proposed regarding fiscal conservatism that he has actually gotten passed? And can you explain why he’s regarded as so fiscally conservative yet gets regular big fat pork projects for his district? And that’s after he claims not to have voted for a single piece of pork.

Shrimp farming, anyone?

I think many on the right first need to define what it means to be a conservative. People have differing views about what that means – or a different emphasis. If you asked Erick, he probably would say that a conservative would advocate the following:

1. Fiscal prudence – advocate small government
2. Strong and assertive foreign policy
3. A set of morals (Judeo-Christian) that would animate your views about what government should do

Ron Paul would advocate the following:

1. Fiscal prudence – advocate reducing the role of the federal government
2. Humble, non-interventionist foreign policy
3. A set of values that make up who you are as a person, but a laissez-faire attitude toward what other people do

Significant differences there.

n/t

“Do you think that the United States of America is able to just ignore the rest of the world? What would have happened if we had done so in World War II? Not that we could have since we were attacked, but what would have been the outcome if Hitler had been allowed to prevail? Like it or not, with the economic power that America became in the 20th century, we had to step up and do the right thing. And in that case, the right thing was to stop the evil that was Hitler, Japan, and Mussolini. After that, what would you have recommended we do to stop the spread of communism? Should we have just let the Soviet Union have all the countries it wished to possess?”

__US participation in WW2 was absolutely justified. Regarding the Soviets, I was a fan of Patton so you can draw your own conclusion.

I fail to see how you equate non-military intervention as ignoring the rest of the world. The US can still be involved in fair trade with nations all across the globe without involving our military.

“What solution do you and/or libertarians propose that America seek in becoming a non-interventionist country? Do we turn our backs on the rest of the world, cease trading with any of them, and do—what, exactly? If you are in business with other countries and that business depends on a certain degree of mutual security, then how do you guarantee that if not by being willing to step up when necessary? Is it fine with you and libertarians for us to just let 25 million Iraqis be tortured at the will of a sadist? The same sadist who invaded his neighbor, Kuwait and would have kept going until he possessed Saudi Arabia and the oilfields of the Middle East?”

__See above regarding trade. You mention mutual security but we all know that if any poop hits the fan somewhere in Europe, the ME or Asia, it will be the US that bears the brunt of blood spilt, even if our allies can handle things themselves. As far as defense treaties are concerned re-visit WW1. A stupid and pointless war that the US should never have been involved in.

SH should have been stopped back in ’91 and we should have finished the job. Regarding 25 million Iraqis being tortured by a sadist, there were 25 million Iraqis vs what 200k SH Baath party supporters. Why can’t they defend themselves? Also, the reason we were sold on Iraq was WMD which I believe we all know that SH did indeed possess. After failing to locate those weapons the mission changed, then changed again and again. We have been training Iraqi military and police as well as Afghan long enough. It’s time for them to carry the water. Why is it that we can take some 18 year old farm boy from Nebraska, give him four months of infantry school and another few months of urban combat training, then send him off to defend people that seemingly cannot be trained in six years and show no real ambition to defend themselves?

As for the oil fields, why must the US defend them? We have our own resources that can be developed and most of the oil we import comes from Canada and Mexico.

US foreign policy according to Republicans is simple. We will bring Democracy to the oppressed even if we have to kill your children.

The US Constitution does not provide for “liberating the oppressed”. If you feel that people need liberating then send money to help or pack your bags and grab a gun and go help them that way. It is not the responsibility of the US taxpayer to any more than it is to provide jobs and health care to every person that crosses our borders.

I may be a little more hawkish about national security then other Libertarians however defense starts at home. Our borders, immigration and ports. We The People should have the first and last say about whom we allow in our country.

“Is it fine with you and libertarians for us to just let 25 million Iraqis be tortured at the will of a sadist? The same sadist who invaded his neighbor, Kuwait and would have kept going until he possessed Saudi Arabia and the oilfields of the Middle East?”

