Jonah Goldberg recently wrote an excellent article over at National Review Online:

In a much-discussed essay for Salon, Michael Lind asks: “If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?”

Such is the philosophical poverty of liberalism today that this stands as a profound question.

Definitions vary, but broadly speaking, libertarianism is the idea that people should be as free as possible from state coercion so long as they don’t harm anyone. The job of the state is limited to fighting crime, providing for the common defense, and protecting the rights and contracts of citizens. The individual is sovereign; he is the captain of himself.

It’s true, no ideal libertarian state has ever existed outside a table for one. And no such state will ever exist. But here’s an important caveat: No ideal state of any other kind will be created either. America’s great, but it ain’t perfect. Sweden’s social democracy is all right, but if it were perfect, I suspect fewer cars would be on fire over there.

Ideals are called ideals for a reason: They’re ideals. They’re goals, aspirations, abstract straight rules we use as measuring sticks against the crooked timber of humanity.

Goldberg goes on to say that the progressive movement is only moving America towards the tried, failed and archaic system of statism, wherein our lives are largely dictated by leaders who are purported to know what’s best for all of us. Been there, done that, throughout history and it has never turned out well. How liberals and democrats can cite this as “progress” is beyond me.

I increasingly find myself on the libertarian side of the political equation, having been disappointed with the “conservative” movement far too many times. The less of an authoritarian figure that is in my life, the much better off I am – and that is both from a political and personal standpoint. I would much rather fail on my own, than succeed as a result of someone else’s decisions. Sadly I believe we have abandoned that ideal as a country and now far too many of Americans would prefer to be “employed” and work and live at the direction of someone else, rather than take a risk and seek their own path. The other day one of our resident progressives asked what did “conservatives have to offer”, which I found to be extremely disheartening. Too many people have simply lost sight of the spiritual and professional fulfillment that complete liberty can bring. When you are left to your own, failure is a given, but so is the potential abundance of spiritual awareness and financial rewards. You never really know who you truly are, until you have only yourself to rely on and I wish more people would take the leap to experience that.

Happy Father’s Day y’all!!

85 thoughts on “Libertarianism

  1. Retired Spook June 15, 2013 / 11:48 am

    How liberals and democrats can cite this as “progress” is beyond me.

    Getting a Progressive to explain what it is that Progressivism is progressing toward is a virtually impossible task. And yet, all you have to do is look at the underlying paradigm behind the Progressive movement, which is that, just the opposite of the 10th Amendment, the federal government can do anything that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. That pretty much opens up a Pandora’s Box of options, and they’ve gotten away with it for over a century. Sooner or later someone is going to say “enough” and stand and fight when, for example, the EPA says, “you can’t build a house on YOUR property because there’s a wet spot on it.” And when someone finally breaks the ice and fights back with every fiber of their being, the dam is going to burst, and, when that happens, I wouldn’t want to be a government agent.

    Somewhat off topic, but from Rush Limbaugh, via The Blaze, the reason the GOP leadership wants to pass the Immigration bill. Great comments after the article lead me to believe there may still be hope.

  2. Amazona June 15, 2013 / 9:16 pm

    I get Goldberg’s NRO articles and he does make some very good points. He is very whimsical, in a kind of Dave Barry way, and then hits on something very serious.

    I don’t define “conservative” in any but strictly political terms, as I think one can be politically conservative without sharing all of the social values that so many conservatives want to use to narrowly redefine the movement. I know, there is much gnashing of teeth and name-calling and “moral” posturing when someone says something like this, a lot of pious declarations of not being ashamed of ones’ beliefs, etc.

    To which I say, get over yourselves. I am not ashamed of my beliefs, either. I just think that when we vote for our elected officials we ought to vote based on how they will govern, not on where they stand on certain cherished “issues”, and certainly not disqualified for failing to meet absolute and arbitrary criteria that have nothing to do with political ideology.

    So when I shove the “issues” out of the way—what conservatives simply rebrand as “values”—and look at government philosophy, I am not only a libertarian, I think real conservatism is libertarian. It’s hard to find a more libertarian document than the original Constitution and its early amendments, before people started mucking it up with social issues and revenue schemes.

    • Cluster June 15, 2013 / 10:26 pm

      I am afraid that too many conservatives today are simply advocates of a smaller version of the massive federal authority we already have in place and that I can’t support. Paul Ryan’s budget even calls for increases in federal spending over the next, only at a slower clip. AZ Senators McCain and Flake are career politicians who campaign on conservative rhetoric when they have to, only to quickly join the DC cocktail circuit and seek “compromise” when elected. We are being governed by an oligarchy, conservative and liberal – a line of which is being blurred by the day.

    • 01canadianobserver June 16, 2013 / 7:24 am

      “I am not only a libertarian, I think real conservatism is libertarian”…Amazona

      Amazona, as Constitutional Conservative who embraces Libertarian doctrine, what is your stand regarding the Non-Aggression Axiom and do you think the original Constitution and its early amendments reflect this principle?

      • Amazona June 16, 2013 / 9:56 am

        Hmmmm—-I see an effort at a Gotcha! lurking in this question.

        First, I stated that I see libertarianism and conservatism as much the same, in that they both advocate personal liberty without government interference beyond that necessary to protect the citizenry. Is this absolute? Of course not. I am quite sure that you can, and are eager to, provide all sorts of examples where government is necessary but not for the specific protection of the people.

        Fine. This is what you people do. You do not, and evidently cannot, explain your own political philosophy, but you want to see yourselves as political intellectuals, so you obsess about poking holes in the political philosophy of those who can.

        Here you start by misstating my comment. I never said I “embrace Libertarian doctrine”. As a concept, I find libertarianism to be quite consistent with 21st Century Constitutional Conservatism, and I think this concept is quite evident in our Constitution. It’s not as if we have not seen this before. In fact, a staple of all Leftist discourse is the distortion of what the other person has said.

        If you want to talk politics with me, you had better start off with explaining your own—not only what your personal political philosophy is, but how you defend it. I know you will not do this, as no other Lefty but “James” has even tried to define his or her Leftist political leanings and even he could not or would not try to defend his position by pointing out examples of its successes on any level (economic progress or personal liberty to name two) . But I no longer joust with people who don’t have enough knowledge of their own position to engage in comparisons of it and another political model. I find it tiresome and a waste of time—-a description I find applicable to you, as well, as you have never done anything but try to play this silly game when you have come on this blog.

      • neocon01 June 16, 2013 / 10:10 am

        please go back and re read Glen Becks book “arguing with idiots”. There is a whole chapter there defining you.

      • neocon01 June 16, 2013 / 10:14 am

        KanucK unobserver

        Again, what is a REAL REPUBLICAN? (conservative)
        1. A REAL REPUBLICAN is a person who holds to the self-evident truth that our rights, including our rights to life, liberty, and property, come from God, not from any man, and that those intrinsic rights are therefore UNALIENABLE.

