Recommended Posts

Strategies for 2014 and 2016.

How should I distribute my political contributions? Give some to the GOP? Maybe, maybe not - it depends. Contribute directly to particular candidates? Certainly. The Heritage Foundation? The Cato Institute (with some funding from the Koch brothers where George H. Smith is now affiliated?) There is certainly some overlap between the next two groups I will mention. They were once just one group. Rush Limbaugh puts money into Freedom Works, and the Koch brothers put money into Americans for Prosperity. Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity study how to best change the political climate to warm, with more freedom and they are worthy institutions.

Lets hear your ideas for 2014 and 2016.

Peter

From Wikipedia:

Charles Koch funds and supports libertarian and free-market organizations such as the Cato Institute, which he co-founded with Edward H. Crane and Murray Rothbard in 1977.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is an American conservative political advocacy group headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. AFP's stated mission is "educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing citizens as advocates in the public policy process". The group played a major role in the 2010 Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives, and has been called "one of the most powerful conservative organizations in electoral politics".

Americans for Prosperity was founded in 2004 when Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) split into Freedom Works and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (formerly the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation). Dick Armey, who had become chair of CSE in 2003 after retiring from Congress, remained chairman of FreedomWorks, while David H. Koch remained chairman of the AFP Foundation. Like CSE, AFP was founded with the support of David H. Koch and Charles Kock, both to Koch Industries.

Americans for Prosperity describes its mission as educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing them as advocates of lower taxes and limited government. The organization focuses on eight issue areas: budget and spending; taxes; property rights; health care and entitlements; banking and financial services; labor, education, and pensions; energy and environment; and technology.

According to AFP, their mission is to promote "limited government and free markets on the local, state, and federal levels", and to do so, they support:

Cutting taxes and government spending in order to halt the encroachment of government in the economic lives of citizens by fighting proposed tax increases and pointing out evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse. Removing unnecessary barriers to entrepreneurship and opportunity by sparking citizen involvement early in the regulatory process in order to reduce red tape. Restoring fairness to the judicial system.

end quote

From liberal Matt Bai On Politics.

All of this marks a stark reversal, historically speaking. For most of the 20th century, Democrats were primarily a local party; they were willing to trade the presidency back and forth, but their hold on the House and, most often, the Senate was iron-fisted. Republicans, on the other hand, concentrated almost all their effort on electing presidents until 1994, when Newt Gingrich became only the second Republican speaker since the New Deal.

There are probably a bunch of explanations for why, suddenly, conservatives are the ones pounding it out on the district-by-district level, while liberals pour their money into pet causes and presidential dreams. You can imagine it has something to do with the fact that industrialists like the Kochs can see a very direct benefit to their businesses from staving off nettlesome regulations in Congress. At the same time, the latest demographic data suggests that controlling Congress in the off years may be a more realistic goal for Republicans than winning back the White House with any consistency.

end quote

Dear Peter,

Here's the truth:

Our biggest national security threat is Barack Obama.

This is a president who does not believe in American exceptionalism, a president who is uninterested in national security and America's place in the world, who considers our strength part of the problem, and who believes that America is the cause of international tension.

This is like looking at the world through the wrong end of a telescope, but that is Obama's world. I won't stand for this, and you shouldn't either.

I formed John Bolton PAC for one purpose -- to see that our leaders remain committed to restoring American economic and national security. And Barack Obama is so disinterested in protecting American interests, I sometimes even wonder what team he's even playing for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calvin Coolidge said:

The chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing, and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life.

end quote.

Is Rand Paul a potential “Silent Cal?”

Robert Tracinski wrote today, March 20, about Rand’s father Ron Paul:

The situation in Ukraine has served as a reminder of the bizarre and destructive stance of the Ron Paul libertarians. This is a guy who quit the Republican Party partly in protest over Reagan’s opposition to the Soviets, and who is backing Vladimir Putin in the current conflict.

end quote

If Rand is like his father Ron, I will not vote for him. How can RON support Vladimir Putin? It reminds me of Ayn Rand’s parting from Murray Rothbard.