So following this line of thought the US should:

a) immediately send the Marines to Rwanda because people are being butchered there

b) immediately send the Marines to Kosovo because NATO is doing such a great job of keeping the peace there that anytime there is a local kickball match, guns come out

c) immediately send the Marines to Tibet because the Chinese are oppressing the Tibetans whose country they stole

d) immediately send the Marines to Cuba because of Castro

e) immediately send the Marines to Burma because the military junta is repressing , killing, and torturing the people there

f) immediately send the Marines to.. oh, wait, we’re all out of Marines.

Apparently you subscribe to the notion that America should go bankrupt and allow its children to be slaughtered around the world in order to fix other people’s problems. As for Hitler and World War II, did history start on December 7, 1941, or were there some events before that? Have you heard of War Plan Orange or the US-Japanese trade war? What evidence do you have that the Nazis were interested in invading the United States? Do you believe that such a fantastic project could have succeeded when they couldn’t even take Britain? Maybe Hitler actually wanted to accomplish exactly what he indicated in Mein Kampf, which had nothing to do with the US. The Soviets would have fought the Germans to a standstill, especially with British support. With both sides exhausted, there would have been no post-war Soviet communist expansionism for the US to have to combat.

As a matter of fact, I do think that the US can and should mind its own business. Non-interventionism and isolationism are two different things. I don’t propose that we close the borders and end foreign trade. Quite the opposite. We can and should have diplomacy and trade with every nation in the world, but we should not militarily intervene in every country that has problems. Unless of course, you want an empire and a pax Americana. That’s perfectly fine, but you had better be prepared to pay the price for an empire and step-up to the plate like the Romans did. Otherwise, the facade of not having an empire when we have troops in over one hundred nations and are actively at war with at least 3 is wearing a bit thin.

The TSA are a bunch of goons. Remember how they treated one of Ron Paul’s own staff members who was guilty of nothing but carrying cash? You should check out Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show on Fox for a highlight of the loss of American liberty.

“As for security procedures that were put in place after 9/11, no, none of them were perfect. The proof of how well they worked is that we didn’t have another attack on American soil until the Ft. Hood massacre, 8 years + after Sept. 11th, 2001. No, I don’t think Obama is going to use the apparatus that President Bush created in all the same ways, but what would you have had President Bush do to defend our country and its people? Did any of us doubt that more attacks were planned? Did you? For all the screeching about the Patriot Act, name me actual people who have brought lawsuits claiming they were harmed by it and have won their suits.”

You and I are in agreement regarding Obama. My objections to the PA are not for what has not been done but what is possible to do to our fellow citizens. Just as we have all the laws in place regarding immigration making “comprehensive immigration reform” completely unnessary. If current law were actually enforced there would be no need for reform. There are existing laws in place to secure the nation without overbearing legislation like the PA.

The PA is just like the dubious “jobs created or saved” bs. It cannot be measured. There are those that can and will argue that the PA is the reason we were not attacked again until recently but do you or I really know if attacks were prevented because of laws that were already on the books?

“As to the surveillance society subject, it didn’t take Sept. 11th to accomplish that. It just took– partly– the notion that a municipality could make a bunch of bucks off installing traffic cameras at intersections and filming license plates. Beyond that, the increasingly nanny-state mentality of the western world is to blame for that more so than the Patriot Act, in my opinion”.

We are 100% in agreement regarding this.

“As to who turns out in elections, are the libertarians who stayed home out of disgust with the GOP happy with the results of their precious righteous indignation”?

I can’t speak for others but I didn’t stay home out of disgust. I just didn’t vote for McCain and although I dread the thought of another three years of Obama, my consicence is clear regarding my vote.

I don’t think it’s possible to remain totally isolated from the rest of the world, nor do Ron Paul or other libertarians advocate that. They are pretty much free traders. At least that’s what traditional libertarians believe. There are some paleocons like Pat Buchanan who are more protectionist on trade.

Regarding WWII and Hitler, it’s hard to say what could have been done to prevent the rise of Hitler. “Blowback” from the Treaty of Versailles and war reparations demoralized Germans and made them vulnerable to a nationalistic movement. Certainly, Hitler had to be stopped once he started gobbling up European territory like he did. And, the U.S. was in a position to help, as our country wasn’t being physically destroyed like those in Europe.