        2. A REAL REPUBLICAN understands that we are all EQUAL BEFORE GOD, and that all persons, from creation until natural death, must therefore be considered EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW.

        3. A REAL REPUBLICAN understands that the primary purpose for the existence of all human government is TO DEFEND THE GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.

        4. A REAL REPUBLICAN seeks to preserve and perfect our national UNION.

        5. A REAL REPUBLICAN seeks to establish JUSTICE for every individual person, in the protection of their God-given rights.

        6. A REAL REPUBLICAN seeks the TRANQUILITY of our nation, and seeks to defend all innocent persons, from creation until natural death, from any and all violence that might be committed against them.

        7. A REAL REPUBLICAN supports the common DEFENSE of our entire nation, its territory, its sovereignty, and of every individual innocent person in it.

        8. A REAL REPUBLICAN supports policies that are intended to serve the general WELFARE or WELL-BEING of the entire country, not line the pockets of favored individuals, groups, or factions.


      • 01canadianobserver June 16, 2013 / 11:51 am

        Amazona, I belong to the Liberal Party of Canada which is our oldest federal political party. I fully support its policies and legislative accomplishments. I have no need nor intention to justify my political beliefs to you or to anyone else. I find your incessant demand for folks to defend their political philosophy rather bizarre. You seem to resort to this distraction whenever you are posed with a question you would rather not address.

      • Retired Spook June 16, 2013 / 12:40 pm

        I find your incessant demand for folks to defend their political philosophy rather bizarre.

        It’s a political blog. Why is it so bizarre so expect people with whom we disagree to defend their POV? And, if you can’t or won’t defend your POV, why do you come here?

        I have no need nor intention to justify my political beliefs to you or to anyone else.

        CO, I could be wrong, but I don’t think Amazona is asking you to justify your beliefs, just explain what it is that has drawn you to them. Maybe that’s a distinction without a difference, but it’s something you have frequently asked of Conservatives on this blog over the years, and we have all accommodated you without hesitation. Unless you can reciprocate at some point, you have really worn out your welcome here.

      • 01canadianobserver June 16, 2013 / 12:57 pm

        “CO, I could be wrong, but I don’t think Amazona is asking you to justify your beliefs, just explain what it is that has drawn you to them”…Retired Spook.
        If Amazona is just asking me to explain why I was drawn to them, Spook, that is very easy to answer. Of all the political parties, it was the Liberals who most represented the social policies I wanted to see implemented.

      • Retired Spook June 16, 2013 / 1:01 pm

        Of all the political parties, it was the Liberals who most represented the social policies I wanted to see implemented.

        See, CO, that really wasn’t so difficult, was it? What about economic and fiscal policies — would you also describe yourself as a Liberal WRT those?

      • 01canadianobserver June 16, 2013 / 1:52 pm

        The Liberal Party was responsible for restoring balanced budgets in the 1990’s so I guess I’m fine with that. What does WRT mean?

      • Retired Spook June 16, 2013 / 2:29 pm

        What does WRT mean?

        With regard to

      • Retired Spook June 16, 2013 / 2:36 pm


        Would you say that this is a fair representation of what you’re talking about?

      • Amazona June 16, 2013 / 4:46 pm

        CO, can it be that you simply do not understand why I ask this question? Why else would it bother you so much?

        You say “Of all the political parties, it was the Liberals who most represented the social policies I wanted to see implemented.” Well, OK, that is a start. You like the idea of certain things being done and you think it is the job of government to do them, so you prefer a government that will implement the things you find important. Is that a fair summary?

        I am going to proceed as if it is, to get things rolling.

        Let’s start off by acknowledging how hard it is to discuss politics when people are from different countries, with different political parties, constitutions, etc. So, as you have chosen to come to a blog in the United States, about US politics, let’s start here.

        We have a Constitution which is based on the principle of extremely limited federal government. Like it or not, that’s the way it is. That was the stated intent of the Founders, that is the way our Constitution was written, and that is the way the country was governed for a little more than its first century.

        Our Constitution was open to the reality that a nation would need much more in the way of regulation, etc. as it grew, and this was incorporated into the document by making it clear that if something is not prohibited to the nation at large, through the Constitution, and not delegated to the federal government within the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the states, or the People.

        But the size, scope and power of the federal government was severely restricted, on purpose.

        Your nation was quite happy with its monarchy, and the paternalism implied by having a king, while ours rejected that concept absolutely, violently, and fought against it until we were freed from it. So naturally our historical context and national character were quite different. This may be one reason you are so comfortable with having so much power and authority vested in the central government even now, a couple of centuries later.

        The wisdom of the Founders of our nation was tested, and proven, in the first 100+ years of the nation, when the rowdy new United States of America leapfrogged over every single established culture and government in the world, setting new standards of economic progress, scientific discovery, standard of living, and personal liberty. It is a system that has been tried, and proven, to be the most successful political model in the history of mankind.

        I ask people like you about your political philosophy because I am curious about how deep your political philosophy goes. I have come to expect to get the same kind of response I get from you—that is, a comment on what you want to happen, not an analysis of political systems and their successes and failures over the years. You’re a bright guy, and you are still starting at the wrong end of the equation, focusing on outcome instead of process.

        What conservatives in this nation are starting to do, slowly but at least starting, is to realize that no real substantive decision can be made regarding government if we focus on outcome instead of process. It is process that provides stability and consistency, whereas outcome is ever-changing.

        In our nation, we ought to be starting with the process, which is adherence to our Constitution, and then go on to what we want to achieve.

        The Left likes to set up a false dichotomy—“If the Right doesn’t want the government to take care of people, that means they don’t care about taking care of people”. It’s a powerful and successful tactic, though it is false and hateful and destructive.

        No, to the Right we first acknowledge the process, which is the Constitution. Then we look at something we want to accomplish—let’s say helping poorer people access quality health care. So we look at the 17 enumerated duties of the Constitution. Nope, no health care there. No welfare of any kind there. But helping out with health care is also not prohibited, so the next step would be to go to the State to see what it can do. More to the point, what it WANTS to do, as the health care needs of a warm state that has a large older, retired population are not going to be the same as those with a younger to middle-aged demographic.

        So it’s not “should it be done” but “how should it be done”.

        And this is based upon a clear and coherent political philosophy, which is that of a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with responsibility and authority vested primarily in state and local government. Only then should we look at what we want government to do.

        Liberals start with what they want government to do, and then expand government to do it, without a clear blueprint for how best to govern the nation, without a commitment to process, and without regard for the dangers of an infinitely powerful Central Authority.

        Again, coming from a background of unthinking subservience to a monarch, this is more understandable. In such a government model, you need something so you ask the king for it, and if he feels like it he gives it to you. It’s hard to overcome that kind of dependence even after centuries, if that is in your governmental DNA.

