provocative rhetoric to "make America great again" fueled Donald Trump’s ascent to the Republican nomination, a status that will be made official this week at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.
So how would Trump do that? His campaign promises are aimed at changes to immigration, trade, taxes and foreign policy.
While Trump has made some unorthodox to-dos — such as refusing to take vacations, rejecting the narratives of the elites, and having the country say "Merry Christmas" again — many of his pledges are fairly conventional.
Promises to cut taxes and fight terrorists are the type of promises any politician might make, said Larry Sabato, who directs the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
"But this has been overshadowed by his unusual profile and approach," Sabato said.
PolitiFact has been collecting Trump’s campaign promises from his website and public comments. We’re also following the promises of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and will track the promises of the new president whoever it is. We currently track President Barack Obama’s campaign promises on our Obameter.
We identified Trump’s 10 key promises (we’ll look at Clinton’s next week) and ran them by experts in their subjects. They told us Trump will face significant hurdles to actually achieve the agenda he is setting.
1. ‘Build a wall’ — and make Mexico pay for it
Trump announced his candidacy with the promise "to build a great, great wall on our southern border" and "have Mexico pay for that wall," and has repeated the call with conviction and consistency. But even his supporters have expressed skepticism that this centerpiece promise will see the light of day. An actual wall will be extremely costly, and it remains to be seen how Trump would force Mexico to pay for it.
"There are some that hear this is going to be 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso, 30-foot high, and listen, I know you can’t do that," former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said recently. (Perry once denounced Trump but has since endorsed him.)
2. Temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States
Following the December 2015 shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on."
The next day, Trump admitted that details "would have to worked out" and said it wouldn’t apply to all Muslims, but remained vague on the timeline or the exemptions. Scholars were divided on whether banning people of an entire faith would violate the constitution.
In early May, Trump told the New York Times the ban would be in place by the end of his first 100 days in office. But on Fox News Radio a few days later, he said that it was "just a suggestion." A month later, he recommitted to the ban, tweaking it to now encompass immigrants from "nations tied to Islamic terror."
3. ‘Bring manufacturing (jobs) back’
Trump has said he will revitalize manufacturing in various iterations (i.e. "I’m going to be the greatest jobs president God ever created") and laid out how in his June 28 speech on the economy.
"I am going to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (and) I’m going tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers," he said. "I will use every lawful presidential power to remedy trade disputes, including the application of tariffs."
But most experts say that Trump wouldn’t be able to bring back all 4 million lost manufacturing jobs, which have been declining since the 1940s, well before the modern era of free trade deals and China’s economic rise.
"The short answer is that a small number of manufacturing jobs could be brought back, but probably at enormous cost," Alan Blinder, a Princeton University economist who specializes in employment and trade and member of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors.
Susan Houseman, an economist with the W.E. Upjohn Institute, commended some of Trump’s proposals but said the issue is way more complex than Trump describes.
"The devil is in the details, which of course are entirely absent from Trump's speech and policy positions," she said, adding that suddenly changing trade policies and tariffs could actually lead to job losses.
Harry Moser, president of the Reshoring Initiative, is more optimistic that Trump could deliver, but said Trump would have to be in it for the long haul:"You can’t do it in a day, you can’t do it a year. I’d be delighted if we can do it in a decade or two."
4. Impose tariffs on goods made in China and Mexico
Warren Maruyama, a former general counsel to the U.S. Trade Representative under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, told us President Trump would have the authority under a variety of trade statutes to impose higher tariffs, but added "it would lead to a trade war and cost hundreds and thousands of jobs."
Hal Shapiro, an attorney specializing in international trade practice, pointed to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 which gives the president the power to impose retaliatory tariffs on countries that violate trade agreements or engage in unfair trade practices under. But Shapiro said he can’t think of "a single instance" where a U.S. company offshoring is considered an unfair trade practice by the foreign country.
Trump’s promise also violates international trade rules, and he’s yet to propose exiting the World Trade Organization. So assuming the United States stays in the club, Beijing and Mexico City wouldn’t take his blanket tariffs lying down and would almost certainly retaliate.
5. Renegotiate or withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership
Trump has been most critical of NAFTA and TPP, pinning them to Clinton and past and future job losses.
President Trump would have the authority to bow out of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans Pacific Partnership. But such a move may not increase American manufacturing jobs; an expert told us that leverage works in both directions.