Murray Rothbard wrote in, “For a New Liberty”:

Taking the twentieth century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialistic government has been the United States . . . . Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks adopted the theory of “peaceful coexistence” as the basic foreign policy of a communist state. The idea was this: as the first successful communist movement, Soviet Russia would serve as a beacon for, and supporter of other communist parties throughout the world.

But the Soviet state qua state would devote itself to peaceful relations with all other countries, and would not attempt to export communism through interstate warfare . . . . Thus, fortuitously, from a mixture of theoretical and practical grounds of their own, the Soviets arrived early at what Libertarians consider the only proper and principled foreign policy . . . . Increasing conservatism under Stalin and his successors strengthened and reinforced the non-aggressive, “peaceful existence” policy.”

end quote

That is bullshit, Murray Rothbard . . . . and immoral.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calvin Coolidge said:

The chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing, and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life.

end quote.

Is Rand Paul a potential “Silent Cal?”

Robert Tracinski wrote today, March 20, about Rand’s father Ron Paul:

The situation in Ukraine has served as a reminder of the bizarre and destructive stance of the Ron Paul libertarians. This is a guy who quit the Republican Party partly in protest over Reagan’s opposition to the Soviets, and who is backing Vladimir Putin in the current conflict.

end quote

If Rand is like his father Ron, I will not vote for him. How can RON support Vladimir Putin? It reminds me of Ayn Rand’s parting from Murray Rothbard.

Murray Rothbard wrote in, “For a New Liberty”:

Taking the twentieth century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialistic government has been the United States . . . . Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks adopted the theory of “peaceful coexistence” as the basic foreign policy of a communist state. The idea was this: as the first successful communist movement, Soviet Russia would serve as a beacon for, and supporter of other communist parties throughout the world.

But the Soviet state qua state would devote itself to peaceful relations with all other countries, and would not attempt to export communism through interstate warfare . . . . Thus, fortuitously, from a mixture of theoretical and practical grounds of their own, the Soviets arrived early at what Libertarians consider the only proper and principled foreign policy . . . . Increasing conservatism under Stalin and his successors strengthened and reinforced the non-aggressive, “peaceful existence” policy.”

end quote

That is bullshit, Murray Rothbard . . . . and immoral.

Peter,

I agree with respect to Rand Paul and the other libertarian candidates. That's why I won't support Paul, although I'd probably vote for him over any Democrat if he became the nominee. My favorites are Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker. I think they would all make excellent candidates.

Darrell

Link to post
Share on other sites

If one of the aspiring GOP hopefuls becomes the nominee whose parents were not AMerican citizens then he would not meet the Constitutional eligibility requirement that he be a "natural born" citizen! I think this might be the case with either RUbio or Cruz, perhaps both.

It would be interesting if the Democrats argue about this because they would be hypocritical given that their very own BHO also does not meet that eligibility requirement since his father was a British subject as a Kenyan.

STill, although the Constitution has not been amended as it would need to be to change the eligibility requirement, the precedent has been set and this just might be ignored altogether.

There are a growing number of advocates of strict adherence to the Constitutional limits on Congressional powers. I know of two recent books which show how Supreme Court decisions have erroneously and egregiously chose to side with increase central government power beyond those powers granted and stated explicitly in Article 1 Section 8.

Henry Mark Holzer, Ayn Rand's attorney, wrote The American Constitution and Ayn Rand's "Inner Contradiction" and Richard Timberlake wrote Constitutional Money-A review of Supreme Court Monetary Decisions which was reviewed in a recent monthly publication of the Future of Freedom Foundation www.fff.org

The numbers of such advocates are members of two organizations which deserve our donations for our future freedom does depend on the success of their efforts. They both started in 2008 and both are allied with many familiar organizations within the individual freedom movement. Both are growing if not exponentially close to it and both have the potential to grow sufficiently to have a profound influence on the outcome of upcoming elections.

Students For Liberty www.studentsforliberty.org and Young Americans For Liberty www.YAL.org

They will both continue to exist and grow beyond the upcoming elections and their influence will grow with them for all future elections.

They are reading the right stuff including Ayn Rand's works as well as Austrian economics.