        We said “We don’t want a king, we won’t accept a king, and we want to make our own way, earn our own bread, and be responsible for ourselves”. We wrote governing law codifying this attitude, and now some of us are fighting to preserve it and the fierce independence it stands for, while others yearn for the paternalistic king-like authority of a powerful State to just give them what they want.

      • 01canadianobserver June 16, 2013 / 6:31 pm

        Retired Spook
        June 16, 2013 at 2:36 pm

        Yes. that is a fair representation of what I’m talking about, Spook. Thank you.

      • 01canadianobserver June 16, 2013 / 7:12 pm

        June 16, 2013 at 4:46 pm
        Much food for thought in this post, Amazona. I would say that while the process may be important, a successful outcome is essential.

        We may be next door neighbours but in many ways we are worlds apart..

      • Amazona June 16, 2013 / 9:26 pm

        CO, naturally “…a successful outcome is essential…”

        But one of the things I have noted is a certain fuzziness about just what the outcome should be. It all depends on what the “outcome” really is, or should be. You can rush in to support someone who is not taking good care of his family, you can feed them and house them, but is this the outcome you really want? Just a roof over their heads and lack of hunger?

        I suggest that when one is restrained by a process, there is a greater chance that the outcome will be more thoroughly evaluated, and it might be to provide limited support and job training at the state or local level so government dependence is temporary and not the actual solution but just a stopgap measure until a solution can be achieved.

        And what if the “solution” of taking on full support of the family is simply not allowed to the federal government under its rule of law? Do you just ignore the Constitution because you want the government to do something it is not allowed to do, or do you accept the process and work on solutions that do not violate it?

        It is really easy, and really tempting, to just throw money at a problem, particularly when it is Other Peoples’ Money. But it too often has serious Unintended Consequences, including multi-generational government dependence.

        And it does come back to what kind of government you think will work best, in the long run. So you need to evaluate your goals, and they have to be deeper than immediate solutions to immediate problems, such as homelessness or hunger. And in my opinion it should begin with a coherent political philosophy, not a wish list of how things “ought” to be.

  3. M. Noonan June 16, 2013 / 2:21 am

    One liberal commenter back in the days of Blogs for Bush accused me of hankering for the glories of the Holy Roman Empire. Of this accusation, I stand entirely guilty. Not that I really want to reassemble the dominions of Hapsburgs, but that Empire in a lot of ways did it better than other governments over the long term. It stayed free of the centralizing insanities of the English oligarchy, the French republicans and the Prussian absolutists. It allowed people to be as they were with no attempt to fix and fasten them in to the pre-conceived notions of a radical intelligentsia (with only the relatively short – and disastrous – reign of Joseph II interrupting this manner of governance). People were allowed to strive forward, but no one had permission to grind up others for their own enrichment. To be sure, as a monarchial form of government, having a title could aid one in rising high in government, but many of the most influential and effective leaders of the government rose up from the middle class. Wars were engaged in, but only reluctantly – the preference of the government, most of the time, was to work out livable arrangements with neighboring Powers via treaties.

    These days, most who spare a thought for that State tend to hold it in contempt – but for many centuries it kept things going and allowed the varied peoples of the Empire to go about their business without undue interference. And, so, over the years, it produced or fostered great artists, architects, musicians (Mozart composed in Vienna – and he’s just the shining light of scores of great musicians), writers, reformers.

    In my view, the reason our Founders fought is because they were trying to essentially preserve in the Americas what people in the Empire (those areas directly governed by the Hapsburgs, at any rate – but also to a lesser extent those governed under Bavaria, Saxony and a few other States of the Empire) already had – the ability to rule their own lives and their own local affairs with an ultimate loyalty to a larger entity, put together precisely to allow locals to run their own affairs, lest larger, predatory powers take over. Our original ancestors – those who arrived from, say, 1620 to 1720 – left an England which was still largely like the Empire in the sense that people ran their own, local affairs. Owing loyalty to the national government personified by the King, to be sure, but looking after themselves in their own preferred ways in day to day affairs. By the time our Revolution came along, England was no longer like that – a rich oligarchy had usurped all power to itself and was using the power of government to harry the people in to doing things as the oligarchy wished…George III, the mere tool of this oligarchy, was trying to impose that very sort of government upon us, and we wouldn’t stand for it.

    We all know – or, at least, all of us who think at all – that a centralized government is a disaster in the making. Doesn’t matter what theory you put behind it, the plain fact of the matter is that no central government can decide how local affairs should be run. In fact, any attempt by the central government to do so – even if done with the most benevolent reasons – will end up in disaster because the central government cannot know with precision what the local desires and conditions are. Of course, most of the time centralizers are not at all benevolent. Most of the time, the hate with passion local rights, customs and laws and wish to destroy them so that a uniform rule can be imposed from above. In this, one might get an argument in favor of libertarianism – and there is much to be said for it. But the thing is that, for the most part, the people in their local affairs don’t want libertarianism – they merely want to be run by the rules they make for themselves…and depending upon their general views, those rules can vary widely. But they will be rules – and the locals won’t want either the centralizer or the libertarian coming in and either imposing new rules, or voiding old rules. While our socialists want to dictate from on high how we shall live, Libertarians want to dictate from on high which actions we can restrict…in either case, its still an imposition by outsiders. A socialist will insist the locals allow abortion – a libertarian will insist that locals cannot ban it; the effect is the same. But, meanwhile, the locals may want such a thing, or not…and they’ll want to decide for themselves if they want it in their area. The proper function of a government is to ensure that the locals can do so – holding fast to only a very few, crucial rules which all must obey…in the case of the United States, those few rules encapsulated in our Constitution.

    Wise beyond belief were our Founders. I don’t know if it was intellect, luck or the guiding hand of God which did it (I lean towards the latter, of course), but however it came about they devised the perfect system to ensure enough power to the central government to protect everyone while maximizing the ability of locals to work it out for themselves. Neither socialism nor libertarianism is built in to our Constitution – just plain, old common sense. And that is what I am – in favor of common sense; conservative because I’m trying to conserve that common sense and transmit it to future generations…revolutionary because anyone who wishes to conserve must be a revolutionary, as long as you understand that the only true revolutionary is one who wishes to restore what was.

    • Cluster June 16, 2013 / 9:11 am


      Well said, and your knowledge of history is noted. This statement caught my attention:

      In fact, any attempt by the central government to do so – even if done with the most benevolent reasons – will end up in disaster because the central government cannot know with precision what the local desires and conditions are.

      That is obviously because all local desires and conditions are not uniform. What’s good for New York most likely is not what Utah would want, and so on. That is why 50 laboratories of democracy, as enshrined in the Constitution, is how this country should be governed, but sadly we are far removed from that.

