Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Voting Libertarian

A thread below talks about a possible "President Lieberman". Many people in the thread express that they will vote Libertarian even if it means a Democrat president. Well, I believe this is very dangerous for some of the following reasons.

First, I will not try to deny that Bush has done tremendous, perhaps irreparable damage to the Constitution and our civil liberties since 9/11. Like nearly everyone on this board I am very concerned and upset by his actions and the subsequent results. Like many in the thread, I too believe that we might have been better off with Gore as president because the conservatives would have raised cane. And finally, I agree with just about everyone that there is almost no difference between the two major parties.

However, unlike many of you I am not ready to vote Libertarian, consequences be damned. First, unlike many of you, I believe that Bush and most of his cronies are good people and in their minds at least, are not seeking to institute tyranny or a police state. Yes I know great harm has been done and some of the greatest harm has always been done with good intentions. Many of you will wonder what does it matter what his intentions are. I will answer you in that I believe Bush will not lie to create a situation where it is easier to take our liberties. An example is with the proposed war on Iraq. Bush is hot for this war obviously. He is facing increasing opposition among the public. The easiest way to get everyone on board would be to present evidence that there was a direct link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. Yet he has not. Many of you will say so, there must not be any such evidence. Well in answer to that, I will ask if anyone seriously believes Bill Clinton or any democrat for that matter would fabricated some evidence by now? Do you all remember the baby milk factory we bombed? I say as long as a man will not lie to get something he very obviously wants very badly, then my civil liberties are safer with him than someone who would. Many if not most of the Dems are not good people and are only concerned with power.

Secondly, the damage has been done. The laws are in place and until we can repeal them (unlikely anytime soon) we have to live under them. I believe that the Republicans and the Bushites come closer to thinking the way most people on this board do. That is to say, that for the time being people expressing views commonly held on this board are generally safe from excessive government intrusion and tyranny. The democrats and especially Hillary Clinton do not share this way of thinking. Who do you think they will focus many of their efforts on if they come to power again? With that said, what group of people do you want in power with the authority to enforce these laws? George Bush or Hillary Clinton. Who is more likely to exercise restraint, tell the truth, and try to preserve the semblance of the Republic? To his great shame, GW has laid the foundation that Hillary and the democrats will eventually use to build a great house of repression and tyranny. I believe it is our task to put off this awful day as long as possible. I fear that if a democrat is elected because of Libertarions voting for a third party, we will have hastened the inevitable and cut our own throats. A domestic terrorist incident could be used to declare open season on those of us who express views common on this board by someone as unscrupulous as Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps (I am hopeful) in the not too distant future the Liberarians will become a viable option with a real chance of winning. Until then I will continue to choose the lesser of two evils. I do not look forward to the possibilities if certain people come into office with more power than ever at their fingertips.

I think you meant to say "aspirin factory," not "baby milk factory." It was Bush the elder who bombed the "baby milk factory," which was actually not a baby milk factory, but a weapons plant with an sign in English that read "baby milk factory." Do our factories have signs written in Arabic?

The problem with the Bush aniti-terrorism legislation is that they lay low all of our protections against a tyrannical government. It doesn't matter if Bush doesnt plan to use them this way. Once the laws that protect us are levelled to the ground, what will stand in the way of future tyranny. What Bush did was unforgivable, and he does not deserve a second chance. Just wait and see if he lets the high cap magazine law die on schedule, or if he signs it back into law. That will be the test of his intentions as far as I'm concerned.

Whatever the factory was in the Sudan, that is what I meant.

It seems you missed the whole point of my post. Yes, Bush has laid the groundwork and it is unforgivable. Yet, given that the fact the groundwork has been laid, will you help vote Hillary Clinton or some other far-left democrat into power to build upon that groundwork? Put aside your personal anger at Bush and consider the alternative. Trust me, Hillary or some other democrat will not be good for people who hold the "wrong" views. If there was a viable third candidate with a chance of winning, I would agree and vote against Bush. However, there is not and I will take a minor demon over Satan anyday.

Well, you casts your vote and you takes your chances. I wish you well, but I wouldn't risk much on your chances.

No matter whom you vote for, the government always wins.

Libertarian- Your trying to be logical with some people who fear the US government more than they fear ragheaded terrorists and countries that suppport and harbour ragheaded terrorists. There kind of kooky to say the least, they don't understand what Bush said when he said your either with us, or your against us. I agree with you Libertarian....