They are not top down organizations where you just send in money and let them do something with it. They are made up or student activists who are passionate about their own liberty and recruit others who value their own lives and freedom to the cause.

gg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard enough trying to convince Americans of the virtues of liberty yet Students for Liberty is trying to convince the whole world. Why waste time, money and effort on Nigerians when your own house is burning down?

Young Americans for Liberty is better than it used to be. (I corrected Gulch8's URL, which takes you to a website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese -- has Gulch8 gone Catholic?) When I checked this group last year they were promoting open immigration -- which was odd since they claim to be the continuation of Students for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul was/is opposed to amnesty and birthright citizenship (anchor babies). However it looks like they have more or less corrected themselves. The website now has at least one article opposing immigration as long as there is welfare in the U.S., like now.

It's stupid to bring in more and more socialist voters and expect a libertarian outcome. This is one theme of the latest article on ARI Watch:

Immigration Enthusiasts

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard enough trying to convince Americans of the virtues of liberty yet Students for Liberty is trying to convince the whole world. Why waste time, money and effort on Nigerians when your own house is burning down?

Young Americans for Liberty is better than it used to be. (I corrected Gulch8's URL, which takes you to a website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese -- has Gulch8 gone Catholic?) When I checked this group last year they were promoting open immigration -- which was odd since they claim to be the continuation of Students for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul was/is opposed to amnesty and birthright citizenship (anchor babies). However it looks like they have more or less corrected themselves. The website now has at least one article opposing immigration as long as there is welfare in the U.S., like now.

It's stupid to bring in more and more socialist voters and expect a libertarian outcome. This is one theme of the latest article on ARI Watch:

Immigration Enthusiasts

Yep.

I have always opposed the open borders segment of libertarianism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard enough trying to convince Americans of the virtues of liberty yet Students for Liberty is trying to convince the whole world. Why waste time, money and effort on Nigerians when your own house is burning down?

Young Americans for Liberty is better than it used to be. (I corrected Gulch8's URL, which takes you to a website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese -- has Gulch8 gone Catholic?) When I checked this group last year they were promoting open immigration -- which was odd since they claim to be the continuation of Students for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul was/is opposed to amnesty and birthright citizenship (anchor babies). However it looks like they have more or less corrected themselves. The website now has at least one article opposing immigration as long as there is welfare in the U.S., like now.

It's stupid to bring in more and more socialist voters and expect a libertarian outcome. This is one theme of the latest article on ARI Watch:

Immigration Enthusiasts

Wait a minute. Who the hell is the author of that article?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard enough trying to convince Americans of the virtues of liberty yet Students for Liberty is trying to convince the whole world. Why waste time, money and effort on Nigerians when your own house is burning down?

Young Americans for Liberty is better than it used to be. (I corrected Gulch8's URL, which takes you to a website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese -- has Gulch8 gone Catholic?) When I checked this group last year they were promoting open immigration -- which was odd since they claim to be the continuation of Students for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul was/is opposed to amnesty and birthright citizenship (anchor babies). However it looks like they have more or less corrected themselves. The website now has at least one article opposing immigration as long as there is welfare in the U.S., like now.

It's stupid to bring in more and more socialist voters and expect a libertarian outcome. This is one theme of the latest article on ARI Watch:

Immigration Enthusiasts

Yep.

I have always opposed the open borders segment of libertarianism.

Whoever the author, It seems sadly he is right: "The foreigners' dream is a socialist one".

Why do Binswanger and Brook stubbornly cling to open borders? is it in the mistaken (imo) belief that Rand would have supported them...today? When they must know that what she meant applied to a fully capitalist, individual rights affirming, minimally-governed country? From a distance it looks to me like it's social welfare that mostly attracts new immigrants . That is, there are still opportunities to be found in the US, but if all fails, always the safety net of State.

Which is simple pragmatism, far from embracing the sense of freedom and self-responsibility, as the US was traditionally and splendidly recognised. ARI is holding to the letter of Rand's words while sidestepping the present context, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just connected from the history of openings displayed on the Wikipedia page about "West Side Story" that the play first opened on Broadway in 1957, the year Atlas Shrugged was published. Both Atlas and the line I quoted above were prophetic.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever the author, It seems sadly he is right: "The foreigners' dream is a socialist one".