      I want to pose a challenge to the conservatives/libertarians here and it stems from what Amazona argues, which is that this country should be electing people based more on their philosophy of government than their positions on issues which I don’t necessarily disagree with but I believe that we are light years away from getting to that point. So the challenge is, how do we get there? How do we get to the point that we do have a smaller, more efficient federal government, 50 laboratories of democracy, increased personal responsibility, more personal success and less welfare, etc.. Where do we start? How do we convince those who have been convinced by progressives that they can not succeed without a government there to help them along? Think back to the “Life of Julia” which was a progressive effort to convince women that they are in need of government from beginning to end. How do we take that concept of the Life of Julia and completely turn that around, and convince those women that they are more capable than they think and that it is actually the progressives that have no faith in them.

      So how is it done? What issue do we start with? And yes, we do need to start with issues, because those are what the low information voters are focused on, and those are the people we need.

      • Cluster June 16, 2013 / 9:21 am


        We may have found a partial answer in Connecticut’s 53rd district where a republican won for the first time since the Nixon Administration. Here’s the summary:

        Connecticut’s continuing poor economic performance, general disdain for what are perceived as shenanigans at the Capitol in Hartford and unhappiness among gun rights advocates at strong gun-control laws after the Sandy Hook massacre are said to have revved up District 53 voters.

      • M. Noonan June 16, 2013 / 10:18 am

        I saw that the other day – and it is interesting, especially when coupled with a recent special election in California where a district 60% Latino and with a 22 point Democrat voter registration advantage recently elected a white, male, middle aged GOPer over a young Latina Democrat. Things are shifting a bit out there.

      • neocon01 June 16, 2013 / 9:58 am

        Libertarianism is conservatism with God removed from the equation which is just as bad a system as liberalism/marxism/communism.

        Quotes of the Founding Fathers
        The Importance of a Moral Society

        John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

      • neocon01 June 16, 2013 / 10:06 am

        I believe this man had it right

        “Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”

        ― Ronald Reagan

        “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”
        ― Ronald Reagan

        “If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be one nation gone under.”
        ― Ronald Reagan

      • M. Noonan June 16, 2013 / 10:16 am


        But don’t forget, I’m also a secessionist…because I don’t think our 50 laboratories, even if we had a properly functioning constitution, are enough. 60-64 is probably the number of States we should have!

        It was Chesterton who said that anything worth doing is worth doing badly – meaning that in the really crucial questions (whom to fall in love with, whom to go in to business with, whom to fight), only the non-expert mass of people can decide what is best. 200 average citizens gathered in the square to decide an issue for the town will do vastly better than 200 PhD’s a thousand miles away.

      • neocon01 June 16, 2013 / 10:20 am

        meanwhile back at Obammys raunch the democrats once again show who and what they are and what the left brings to the table….


      • Amazona June 16, 2013 / 10:21 am

        Cluster, I think most Americans have simply accepted the current definition of politics because no one has given them an alternative. When all candidates for a position act the same, getting mired in “issues” and personality and scandal, it is understandable that most of the voting populace believes they are supposed to pick issues upon which to base their vote, and be influenced by personality and scandal.

        Add to this the disgrace of our so-called “educational” system, in which so few ever even learn about our founding and our Constitution, being exposed to frauds like casper who teach them that the Constitution is an archaic and outdated document irrelevant to our life today, and you get the hyper-emotional Jerry Springer type of election we have come to expect.

        The first thing I would do? I would launch a massive nationwide campaign of putting up billboards and handing out bumper stickers and placing banner ads in newspapers, all saying only one thing: The Tenth Amendment. That’s all. No arguing, nothing partisan, just those few powerful words.

        It is stunning to realize how few people even know what it is. I have been doing a little experiment on my own. When anything even remotely political is mentioned, I say I am a Tenther. ????? What is that? Oh, I say, I base all of my political ideas on the 10th Amendment. ????? What is that? Well, says I, it basically says that if something is not specifically assigned to the federal government in the Constitution, the federal government is not allowed to do it.

        And EVERY SINGLE TIME there is amazement. Really? That’s in the Constitution? I go on to say there are 17 enumerated duties assigned to the federal government in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment says anything and everything else is the responsibility of the state, or of the people.

        And that is that. No arguing, no political harangues. And I find people to be fascinated by this new discovery. The sad thing is, it IS new.

        I say, put the 10th Amendment out there, now, to give it time to sink in. It won’t be long before people are talking about it, at work or at church or at home over dinner. What is that? What does it mean? I have enough experience in different businesses to know that there is always someone who wants to be the one who tells people what is going on, and this person will look it up.

        I can’t think of a better springboard for shifting political discourse to actual politics than this kind of discussion going on in churches, schools, houses, and offices all around the country.

        And then have every single Republican candidate well schooled in the need to refuse to be sucked into “issues”. Every “issues” question should be, MUST be, answered with a return to the real reason for the election—that is, the choice between the two basic political models.

        “Mr. Candidate, how do you feel about abortion?”
        “Well, John, surely you understand that according to the 10th Amendment, my personal feelings on abortion have nothing to do with my dedication to Constitutional government—that is, to a federal government that is required to operate according to its own rules and laws. And that means a small federal government focused only on the 17 duties assigned to it by our Constitution, and everything else the responsibility of state or local government.”

        I promise you that if every Leftist “gotcha” question is met by a friendly but firm explanation of the two basic political models, they will quit asking, because the last thing the Left can handle is an actual comparison of the two systems, and their records of success and failure.

        Of course. we would be dealing with the serpent within the tent, the pious and sanctimonious who would savage those candidates for their refusal to espouse their “values”, but it would be the only way to move the nation back to where it belongs.

        And the last few years have been a gift to people willing to do this, because they offer a real-time, in-your-face, example of the dangers of an infinitely expanding federal government run amok.

      • Amazona June 16, 2013 / 10:26 am

        Believing in God, being a person of faith dedicated to the principles of Christianity, is not the same as making this belief the focal point of a campaign.

        And demanding that a candidate share your exact concept of God is a recipe for handing the government over to those who serve no god but the state.

        Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.

        Yep. No argument there. But many people have had a concept of God that was not based on that of Jesus Christ as Savior who have been moral and religious, and I see people like you demeaning them, dismissing them, and trying to exclude them.

      • Cluster June 16, 2013 / 10:31 am


        That’s a simple but excellent response and I would like to see that happen. I hope we can get to the point where the bulk of my taxes go to my state, and the majority of political decisions are made by the citizens of my state.


        Libertarianism is not the removal of Faith.

      • Retired Spook June 16, 2013 / 10:34 am

        this country should be electing people based more on their philosophy of government than their positions on issues which I don’t necessarily disagree with but I believe that we are light years away from getting to that point. So the challenge is, how do we get there?