Tee - I actually fear the government a whole lot more than I fear terrorist. I figure the only way a terrorist will ever have a substantial impact on my life is through repressive regulations inacted by an over-reacting government. However, you are right in that I am trying to be logical. Republicans are generally in favor of gun rights, Democrats are not. Republicans are generally for lower taxes, Democrats are not. Republicans, for all their vices, seem to more often be people like me and others I know and seem to be ethical (as ethical as a politician can be). Democrats are not like me and seem to be only concerned with power. Until there is a viable alternative, I will support Republicans for these reasons. I will not cut of my nose to spite my face in a fit of anger (no matter how justified) by wasting a vote and ushering in democrat tyranny. If someone were to make the point that by voting against the Republicans, we could wake them up and make them more responsive to our needs, I might agree. However, I feel that the next time the democrats get power, they may keep it, forever!

Barak - You are mostly correct and I am not that optimistic. As you will note in my first post, I used the word inevitable when I talked about government tyranny. I feel we are probably only fighting a delaying action.

No. But I won't have to; someone else will.

The Republicans have no claim over my vote. No one does, except my own conscience.

You say a vote for a third party is a vote for a Democrat?

Well, I say a vote for a Republican or a Democrat is a vote for bigger government and less liberty.

And I won't cast that vote. I'll leave it to you to do that.

Maybe you just have to cast one more Republican vote before you "get it." I had to cast one more vote for Bob Dole in '96 before I "got it." I'm not glad that Clinton won, but I am glad that Dole lost, because he deserved to lose. After this performance (and even before it), so does Bush.

Barak - Oh I get it all right, but you don't get the meaning of my post. I fully understand that neither the Republicans or the Democrats are going to do anything to make government smaller. I know that will both probably (Dems definately) enlarge it.

My point is that there is not a viable option right now. And By God! the Democrats are evil. The Republicans are less evil. If you choose to give the greater evil a chance because the Republicans don't "deserve" to win, then you deserve whatever happens to you. Trouble is, it will happen to me as well.

Right now, is perhaps the most critical time in our nation's history. If certain people come into power right now, with the powers that are in place, then we may make the final slip into the pit. If we can delay the slide for a while, then maybe, in time, we can claw our way from the precipice. Democrats will take us over the edge. Republicans might, but Democrats will. No third party is going to win in the next election. A vote for a third party is a vote for the opposition.

Do not misunderstand me, I do not like Republicans and will vote against them when feasible. However, it is not feasible right now. You seem to be under the potentially misguided assumption that there will be other meaningful elections and that we can vote whomever we want in and out of power. That may not be so. The Dems are very close to creating a majority out of non-tax paying sheep who are voters. If that happens, they will never have to give up control and we are finished. Bush will not target you for extinction and/or come after you guns. Hillary will. Think it can't happen here?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "If Hillary Clinton (and Democrats in general) were to invade Hell, I would at least have to put in a favorable word for the devil".

I am not afraid of ragheaded terrorists, I AM afraid of what can happen to our freedom in the name of fighting them however. They don't stand a chance of destroying this nation, draconian measures to combat a "potential" threat can and will. Starting a war with Iraq will do more harm to this nation than ALL the good we have done in the last 100 years! Don't matter if Saddam is dirty or not, he and the Irqui's will be seen as the poor downtrodden martyr's to the big capitalistic power pushing demon.

TLee, I was getting ready to post. No need now. You said it for me.
Thank you.

red

We aren't going to be any stronger any time in the forseeable future. The government will be, you can bet. If tyranny is inevitable, we only hurt ourselves by fighting a delaying action. Better to go down swinging while we still have some chance, rather than wait for the gas chambers.

The only way to get this mess straightened out, is to vote for someone who will support the constitution. I "thought" G.W. was the guy, but I was wrong. At this point, I don't believe any republican is the guy.

Maybe if enough of us libertarian gun owners swing to a third party, the repubs will wake up.That's the only way I can see, unless you think it's time to bear arms instead of keep them.
7mm

7mm Good point. Winners have no reason to reform. Only losers reform.