Why do Binswanger and Brook stubbornly cling to open borders? is it in the mistaken (imo) belief that Rand would have supported them...today? When they must know that what she meant applied to a fully capitalist, individual rights affirming, minimally-governed country? From a distance it looks to me like it's social welfare that mostly attracts new immigrants . That is, there are still opportunities to be found in the US, but if all fails, always the safety net of State.

Which is simple pragmatism, far from embracing the sense of freedom and self-responsibility, as the US was traditionally and splendidly recognised. ARI is holding to the letter of Rand's words while sidestepping the present context, I think.

But this is discrimination against people based on their political views. (Not to mention the article's thinly veiled racism).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever the author, It seems sadly he is right: "The foreigners' dream is a socialist one".

Why do Binswanger and Brook stubbornly cling to open borders? is it in the mistaken (imo) belief that Rand would have supported them...today? When they must know that what she meant applied to a fully capitalist, individual rights affirming, minimally-governed country? From a distance it looks to me like it's social welfare that mostly attracts new immigrants . That is, there are still opportunities to be found in the US, but if all fails, always the safety net of State.

Which is simple pragmatism, far from embracing the sense of freedom and self-responsibility, as the US was traditionally and splendidly recognised. ARI is holding to the letter of Rand's words while sidestepping the present context, I think.

But this is discrimination against people based on their political views. (Not to mention the article's thinly veiled racism).

Did you think it that? Rather, I saw it as opposing racism - that of the manipulation from the left of various races (their political views, uppermost).

Any collectivism is their's alone.

It is a particularly nasty ploy which usually silences opposition, to accuse of racism anyone who refuses to accept the 'guilt' of being born white.

As for "discrimination" against immigrants who's views are perhaps socialist, is it essential to bend over the other way and allow them special dispensation do you think? Is requiring credentials "discriminatory"?

Strict immigration policies are commonplace anywhere, today. I think this takes walking a fine line - observing principle, while not losing sight of the reality - until such time as personal freedom is stronger established - or regained - in the USA. Otherwise, it all becomes airy-fairy rationalism.

First things first, inside, out. Opening the door to all is not smart until one's house is in order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. Constitution, Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

end quote

Can Rafael Edward Cruz run for president if he was born in Canada or Marco Rubio if he was born in America but to person’s who were not citizens of the U.S? Senator Cruz’s birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. Rubio’s parents later became citizens.

Of course Obama’s father was foreign and a birth certificate was eventually “found” that says he was born in Honolulu. The precedent of Obama most likely would apply to Cruz and Rubio too.

From American Thinker:

To say that Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are forever barred because of a strained interpretation of the Constitution's eligibility clause would condemn conservatism to minority status for the foreseeable future.

end quote

I am not so sure about that but it might help to have a Hispanic as a Vice Presidential candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell wrote:

My favorites are Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker. I think they would all make excellent candidates.

end quote

All of those potential candidates seem worthy but it comes down to “who is most elect-able in the general election?” I may start following what Governor Scott Walker has to say. He can hold his own with any Democrat, as could Chris Christie, but without the abrasiveness, and Walker is not too “moderate” like Krispy Kreme Kristie. I think during his recent political bouts Walker stayed fairly calm and did not get burned out, but it still must have taken a toll on him. I think there would be a lot of support for Walker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you think it that? Rather, I saw it as opposing racism - that of the manipulation from the left of various races (their political views, uppermost).

Any collectivism is their's alone.

It is a particularly nasty ploy which usually silences opposition, to accuse of racism anyone who refuses to accept the 'guilt' of being born white.

As for "discrimination" against immigrants who's views are perhaps socialist, is it essential to bend over the other way and allow them special dispensation do you think? Is requiring credentials "discriminatory"?

Strict immigration policies are commonplace anywhere, today. I think this takes walking a fine line - observing principle, while not losing sight of the reality - until such time as personal freedom is stronger established - or regained - in the USA. Otherwise, it all becomes airy-fairy rationalism.