"Countries like Mexico and Canada would have a list of things they’d want from the United States," Alan Wolff, a former U.S. deputy trade representative under President Jimmy Carter. "These are balanced, hard-to-negotiate agreements."
6. ‘Full repeal of Obamacare’ and replace it with a market-based alternative
Trump’s call to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a marketplace alternative is popular among rank-and-file Republicans. Larger majorities in Congress would be needed for repeal.
"If a Trump win is accompanied by Republican control of both houses of Congress, then some significant rollback is feasible and likely," said John McDonough, a health policy professor at Harvard University.
7. Renegotiate the Iran deal
Similarly, Trump has a shot at delivering on his promise to "renegotiate with Iran" even though Iran has said it won’t revisit the issue. Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the nonpartisan Foundation for Defense of Democracies, sees Iran’s attitude as posturing and pointed out that there’s precedent for a follow-up talk.
"The Iranians are continuing to negotiate, demanding significant economic concessions," Dubowitz said. "I have confidence both (Trump and Clinton) could renegotiate a better deal."
8. Leave Social Security as is
Trump has said repeatedly that voters like Social Security, so it should be left alone. Unlike most of his primary rivals, Trump vowed to leave the retirement age and benefits intact.
"There’s no way a Republican is going to beat a Democrat when the Republican is saying, 'We’re going to cut your Social Security’ and the Democrat is saying, 'We’re going to keep it and give you more,’ " Trump reportedly told House Speaker Paul Ryan, who wants entitlement cuts, in May.
But beyond calling for a crackdown on fraud and waste, Trump hasn’t specified how exactly he would save the program. He claims that his economic proposals would preserve Social Security by "making the country rich again," though that’s not supported by multiple analyses.
Trump’s commitment to this promise may also be wavering. His policy advisor Sam Clovis told Reuters in May that Trump would be open to changes to Social Security if elected.
9. Cut taxes
Under Trump’s proposed tax reforms, everyone would indeed get a cut. (The top 0.1 percent would receive more tax relief than the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers combined.)
Trump’s plan would bloat the federal deficit by at least $10 trillion over the next decade, even if you factor in economic growth. This makes his promise of protecting Social Security harder to keep, given the program is one of the biggest line items in the budget.
On average, experts scored the Trump tax plan’s chances of passing as a D. The campaign has said the details of his tax plan are subject to change, and would soon announce a new policy. It hasn’t yet done so.
10. ‘Bomb’ and/or ‘take the oil’ from ISIS
A twist on his decade-old idea to seize Middle Eastern oil as repayment, Trump repeatedly makes this promise on the campaign trail, arguing it’ll cut off funding to ISIS.
The United States has already been bombing oil assets under ISIS control for quite some time, though.
"It’s like saying there won’t be a meteor strike in 1812," said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
As for how he would "take the oil," Trump told the Washington Post’s editorial board in March he would "circle" and "defend those areas" with ground troops, but wouldn’t commit to a number.
To keep this promise, Trump would have to invade Syria and convince the Assad regime to give up their claims on oil and gas in the country, according to Matthew Reed, vice president of Foreign Reports, a consultant firm specializing in Middle East oil politics
"If Trump wants to take oil from ISIS, he needs an invasion plan and an occupation plan covering years, plus a reconstruction plan worth billions of American dollars," Reed said.
Given that the United States and its allies have been systematically taking territory from ISIS without resorting to a full-scale invasion, Cordesman called the promise "purposeless" and "imbecilic."
The value of vague promises

Overall, Trump’s appeal may not be rooted in what he says he’ll do — rather it’s in the rhetoric itself.
The wall and Muslim ban, for example, are unrealistic, said Sabato of the University of Virginia, "but both these pledges got Trump airborne and still sustain him. As long as non-college, blue-collar whites like the sound of these promises, Trump will keep repeating them."
Some of Trump’s positions are actually in line with those of Clinton, such as protecting Social Security and increased skepticism toward trade.
Trump’s lack of detailed pledges and firm stances may be advantageous.
"Voters generally do not punish candidates for being vague, and in partisan elections voters actually prefer ambiguous candidates over precise ones," Stanford University political scientists Michael Tomz and Robert Van Houweling found in a study. "The reason, we find, is that ambiguity allows voters to 'see what they want to see’ in members of their own party."
Trump himself put it best in February: "Everything is negotiable."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/15/donald-trumps-top-10-campaign-promises/
 
Back
Top