Maybe someday the republicans will reform. Would you vote for a Republican if they said the following below? I think many of us would vote for a candidate that would say something like this and be sincere, regardless of the party label. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a republican to say anything like this now.
--------------------------------
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Barry Goldwater
--------------------------------
Bush2nd wants to make our government more efficient.

red

Thank God we don't have all of the government we've been paying for already.

Barak,

This reply is not and attempt to convince you. I don't think that can be done.

But we had a very liberal antigun legislator elected to represent part of Indiana in the Congress. The difference was 30 votes. The turd party
candidate got 200 or so votes. Had these votes been cast for our progun Republican we would have one more progunner in Congress.

Of course others would rather cut their nose off to spite their faces. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

IMHO

Most of you don't get the point. I to would like to wake up the Republicans by voting against them. However, I am telling you that the next time the democrats get power they will take steps to make sure they keep it, for a long time or maybe, forever. By voting for a third party that has no chance of winning, you will have helped to make this happen. And if some of you don't care if this happens and are ready to take up arms, don't kid yourself. It won't do much good. When tyranny finally makes an open and unabashed entrance on the scene, it will be here for a long time. The best bet for us in our lifetimes (and the lifetimes of our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren) is to seek to delay the inevitable for a while longer.

Face it, the battle is already lost. We live in a country today that is 10 times more oppressive than the situtation faced during the Revolution or The War of Northern Aggression, yet most people see nothing wrong with it. If you were to resist violently, your neighbors would see you as some sort of monster and look on complacently as you were bundled up and taken to jail. Or worse, they might help to make it happen. American tyranny will never take on the brutal character of the old Soviets or other regimes. No, it will be more subtle and easier for the average guy to justify. The point is, it is always easier and better to try and keep something from happening than to try and change it once it has.

The Democrats will take us there. The Republicans might, but more slowly. Delay, delay, delay and maybe we can eventually stop it and maybe, just maybe turn it around. But if it gets here, then it will be here for a long time. It's crazy to go down fighting until you have used every other possible avenue to achieve your goal.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!! Deputy Norm

No offense, but you parrot the party line about as well as anyone I've ever encountered. As a matter of fact, you parrot it even better than I did when I was a Republican. If I hadn't been there myself, I'd think you were reading it from a book.

The Democrats are not evil, they're statist. Some Democrats, I believe, are evil--such as Charles Schumer and Maxine Waters. But Democrats as a whole are simply misled, not evil. They look around at all the suffering in the world, and their heart burns within them. Is that an evil thing? There are only two misconceptions at the root of their mindset: one is that charity can alleviate the suffering, and the other is that the government can be charitable.

The Republicans, I think, are closer to being evil than the Democrats, but even the Republicans don't quite make it past mere statism to true evil. The Republicans look around at the same suffering and see evil deeds being done by evil people (that's why you, a Republican, think Democrats are evil, by the way), and believe that they can apply the power of government, as a father applies a razor strop, to discipline all the evil people into changing their morality and becoming good people.

The Democrats are wrong in two ways. Unless charity is very carefully applied, on a case-by-case basis, and closely supervised, preferably by someone who has a stake in its success, it will merely encourage malingering and laziness and persuade its recipients that they are entitled to it. Furthermore, government by definition is incapable of charity, because it cannot give anything that it has not first extorted by force.

The Republicans are gravely wrong in their belief that law reinforces morality. On the contrary, law destroys morality. Morality involves making a free-will choice to conform to a moral standard, quite often to one's own immediate detriment. Law, on the other hand, involves compulsory action in one's own self-interest to avoid one's own detriment. Once a moral behavior has been mandated by law, its moral aspect has been corroded, and the subjects of that law have been reduced from the status of human beings making autonomous moral choices to animals that are punished if they chew up the houseplants and rewarded if they sit up and beg.

Neither party is evil, but they're both dangerously wrong, and have both long ago lost any understanding of the concept of liberty.

However, it seems clear to me that right now the Republicans, while not evil themselves, are committing acts that are more evil than anything the Democrats have done recently. Therefore, the lesser-of-two-evils argument that has been a standard refrain from the anti-third-party Republicans for so many years is becoming a little more than just stale: it's getting positively humorous.


Again--very, very standard. It's always the most critical time in our nation's history. We're always teetering on the very cusp of the Precipice. The argument is unpersuasive. If it were true, then one party would be trying to pull us north and the other party would be trying to pull us south. Instead, both parties are pulling us almost straight south, with one party hedging a little toward the east and the other a little toward the west.