        IMO, there are two avenues to getting to the point where most of us (Conservatives) believe we should be. A long-term view would dictate that we have as much patience as Progressives have had; gradually gain control of the education system, and re-instill entrepreneurism, rugged individualism and personal responsibility back into the American spirit. My personal feeling is that we don’t have a century to undo the damage the Progressive movement has done in the last century. I think the path will largely be laid out in the unfolding of events over the next 3-5 years, some of which are within our control, but much of which is of an international nature and is beyond our control to do anything but react to it.

        Again — just my opinion, but I think a great many people who have come to rely on government for everything in their lives will not survive what’s coming, and the ranks of the LIV will be drastically thinned, either because they will kill each other (think urban black on black crime X 1,000), or because they will attempt to take that which has always been handed to them, but is not longer available, from those who have earned what they have. All you have to do to appreciate what will happen under those circumstances is surf around gun-owner and survival forums. The preparation for such a scenario by many in middle America has increased ten-fold since last November.

      • Amazona June 16, 2013 / 10:35 am

        “Libertarianism is conservatism with God removed from the equation which is just as bad a system as liberalism/marxism/communism. ”

        You do realize that you just said that a system which is based on individual liberty is just as bad as one based on tyranny and no liberty at all, don’t you?

        Do you even realize how crazy that sounds? How crazy it IS?

        Yes, you would like to have a nation that thinks just like you do. THAT is just as bad a system as liberalism/marxism/communism. You can’t just flip the coin over and say it is a different coin just because you prefer the picture on your side.

        You really really want/need to have your own personal religious beliefs validated by attaching them to a political system. It’s fine to say your personal religious beliefs are consistent with a political system, but to say they define it is just a way to exclude people with the same political philosophy who just don’t share your exact religious orientation.

        I am always intrigued by people who posture as Christians but who ignore basic tenets of the teachings of Christ, such as preening over being more Godly, or the sin of pride.

      • neocon01 June 16, 2013 / 11:14 am

        and I see people like you demeaning them, dismissing them, and trying to exclude them

        then you do not understand me or the Christian faith including the bible.
        AGAIN it’s the AGENDA…baby!!

      • neocon01 June 16, 2013 / 11:20 am

        or the sin of pride.

        but your rejection of Christian beliefs, the bible and 200+++ years of our national heritage, laws, rues, etc is also the sin of pride which you like to stick on those of who reject the homosexual agenda.

      • Cluster June 16, 2013 / 12:29 pm

        Civil rights would have happened without the federal government. Unfortunately, democrats had to be brought kicking and screaming to the table – think Al Gore Sr, William Fulbright, Sen, Byrd, etc.. Equally unfortunate is the continued Democratic mind set that blacks are incapable of succeeding on their own and in need of a protective “agenda”.

      • Amazona June 16, 2013 / 3:58 pm

        neo, you clearly have not been reading what I post, as you are attributing some very odd beliefs to me when I have not only never written anything to link me to those beliefs but I have often written in opposition to them.

        So let’s get this straight right now. I DO understand the Bible—probably better than you, as I do not search it for tidbits that I can use to support my own position but read it for what it really IS, objectively.

        I DO understand Christianity. I just don’t think that your narrow and rigid point of view is characteristic of Christianity in general.

        I might not understand you, but I understand what you say. If what you say is not related to who you really are, you need to work on that, because what you say is that this nation can only function properly if governed according to your own concept of God and Christianity, and I think that is nonsense.

        Then you double down on your lies about me by saying: “….but your rejection of Christian beliefs, the bible and 200+++ years of our national heritage, laws, rues,..” Yes, “lie” is a strong word, and I use it advisedly because every syllable of this statement is a lie. You can’t claim misunderstanding because I have a history of many years of stating outright my respect for “….Christian beliefs, and the Bible, and “200++ years of our national heritage, laws, rules…”

        You are angry because I challenged your assertions, so you are blindly striking out at me, not caring if you have to simply invent lies to do so.

        I do not discuss my religious beliefs here because I don’t think they belong in a political discussion and they are my own and no one else’s business. But I have been a Christian since birth and I have never rejected a single tenet of Christian belief. I just reject the spin people like you put on them, to support and validate what you think. So you can just keep your lying trap shut if all you can do is claim otherwise.

        I also believe that when people cherry pick teachings to find things they can use to support or validate their own weaknesses or bigotry, that is a poor use of those teachings, and I find it offensive. I have seen people use the Bible to defend far worse things than your desire to have this nation become a theocracy, or to try to make up rules to eliminate some people from a political movement which has nothing to do with God or religion—enough to have deep suspicions of anyone who does this, no matter what agenda he might be advocating.

        The end does NOT justify the means.

        And remember, not one of those quotes you used to try to link your very narrow and rigid concept of Christianity actually mentions CHRIST.

        Go back and read the writings of the Founders, and see how many of them refer to Jesus vs how many simply acknowledge a Creator, a Higher Power, a concept they call God without pinning it to a specific religion. These were wise men, far wiser than you, and they understood that religion, a belief in something greater than we are, a commitment to a Higher Power, is an essential component of what caused this nation to be founded and an essential component of what it will take to continue.

        Narrow the acceptable religious belief to Christianity and then you run into what we saw in the last election, where a few million “Christians” turned their backs on a good, moral man because his branch of Christianity was not the same as theirs. Go down this path and once you have driven out all who do not accept your concept of God as being only in the form of Jesus Christ (I guess the Left can keep the Jews…) it will narrow its focus to WHICH Christian sect is the most pure, the closest to God, the one Jesus really meant when he taught.

        As for your obsession with all that relates to homosexuality, you sound like a hard-core bigot when you talk about it. I am equally against the homosexual agenda, the political movement based on manipulation of gay people to gain power. Don’t pull that crap on me about me not being against this.

        But I don’t find the need to harp on every homosexual aspect of every story, or focus on the acts themselves. You do, and this is why you come across as an intolerant bigot. Argue against the agenda on political grounds, but please shut the f— up about sodomy, Sinclair, etc.

        One thing that casts doubt on your character is your knee-jerk response to being challenged, which is to attack attack attack, and to lie to do it.

        I’ve just about had it with you. This latest squirt of hateful lies is just about enough.

  4. neocon01 June 16, 2013 / 10:30 am

    “Add to this the disgrace of our so-called “educational” system, in which so few ever even learn about our founding and our Constitution,
    and THIS is the garbage we end up with…”free country” my azz

    8th Grader Suspended, Arrested Over NRA T-Shirt Now Faces $500 Fine and a Year in Jail

    The West Virginia eight-grader arrested and suspended over his National Rifle Association T-shirt with an image of a firearm is now facing a $500 fine and a year in jail.

    A judge is allowing prosecutors to move forward with charging Jared Marcum, 14, with obstructing an officer, WOWK-TV reported.

    • Amazona June 16, 2013 / 10:45 am

      Remember, our nation is now run according to the principle that no one should ever be exposed to even the sight of something that is not approved by the Ruling Elite. If you see a gun, you might think about a gun, which is offensive to the Thought Police. In this case, you might even think about the 2nd Amendment and the lost freedoms of Americans, and the Thought Police REALLY don’t want you thinking about that!