Regarding the Cold War, this was a contest of economic systems and a struggle for influence. After WWII, it probably was inevitable. It was a very expensive conflict. We came out ahead, and are now the only military superpower in the world, but we are contuing to pay a big price for this power, one that many Americans may be questioning in these tough economic times.

Today we aren’t facing an enemy like Germany, the Soviet Union or China. The people who attacked us on 9/11 don’t have a country or an army. They’re not even that organized. Not all Muslim extremists are al Qaeda. They reside in many countries around the world. They appear to be fighting against modernization and globalization, and the U.S., which is implementing these movements.

To me, terrorists are like criminals with an ideology. As such, they should be hunted down and brought to justice. Ron Paul advocated Letters of Marque and Reprisal to deal with the terrorists of 9/11, and I think that could have been very effective – and a lot less expensive!!

Regarding Saddam, he had been our ally during the 1980s. And, the U.S. has frequently supported brutal dictators when it suited our purposes. Often, U.S. actions around the world backfire on us.

Ron Paul was opposed to the Patriot Act and the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, which he viewed (and probably still does) as a gigantic bureaucracy. Whether the implementation of these two things has protected the U.S. against further attack since 9/11 can’t really be known. Certainly, the attack has made the U.S. more alert to the possibility of a terrorist-type attack in this country.

I don’t view the Fort Hood shootings as part of a conspiracy, but the work of one very sick man who definitely slipped through the cracks.

mbecker, I agree that the LP itself has accomplished remarkably little in terms of electoral success. It does not seem likely to accomplish much in the future either. Having said that, Libertarians continue to keep key issues at the forefront of national politics: have you heard of Reason Magazine or the Cato Institute? Both are quoted regularly by major media figures – including Rush.

Many Libertarians and libertarians do actively support the GOP come election time. Many do not. I certainly am in no position to speak for all of them, but I surmise from the general sentiment amongst the non-participating types that they feel that the GOP and many of its candidates have abandoned their core values – most of which libertarians support. They won’t support Democrats, but I think that Republicans would do better to court these voters, especially with such close margins in many districts. That’s just plain old tactical sense, especially given that they are already sympathetic to the GOP’s positions on many issues.

As I indicated, I am not a Libertarian. I am a paleo-con. Ron Paul is not “my guy,” as you indicate. The last time that I had a “guy” in any Republican primary was 1996 when Pat Buchanan ran. After Bob Dole gave the paleo-cons the finger, I was pretty much done with Republican presidential primaries. I continue to vote in local and state primaries because I like to have my voice heard as much as the next guy.

Contrary to your numerous caricatures, Libertarians are not monolithic: there are Randians, minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and any number of other mixtures of those groups. Dr. Paul’s position on monetary policy is far superior to the banksters at the Federal Reserve who are nothing if not a pack of collectivist, bureaucrat statists. We should beg the Federal Reserve and its inflationary Keynesian pseudo-economists to run our economy for us. That’ll work so much better than an actual free-market economy without fiat currency controlled by a central bank.

As for the Libertarian position on abortion: it depends on the person. Some are pro-abortion, some are anti-abortion, but just about all consider it a matter for the state or local level, not the federal leviathan. Libertarians are not libertines; your polemic is targeted at a straw-man construct of Libertarian beliefs, not their actual nuanced positions.

“And, the Libertarians have this insane notion that staying out of persoanl lives is just, until someone excersizing their “rights” infringes upon the Libertarians choice of rights.”

Yes, this is utter madness. The idea of morality being imposed upon the American people by the federal government is much more amenable. We should WANT, indeed beg for our federal masters to regulate every aspect of our lives. Please, Mr. Government Agent, sir, please tell little ole me how to live my life. I’m just not up to the task of doing it myself.

While I like a good polemic as much as the next guy, you’ve given remarkably few critiques of actual libertarian ideas here, scope. A lot of strawman arguments, but not much critique of the ideas behind libertarianism. In fact if I didn’t know better, scope, I’d swear that I was reading a comment on Kos or Huff Po. Your ideas seem awfully similar to left-wing fascism.