The fact is that there's no precipice and no cusp, just a hill of gradually-increasing steepness. We've been past the summit of that hill for a long, long time. Abraham Lincoln, the Great Patriarch of the Republican Party, was probably the first American President to tear off a big corner of the Constitution to use for toilet paper. You could argue that the piece Bush has torn off wasn't as big, but then there was a whole lot more of it left to tear off in Lincoln's day.


More absolutely standard rhetoric. "It took us more than two hundred years to get here; we can't get back in a single election."

One: Elections have nothing to do with it. The only people who are ever elected are politicians, and politicians as a class are scum-sucking lowlife. They can be depended on only to act in their own short-term self-interest, regardless of their party affiliation. Whether the people are free or not depends on the people, not the government. The government (any government) cannot oppress the people past what the people are willing to bear, because there's a whole lot more people than there is government, and once the people judge the oppression to have become a matter of life and death, the government will be hanging from streetlamps all over the country. To get its liberty back, a people must only arrange for it to be in the politicians' best interest to respect that liberty.

Two: If and when America takes back its liberty, it will not be a slow process: it'll be a quick one. The reason it has taken us so long to lose our liberty is that liberty is a very attractive thing, and people object if you take it away from them in large doses: so you have to take it a tiny bit at a time to keep them from hanging you from a streetlamp. It's a long, drawn-out process. But once people begin to understand what liberty is, that it was bequeathed to them through the blood of their ancestors, and that it has been unjustly stolen from them by the government, why in the name of common sense would they want to take it back a little at a time over the course of decades? They'll take it back just as quickly as they can get it, and their politicians will be running scared, each falling over himself to give it back quicker than the next, lest he be the next government program to be cut.

Three: In all respects, delay works against us, not for us. With every day that passes, more people who remember what life was like under a smaller government die. More "young skulls full of mush" are indoctrinated into socialism in the government schools. More people become dependent on the government for their survival. The government applies more and higher technology to the enslavement of the people. Tax rates rise, providing more money and personnel for the government to enslave us, and requiring us to work harder and longer hours, leaving us less time to consider our enslavement. The Bill of Rights sinks further and further into the muck, leaving us less and less breathing space. The longer it takes us to decide we want our liberty back, the bloodier the process of getting it back will be.

Four: In view of Point Three above, I believe it would actually be beneficial if we could arrange to radically increase the amount of government oppression before the memory of liberty is completely gone; we might persuade the government to overreach itself and honk the people off enough to slap it down. Therefore, even though the argument "a vote for a third party is a vote for the opposition" resoundingly fails to impress me, even if it did, it'd be an argument for voting third-party, rather than against it.


Okay--first, neither Bush nor Hillary is going to come for my guns. Yes, I think it can happen here: as a matter of fact, I think it will happen here. But the time isn't right yet, and it won't be right for quite awhile: Hillary will have had her two terms already by the time it is. Before the confiscations can start, the guns to be confiscated will have to be outlawed. In order for guns to be successfully outlawed, the general public will have to be convinced that gun owners are scum. And you can't convince the general public that gun owners are scum when 30% of the general public are gun owners. The gun culture will have to be eroded for a couple more generations first. It'll happen, but it can't happen now. (Yes, I know California outlawed SKS Sporters and threatened to confiscate them, but perhaps you've noticed that they didn't actually do any house-to-house confiscations. I wouldn't either: it'd be dangerous, even in California.)

Second, speaking of targeting for extinction, who was it who invented the doctrine of arresting Americans without charging them, refusing them counsel, and holding them in secret for months and months without trial? Was that Hillary? Was that a Democrat? No, that was Bush. The argument is standard, I understand, but the standard needs to change. Portraying the Democrats as a brood of vipers may have worked for years, but today Bush walketh about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, and lesser-of-two-evils arguments just don't work anymore.

Convince me of what? That I'd rather vote for a statist Republican who might win than a libertarian who will lose but who might make the statist lose as well? I guess you're right.


Am I to assume the third party was libertarian?