    • neocon01 June 16, 2013 / 10:49 am

      “You do realize that you just said that a system which is based on individual liberty is just as bad as one based on tyranny and no liberty at all, don’t you?

      Do you even realize how crazy that sounds? How crazy it IS?

      Not at all,
      any system that is not based on Godly principles is anarchy. TRUE libertarianism would allow free usage of any and all drugs, abortion, etc etc etc with NO government constraints at all. That system is just as bad as those I mentioned.

      • Retired Spook June 16, 2013 / 10:57 am

        That system is just as bad as those I mentioned.

        I don’t agree that it’s “just as bad”, but there IS a reason that Libertarian candidates at pretty much all levels have done poorly in election after election. Many of the tenets of pure Libertarianism are not compatible with the General Welfare of the country.

      • neocon01 June 16, 2013 / 11:06 am

        Many people relate pure libertarianism to anarchy, I do believe libertarianism in it’s pure sense as being just as bad as those systems I mentioned.
        However I do like many of the libertarian points of views mixed in with conservative values.

      • Retired Spook June 16, 2013 / 11:12 am

        However I do like many of the libertarian points of views mixed in with conservative values.

        Neo, I think most of the Conservatives on this blog, myself included, would agree with that. In fact, when the Founders realized that the original Articles of Confederation were too close to anarchy, they arrived at what I have always thought was an excellent compromise with our Constitution. I would much rather we be closer to anarchy than to statism.

    • Amazona June 16, 2013 / 4:13 pm

      …any system that is not based on Godly principles is anarchy”

      Oh, nonsense. Unless and until you are ready to admit that “Godly” is not limited to your own narrow and rigid perception of Christianity, then what you say here is utter crap.

      People have understood the need for rules and restrictions on human behavior long before the birth of Christ. People have understood that there are some things that are just morally unacceptable long before Jesus taught. These principles did not suddenly arise a couple of thousand years ago.

      And you might try something radically different and find out what you are talking about before you expound on your cockamamie theories. I agree that pure Libertarianism is not a good way to govern a nation, but I also state that the general ideas of libertarian thought—not the actual organized party——are very consistent with our Constitution. You clearly do not understand that even the hard-core capital-L Libertarian thinks that his own liberty stops when it infringes on that of another.

      So yes, I suppose a strictly Libertarian government would allow the use of drugs. Personally, I think that is fine. It should be a matter of personal responsibility—don’t eat till you weigh 300 pounds, don’t poke yourself in the eye with a sharp stick, don’t poison yourself with drugs. But if you are determined to be stupid, it’s your own body so go for it. Hopefully you will remove yourself from the gene pool before reproducing more like you. Abortion would be outlawed based on the idea of not being able to commit a violent act upon an innocent person. (Have a chat with CO about this—he really wants to show off his skill in googling the Non-Aggression Axiom.)

      Saying that a Libertarian government would have no rules and no restrictions is as goofy as the Left’s claim that conservatives want no government. It is a wild-eyed and irrational response that comes up with stuff like everyone running amok because there is no one to stop them. But every society has developed rules to restrict behavior harmful to the society and its people, and the basic libertarian concept says merely that aside from being restricted from harming others what you do is your own business.

      • neocon01 June 17, 2013 / 12:45 am

        This kind of name calling is not allowed by anyone. Amazona is not the only one who has objected to your ongoing anti-gay rhetoric. There have been discussions about banning you from the blog because of your various examples of blind bigotry. Discuss it calmly and without name calling or be removed from the blog. //Moderator

      • Cluster June 17, 2013 / 11:22 am


        I second Amazona’s thoughts and just want to say a few things. If indeed you consider yourself a highly moral man, a true Christian and follower of Jesus, then you should have much more empathy in your heart than what exists. Nearly everyday you post very denigrating comments about homosexuals, not just the agenda, but personally attacking them. Also nearly everyday, you mock, ridicule and post vile comments about inner city youth combined with very racist references. In my opinion, a true Christian would be more sympathetic with their plight, and acknowledge the spiritual void that must exist within them and pray for their healing. Some of these children are born into very unforgiving circumstances – no father, little responsible parental oversight, and extremely rough neighborhoods as a result of a systemic dependency on government. They deserve your prayers and your help, not your scorn.

        Find what is good and abundant in life and celebrate that. Find what is wrong and harmful and choose to pray and help rather than mock and scorn. That is what Jesus would have done.

  5. neocon01 June 16, 2013 / 11:25 am

    I would much rather we be closer to anarchy than to statism.

    but my point is that either in their pure form is bad. Whether they are equally as bad is in the eye of the beholder.

  6. Cluster June 16, 2013 / 12:17 pm

    However I do like many of the libertarian points of views mixed in with conservative values.

    I too subscribe to that thought. I am not a believer in the John Stossell brand of libertarianism and think that some regulation, cultural mores, and social safety nets are necessary for a properly functioning society.

    • Retired Spook June 16, 2013 / 12:30 pm

      and think that some regulation, cultural mores, and social safety nets are necessary for the properly functioning society.

      The problem is that government regulation has become an out-of-control behemoth, cultural mores have gone down the crapper, and social safety nets have become hammocks for millions of people. The only way to reverse those trends is to elect representatives who have the will to reverse them. And I think we’re probably past the tipping point where that is doable.

      • Cluster June 16, 2013 / 1:12 pm

        Yea, I tend to agree with you which accounts for my poor attitude as of late. I don’t know what the answer is, but unfortunately my grand daughter will live in a much different country than I did.

      • M. Noonan June 16, 2013 / 1:40 pm


        Debating with a liberal friend the other day, it came out that, essentially, he couldn’t see a world functioning properly without government guidance. The specific issue was food inspections – my liberal friend was convinced that without regular, federal government food inspections, mass deaths would occur. He didn’t seem to understand that 99.99% of those who provide food are honest and wise enough to want to have repeat customers – provide poisonous food, and you won’t get that. It also wasn’t grasped that somehow or another prior to the creation of the FDA, people ate every day and hardly anyone died…and that, meanwhile, with the FDA people eat every day and some of them still die from food poisoning.

        The differences comes out like this:

        You and I quite agree that anyone who sells bad beef should go to jail – especially if the bad beef sold ended up killing someone. Our presumption is that beef sellers want to stay in business and that they have a good idea of how beef should be prepared, transported and stored. We don’t particularly care what methods are used, as long as the beef at the butcher’s counter is not a hazard to health.