First things first, inside, out. Opening the door to all is not smart until one's house is in order.

Is respecting someone's right to live where they choose at all the same as "allowing special dispensation"? No.

Is a practice justified simply because it is commonplace? No.

Can you observe principle by ignoring it the second it becomes personally inconvenient? No.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you think it that? Rather, I saw it as opposing racism - that of the manipulation from the left of various races (their political views, uppermost).

Any collectivism is their's alone.

It is a particularly nasty ploy which usually silences opposition, to accuse of racism anyone who refuses to accept the 'guilt' of being born white.

As for "discrimination" against immigrants who's views are perhaps socialist, is it essential to bend over the other way and allow them special dispensation do you think? Is requiring credentials "discriminatory"?

Strict immigration policies are commonplace anywhere, today. I think this takes walking a fine line - observing principle, while not losing sight of the reality - until such time as personal freedom is stronger established - or regained - in the USA. Otherwise, it all becomes airy-fairy rationalism.

First things first, inside, out. Opening the door to all is not smart until one's house is in order.

Is respecting someone's right to live where they choose at all the same as "allowing special dispensation"? No.

Is a practice justified simply because it is commonplace? No.

Can you observe principle by ignoring it the second it becomes personally inconvenient? No.

Most principled of you too. To put it this way, holding to only this one principle: of freedom of access -- by potential immigrants; when other principles are not in place; in a political culture of altruism-collectivism, (indeed, "commonplace" all over) - is not a principle, it's self-sacrifice.

To me this is no longer 'principle' but an idealized abstraction, out of touch with other principles and reality. Principles are hierarchically dependent upon the major one, one's own freedom. But freeing the borders isn't a convenient shortcut to freedom. First things first.

As aside, am I correct that under law, emigrants from the US don't enjoy that same freedom of (financial)movement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most principled of you too. To put it this way, holding to only this one principle: of freedom of access -- by potential immigrants; when other principles are not in place; in a political culture of altruism-collectivism, (indeed, "commonplace" all over) - is not a principle, it's self-sacrifice.

To me this is no longer 'principle' but an idealized abstraction, out of touch with other principles and reality. Principles are hierarchically dependent upon the major one, one's own freedom. But freeing the borders isn't a convenient shortcut to freedom. First things first.

As aside, am I correct that under law, emigrants from the US don't enjoy that same freedom of (financial)movement?

What other principles? The only principle is the one that says that no one may initiate force against anyone else. You cannot observe that principle by doing the exact opposite of what it prescribes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most principled of you too. To put it this way, holding to only this one principle: of freedom of access -- by potential immigrants; when other principles are not in place; in a political culture of altruism-collectivism, (indeed, "commonplace" all over) - is not a principle, it's self-sacrifice.

To me this is no longer 'principle' but an idealized abstraction, out of touch with other principles and reality. Principles are hierarchically dependent upon the major one, one's own freedom. But freeing the borders isn't a convenient shortcut to freedom. First things first.

As aside, am I correct that under law, emigrants from the US don't enjoy that same freedom of (financial)movement?

What other principles? The only principle is the one that says that no one may initiate force against anyone else. You cannot observe that principle by doing the exact opposite of what it prescribes.

Huh? You let everyone who demands it into your house? Because of NIOF, the "only principle"?

Try The Virtue of Selfishness for principles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? You let everyone who demands it into your house? Because of NIOF, the "only principle"?

Try The Virtue of Selfishness for principles.

You're equivocating. The government does not rightly own the whole country in the same way that I rightly own my house. The two situations are completely different.

And what principles, exactly, are you talking about? Nothing derived from the principle of the non-initiation of force can contradict it, obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ms. n:

Do you own your own body?

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The government does not rightly own the whole country in the same way that I rightly own my house. The two situations are completely different.

Naomi,

I agree,

I do not have a massive structure of armed forces and law enforcement organizations manned by people who have sworn allegiance to me to make sure nobody invades it but people I approve of.

In practical terms, the government owns the whole country much more effectively than I could ever own my house.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now