In that case, everything worked as it should have. I don't know why the Republican wasn't acceptable to the libertarians, but whatever it was, you can bet that next election the Republican Party isn't going to try the same guy on the same platform. Being the Stupid Party, they might move to the left, figuring that they'll pick up more than half the number of votes they lose (they only need half, if each vote they get is taken from the Democrat). In that case, the libertarians were right not to vote for such a treacherous party. But if they're a little smarter than Republican honchos in general have shown themselves to be recently, they'll figure out exactly why those libertarians sank their guy last time, and next time they'll find somebody who gives the libertarians what they want without honking off the Republicans as well.

What's wrong with that?

Barak, bravo! You are the Thomas Paine of this website. To summarize, I agree with everything you said. Isn't it amazing that the Republicans never seem to learn their lesson? When they lose with a moderate, they don't seem to get the point that all they have to do is put up a true conservative and they will win by a landslide. It happens whenever the public perceive the Republican candidate to be a true conservative. A landslide win. All you hear after a republican defeat is how we need a more "centrist" candidate. Absurd! The reason, I think, is that the Republican party is controlled by statist establishment people, whose goal is a one world socialist existance, where the Constitution is placed lower in authority than U.N. legislation. It cannot be an accident that things are constantly heading in this direction, regardless of the will of the people being opposed to it.

Barak- First of all let me say, I am not a Republican and I agree with much of what you say. I read some of your earlier post on other threads and I would say that I agree with 85% or more of what you say. However, I believe you labor under some misconceptions and although I am sure I will not change your mind I enjoy the conversation and will address some things in your last post.

.

While most Democrats themselves are not evil, their philosophy is morally bankrupt and evil. Democrats today in this country always believe they occupy the moral high ground. On the basis of this belief they feel that they are working for the ultimate good. Therefore, they believe that whatever they have to do, it is justified because they intend to do good. The end justifies the means so to speak. That philosophy is the epitomy of evil. It is the same philosophy that allowed ordinary Germans to become guards at concentration camps and allowed ordinary Russians to become ardent Communists. After all the current task may be unpleasant or perhaps wrong, but if it brings the greater good, then so be it. This philosophy is the scourge of mankind and must be put to rest. By the way, I saw in one of your earlier post in another thread where you adopted a similiar position for fighting the government. It is wrong. Democrats have demonstrated time after time that they can forgive any transgression as long as it serves their ultimate end. To date Republicans have been less willing to go to those extremes.



Partially true, however in any steady slide there is a point where it is impossible to go back. If we haven't reached that point yet, we are dangerously close and therefore, we are on the cusp of not being able to return.



You're right, it will be a quick process. However, it will be after you, me, and our great-grandchildren are long dead and gone. I'm not really interested in waiting that long.



Wrong again. There is no one alive today who remembers what is was like to be truly free. All liberty in this country was destroyed the minute one American picked up a gun and made another American stay a part of this Union against his will. That was nearly 150 years ago. If that wasn't enough, by the 1930s the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Government could prohibit a man from growing corn in his garden because he then would not have to buy corn and that it would thusly, affect interstate commerce. You are not free if someone can do that to you.



Probably true, however, Hillary will begin the process to make that eventually possible. Bush will probably not.




Actually, neither one of them invented that tactic. It has been used to squelch dissent in every war since The War of Northern Aggression.


So, in conclusion, my point is that liberty is already lost. Therefore, who is to be oppressed most. Well, with the Republicans as it stands now, I and people like me are much less likely to be oppressed as much. Maybe in time, we can work to reverse some of the damage that has been done. With the Democrats in power, people like us will be the first targets. It would be politically incorrect to oppress anyone else. Liberty is gone. Quit pretending that even a shread of it still exists and be a pragmatist. Property rights are the root and foundation of all liberty. They are abrogated when the government has the power to tax you and take that property away if you don't comply. True, Bush has laid the foundation for some serious tyranny. I prefer to see it aimed mostly at someone else as opposed to me. If there was even the most remote possibility of going back to the old Republic, I would do whatever it takes to get there. However, it is not going to happen anytime soon. Republicans are more like us than the Democrats who believe guns and all who own them are evil. Therefore, until I can see a better way, I will side with the Republicans on most issues.

Cool.


Of course, the philosophy of the Republicans, that morality can be compelled by law, is also bankrupt and evil.