        Our liberals, however, won’t send someone to jail over bad beef – they’ll assess fines and work out all sorts of regulations dictating to firms just how beef is to be handled and then add in a horde of inspectors and bureaucrats to make sure everyone is doing it precisely as the government dictates. All this does, however, is squeeze out the small operator who can’t afford the freight of government on their overhead…and even then, the large operators still screw the pooch on a fairly regular basis, probably because they are so large that slipshod practices develope over time (and, of course, government inspectors and bureaucrats can be deflected by various corrupt means, directly or indirectly).

        The fundamental difference is one of trust – we on our side trust people to generally do the right thing, if for no other reason than self-interest. Liberals presume that everyone will do evil unless a liberal is standing overhead guiding everything.

      • M. Noonan June 16, 2013 / 7:16 pm


        I’d rather lose on a platform of freedom and helping Christians who are being massacred by Muslims than win with a platform of government dependency and standing aside while crimes go on. You choose your way, I’ll choose mine.

      • neocon01 June 17, 2013 / 1:02 am

        America was indeed founded by bible-believing Christians and based on Christian principles. When they founded this country, the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that would promote and encourage Christianity.

        All but two of the first 108 universities founded in America were Christian. This includes the first, Harvard, where the student handbook listed this as Rule #1: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.”

        In 1777. Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase bibles which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies! And in 1782, the United States Congress declared, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.

        So, let us take a look at some of the lives and words of our Founding Fathers to see whether they were Christians or whether history has been revised.

      • neocon01 June 17, 2013 / 1:08 am

        I stand by the writings of these founders and make NO apology for them or my self.

      • 01canadianobserver June 17, 2013 / 5:48 am

        When the founding fathers wrote:- “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, neocon, what do you think they meant?

      • neocon01 June 17, 2013 / 7:40 am

        The answer is self evident.
        However THEY and ALL government officials are sworn in on the Christian bible, in GOD we trust on our money, One Nation under GOD in our pledge, the ten commandments on the wall in our supreme court. GOD is mentioned in our constitution etc etc etc
        What do you think congress meant by that Kanuck EH?

      • neocon01 June 17, 2013 / 7:43 am

        what do you think they meant?

        I provided a couple of links with quotes from our FF, and Ronald Reagan, do a bit of research for your self, then come back when you have a penny’s worth of knowledge.

      • Cluster June 17, 2013 / 11:04 am

        You really are an ignorant human being, aren’t you sport? Mark has never even come close to advocating a theocracy, while you on a daily basis advocate liberal group think and excoriate anyone who deviates from that line of thought. The irony is dripping.

      • Cluster June 17, 2013 / 12:30 pm

        Well I will let Mark speak for himself but I have don’t recall ever reading about his support for a national religion. In re: to prayer, I too support prayer in school, and those who choose not to pray, don’t have to. I also support public religious displays of all Faith’s – acknowledging a power great than self is always good. And in re: to protecting peoples right to have Faith and have the ability to express it world wide without prosecution is also a noble cause.

        You have excoriated, demonized and attacked people for not subscribing to group think on global warming, or supporting the ever growing central bureaucracy, so you hardly have room to talk.

      • M. Noonan June 18, 2013 / 12:32 am


        Don’t you know? I’m just living for the day when I can force Rusty to say an Ave Maria.

      • tiredoflibbs June 18, 2013 / 5:36 am

        Mark, poor little rusty would burst into flames if he did so.

      • neocon01 June 18, 2013 / 8:09 am

        Mark, poor little rusty would burst into flames if he did so.

        LOL WAY too funny!! 🙂

  7. neocon01 June 16, 2013 / 12:48 pm

    And I think we’re probably past the tipping point where that is doable.

    the system will collapse, (I believe by design) all useless agencies will go away from lack of funds and America will eventually right it’s self. but it will be very very painful and the whole country will resemble NO after Catrina.
    Fun times ahead….NOT!!.

  8. tiredoflibbs June 16, 2013 / 1:09 pm

    “Libertarianism is not the removal of Faith.”

    Progressivism is…as we have seen in history. “Progressivism” was the name adopted by the socialists since socialism was not accepted by the populace.

  9. seniorwoman June 17, 2013 / 12:46 am

    After reading the replies, it is my opinion that you all have a tendency to overthink an issue. I suppose this is artful debate, but you seem to lose focus over semantics. So with that said, I am a true conservative. I believe in small government, balanced budget, the rule of law, secure borders, open market with fairness in tariffs, a safety net for those ill prepared for this world thru no fault of their own such as mental illness or physically challenged, and the ability for the USA to be self sustaining in all areas. I believe that the US Constitution is our foundation. I believe in Freedom OF religion. I believe the public school system is the worse form of education there is and that when this country can’t graduate 40% of its students it is time to rethink the US education system. I do not believe in herding people into ghettos or public housing. The reason should be obvious after too many Cabrini Greens which a perfect example of social engineering.
    Am I a libertarian? HECK NO! I believe if you take illegal drugs you are just as bad as the pusher who sold them to you. I don’t believe in “if it feels good do it” mentality. I don’t believe that men should get a pass b/c they are men.
    I could write a novella, but you get the gist of this post.

    • Cluster June 17, 2013 / 12:33 pm

      Great comments senior

  10. Retired Spook June 17, 2013 / 8:12 am

    From the YCMTSU file, I don’t know how we survive when the leaders of our intelligence community are this ignorant about the Constitution.

    • neocon01 June 17, 2013 / 9:17 am


      stunningly ignorant,
      It seems barrys purge of our military hierarchy is showing fruits of his efforts with bengazi and now this.

  11. Cluster June 17, 2013 / 2:50 pm

    AGAIN, consensus is not science. How many times does that need to be pointed out to you? You denigrate the practice of science by claiming it to be so.

    My tax dollars also support the school system, so if some students want a moment of reflection, and some don’t, they should all be accommodated and not have to live under your direction. Weren’t you the one that just accused Mark of wanting a theocracy? It seems as though you want a police state ruled under what you consider to be right. Again, the irony is dripping.

    Re: acknowledging a higher power, which leads one to think of others and things beyond their own desires. The 9/11 hijackers were selfish, and personally motivated therefore more in the vain of someone like you, rather than someone of true Faith.

    • tiredoflibbs June 17, 2013 / 6:49 pm

      Cluster, these AGW drones keep regurgitating the “97% climate scientists agree” tweet sent by 0bAMATEUR, who himself was regurgitating leftist climate political science from a survey by Australian global-warming activist John Cook.

      When you look at the actual “study” (in this case a term used very loosely), 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’, one would find 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position (there’s that word again) that humans are causing global warming. So of 11944 climate science abstracts, only 3894 abstracts gave mention to AGW and 97% of those were endorsed by their authors. Yes that’s right – the “peer review” was a SELF review and not independent climate scientists.

      Cook actually “cooked the books” on AGW. Another big name in climate science actually analyzed Cooks “data”. Professor Richard S. J. Tol. Dr. Tol is a professor of the economics of climate change at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and a professor of economics at the University of Sussex, England. He has also served on the UN’s IPCC.