I think that you’d find that libertarians (little “l”) have more in common with conservatives than either group would care to admit: the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/) is a great outpost of libertarian thought, and some talk show hosts, such as Glenn Beck, self-identify as libertarian. Sure, there are the idiots who vote for Ron Paul, think that weed + poon equals a coherent political philosophy, and that fall for every conspiracy that they can get their hands on, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that that is all that there is to libertarian thought. That said, even though libertarians probably had more reason than most to stay home (more than the SIVVs, anyways), it’s idiotic, as some have already said, to critique from the sidelines, do nothing, and then be surprised/angry when your policies aren’t being brought to fruition, as libertarians have been doing for the past 8 years.

I didn’t phrase my second paragraph very well. The “very large block” I meant to refer to independents, and that while there are certainly a significant number of left-learning voters in that block, I think that as a percentage this group is not particularly large.

That is a much better description of the Libertarian position on our foreign policy than my own attempt. Thank you.

and attempts to coopt the whole thing is transparent…..

as I’ve shared Privately with someone….

You’ve probably heard some of the complaints – That person or organization is just a sham and shills for Republicans. Which usually comes from Shills for attempting to expand the Libertarian Party (that has accomplished nothing, ever, anywhere) or those looking to create their own little thief-dom of yet another do-nothing organization or Third-Party. There will always be differing agendas, the question remains whether someone is going to continue to carry a grudge and muddle the MESSAGE because of the MESSENGER rather than work together when/where possible! I’ve heard it often, so-and-so won’t cooperate with whose-its Tax Protest because it’s so-and-so’s; and all the while Progressives keep moving their agenda forward while everyone else focuses on Personalities rather than purpose!

——— plus ———

In any movement or group there are folks that are not fully disclosing their intent/purpose and looking to create their own little thief-dom (niche of Power and/or Money grab, directly or indirectly – notably several “single-issue” groups). Among the list of folks I consider in that “type” are the RINOs/CINOs (often as bad as Pavlov-Blue-Dogs) in the GOP that are Progressives and stab the GOP Platform (and Conservatives) in the back at every opportunity they feel they can get away with and still lie to get re-elected. As for Liberals, don’t think for a moment there aren’t any in the TEApeat movement working within to undermine it. Many Progressives WANT the Tea Party “phenom” become a Third Party BECAUSE it will ensure enough split-Conservative votes to continually elect Progressive/Liberal Democrats! This was rampant in the Reform Party movement and is happening again now within some Tea Party circles and 9/12 movements.

———— plus ———-

Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of WORTHLESS Republicans that are NOT Conservative as they claim to be, and they all seem to be in the U.S.Senate (pathetically enough), but they ARE NOT representative of the majority of the GOP. They do NOT adhere to the GOP Platform (wonder when they last looked at it) as they don’t pay much attention to the U.S.Constitution (like Democrats). The Omnibus Bill was yet another example of FAILED REPUBLICANS (3 R’s give 3 weak D’s duplicity coverage voting FOR Omnibus spending, even the McCain-iac didn’t go there this time) Again, they are NOT representative of the GOP and give voice to the notion ‘there is no difference in the Parties’ – UNTRUE! There is little difference in PROGRESSIVES and there are a few in the GOP but we must work harder to ensure they are not in authority positions and over-ride the majority viewpoint (and GOP Platform) positions of maintaining REAL/TRUE Conservatism and anti-Progressive-ism. (How Alt-Party talk is RINOism: can one catch RINOvirus?). The GOP is the “Party of KNOW” which is why we say “NO” to Liberal Incremental-ism (Republicans must be the Party of NO [to Bigger Govt.] not the Party of SLOW[er Liberal Incremental-ism])!!!

to doing something, I’d be happy to welcome additional “Libertarians” in the House (additional Ron Paul’s you all seem to be so darned concerned about). If you spent just 1/4 the effort you could all be GOP Delegates and Control some local Committees and help shape the Candidates that are on the House tickets!!!!

You don’t… you won’t…. and many are more than happy to have their own little (do nothing) Money/Power mini-thief-doms rather than actually help shape debate/policy!!!