But while it's comforting and cathartic to argue that Democrats believe the end justifies whatever means are necessary to achieve it, it's just not true, and it's not productive--except to get you kudos from fellow Republicans. I'm not sure what sort of circles you run in, but I'm a member of a Messianic Jewish congregation, and I consort (and argue) with a lot of Democrats--Jewish Democrats, even. It's absolutely false that they would use a good end to justify any means imaginable; but since they don't understand what liberty is, they don't see anything wrong with raising taxes just a little bit to provide food and housing for starving, freezing children, or passing just one more "reasonable, common-sense" gun control law in order to keep those same children from being murdered in the street. The rallying call of the Democrat is not, "Any means to the end!" but "It's such a small price to pay!" And they mean it. They're wrong, of course, but they still mean it.

The problem I have with your viewpoint is that you see the Democrats as enemies. I did too, for a long time, because I had been conditioned to do so by the Republicans. But that's wrong, because the insignificant little details that the Republicans and Democrats spend all their time squabbling over pale to nothing compared to the one towering issue that neither of them can comprehend--liberty. You have to look at both Republicans and Democrats as misguided potential allies. Study until you understand what the Democrats really want, as opposed to what the Republicans have been telling you they want all these years in order to scare you into voting Republican, and then keep studying until you understand how Democrats could get what they wanted if government would simply step out of the way.

Hmm. Can you be more specific? I don't remember it yet.


I disagree. I think you can always go back. The question is not whether we'll be enslaved to the government forever (define forever!), but how many people will have to die for us to break out of our slavery. In another hundred years, it'll probably require a horrible, violent nationwide revolution--possibly several of them, as we'd have no guarantee that the first one (or the second) would usher in anything other than a dictatorship of thug strongmen. Two hundred years ago, it could have been as easy as one legislator saying to another one, "Ahh, better leave out the part after that comma--it's unconstitutional." If it were to happen right now, today, I'd say that the best we could hope for would be three or four bloody battles between the US armed forces and the National Guards and unorganized militias of several states, followed by a huge public outcry probably involving rioting in the streets and a certain amount of brutality from and then toward police.


Well, to quote Inigo Montoya, there we can no help you. It's pointless to give liberty to people who don't understand it: they'll either abuse it or reject it. Before they can make use of it, they must be worthy of it; and they're worthy of it when they're willing to stand up and take it. (Which means you don't have to bother about giving it to them at all, which is nice.) We will be a nation of slaves in ever deeper bondage until enough of us decide to do what it takes to be slaves no longer--and that'll take as long as it takes.

To be even more politically incorrect, I suspect that if someone were to step in from outside and free us before we're ready to free ourselves, as was done to our slaves in the nineteenth century, we would eventually find ourselves back in exactly the same sort of bondage to hucksters and charlatans that black Americans in large numbers now find themselves in to what JC Watts called "the race-baiting poverty pimps."

So we wait. Prepare and educate in the meantime, of course, but wait.


Yes and no. People who can describe true freedom would be great, but somebody who can describe what it was like to take his 22LR rifle to school in the morning so that he could shoot a squirrel or rabbit on the way home--somebody like that is a big plus.

Unfortunately, liberty is continuous, not discrete. It might be better if, as you describe, all liberty of all Americans could be instantly removed by a single small act of government: because if it were, we'd simply rise up and take it back, and we'd then have all of it back. But the very reason that we have been so successfully enslaved is that liberty can be taken in very small amounts that are almost imperceptible to begin with, and can be made completely imperceptible by artful distractions such as, "Look over here! A shall-issue carry law will let you carry concealed weapons!" or "Look over there! School vouchers will let you send your children to private schools!" When you look back, you find that the government has managed to accomplish firearms registration and control of the private schools while you were looking away; but by then it's too late.


Aw, c'mon--you know as well as I do that that process was begun at the very latest in 1934.


See?


To quote Miracle Max, "Look who knows so much! It happens that your friend here is only mostly dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. With all dead there's usually only one thing you can do."

And you should save your breath cajoling me to be a pragmatist. I'm a libertarian: libertarians are well known the world over for not being pragmatic. Libertarians do what's right, not what works.

(I won't address the dissonance between the fact that you call yourself a libertarian and the fact that you acknowledge that while Republicans and Democrats are both thugs, you just want your thugs in power instead of the other guy's thugs. I'll assume you're just having a bad day.)