  12. neocon01 June 17, 2013 / 6:16 pm

    what is your opinion on the USSC -slapping your state?

    • Cluster June 17, 2013 / 7:58 pm

      I am in disbelief right now. I do plan to write about it, but if I did right now it would be full of four letter expletives.

  13. neocon01 June 17, 2013 / 6:33 pm

    sequester? 8% +++ unemployment? millions on welfare and food stamps…..REALLY?

    Michelle in Ireland: ‘It’s good to be home’…
    Entourage takes 30 rooms at posh hotel…
    First Lady in $3,300-a-night suite…

  14. tiredoflibbs June 18, 2013 / 5:34 am

    Cluster, I like this line:

    “literature denying agw for there’s good money to be had doing so.”

    While the contrary is especially true:
    “literature affirming agw for there’s good money to be had doing so”

    Yes, especially Billions, if not trillions of dollars, of taxpayer dollars from countries around the world who are going to be taxed if the UN and left wing politicians have their way.

  15. dbschmidt June 18, 2013 / 7:09 pm

    Being a Libertarian I have refrained from commenting on this post until now. I would preface these comments as I would have to guess I am not a “pure” Libertarian but more of a “mutt.” Let me address some of my concerns with the comments and the article in general.

    I am not without belief in the Creator but also understand that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs–not every founder was in lockstep with any single belief system. This should answer CO’s gotcha question about freedom of religion as well as those that want freedom from religion. Actually, CO presented a false argument by not including the entire statement which is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Point being, if s/he had an ounce of honest broker in the question would have already understood the founders did not want a repeat of the Church-State that was England. I am sure s/he knows that most of the colonies had state sponsored religions.

    I also believe in the rule of law when it is applied equally across the board–not favoring any person or group. I am for simple regulations but not this mess of special interest driven crap we have now. I am a Constitutionalist since they day I put my paw up in the air and swore to defend it against all enemies both external and internal as part of becoming a US Marine. There is not time limit or expiration date on the oath.

    With that declared–I am not an anarchist but a free-market believer. The FEDERAL government should only do the 17 enumerated duties as defined in the Constitution and everything else should be left to the States as they see fit. The 10th amendment has been perverted by lawyers who designed and implemented a system designed by and for lawyers–not the “common folk.” I am just a common man and I require three or four lawyers and a CPA just to navigate this system but still do business with a handshake most days.

    The FEDERAL government is the 800 lbs gorilla in the room–the vast majority of it should be abolished and power returned to the States if it is required at all. Yesterday, back in 1971, “President Richard Nixon declares the U.S. War on Drugs. It’s every bit as successful as Lyin’ Ba*tard Johnson’s War on Poverty” as my Cajun friend said. Federal government has the reverse Midas touch on everything it tries to do.

    The Democrats lost me long ago with its overreaching government knows best and get all back of the bus while we take you to the government plantation of cradle to grave “care.” The Republicans lost me with all of the spineless RINOs and no backbone / no confrontation policies. If they could grow a spine and state their policies I could return. Look no further than the current post to see what I believe.

    Finally, there has been chirping about whether whether to allow a moment of silence in the schools. I say–what does the Federal government have to do with the indoctrination education of our youths? It should all be at the State level (at best) and be a completely private system. You all ask whether or not a minute should be allowed for use by each to their own desires–I wonder why I am paying for a corrupt monstrosity at all since I have no children sucking at the Federal teat.

    • dbschmidt June 18, 2013 / 8:40 pm

      Would not mind paying if it was a classic liberal education instead of the indoctrination we have now. BTW, you may need to return to school for reading comprehension as I said I am a Libertarian and not necessarily a conservative. I also noted that is your only choice of my supposedly “unpatriotic” statement but you do not know jack about me or what I do.You also, apparently, have no issue with our Federal government wasting billions of dollars. Now explain to me why it is my duty, at the end of a gun so to speak, why I should pay for something I believe is corrupting this once great nation?

    • ricorun June 21, 2013 / 2:41 pm

      I think you hit the nail on the head, DB, when you referred to yourself as a “mutt” Libertarian. I don’t mean that derogatorily. Rather, I think you have described the fundamental conundrum for Libertarians in their pursuit of political power. Specifically, it is how to compartmentalize their beliefs into “federal” aspirations on the one hand, and “state and local” aspirations on the other. It seems to me that a true Libertarian doesn’t make that distinction. You say you do. Amazona says she does. I presume many other followers of this site do too. Amazona calls it “constitutional conservatism”. And while I don’t expect anyone to agree with everything she means by it, on the level of pure semantics that’s a much more appealing appellation than “mutt libertarian”. Largely, though, the meaning is the same. Perhaps more importantly, it is not what Jonah Goldberg means. He made no such distinction. Rather, he aspires to a form of government at all levels which conforms as closely as possible to the Libertarian ideal.

      So here’s the first question: How does that impact Jonah’s contention that “no ideal libertarian state has ever existed outside a table for one”? Wouldn’t the original confederation model apply? Wouldn’t the model adopted by the Confederate States of America apply? For that matter, wouldn’t most stone-age societies apply? I’m just asking, and if I’m wrong I’m hoping one or more Goldberg acolytes can clarify exactly where he’s coming from.

      More important is this: on the notion of the ideal libertarian state, Jonah correctly opines, “no such state will ever exist. But here’s an important caveat: No ideal state of any other kind will be created either.” In other words, the world is not, and never will be, black and white. All I can say to that is… duh! There are gradations of gray at the very least — and I would argue gradations of all other colors as well. In other words, it is (has, and ever will be) my contention that the real world is wrought in technicolor. Most of our differences are not ones of kind but ones of degree. And if you agree with that, then you have to agree that any rigid interpretation of any document, be it the Bible, the Constitution, or anything else, is not appropriate.

      Consequently, DB (and even though it’s coming from a self-described “mutt libertarian”, :-)), I reject your contention that “the FEDERAL government should only do the 17 enumerated duties as defined in the Constitution and everything else should be left to the States as they see fit.”

    • Amazona June 21, 2013 / 5:50 pm

      rico, I not only read this Goldberg article, I read something of his about three times a week. And I have never gotten the impression of him as someone who “.. aspires to a form of government at all levels which conforms as closely as possible to the Libertarian ideal.”

      Are you saying that the Articles of Confederation were close to “ ideal libertarian state”? As an exercise in abstract concept, perhaps, but certainly not as a workable model for government. Which is what Goldberg was saying.

      I don’t know how you can claim that a man who wrote that “…“no ideal libertarian state has ever existed outside a table for one..” somehow, at the same time, “…. aspires to a form of government at all levels which conforms as closely as possible to the Libertarian ideal..”

      And whenever you argue that the Constitution should not be considered an inflexible rule of law, I remember Spook’s question to you, which is would you enter into a contract with someone if the contract was not considered binding?

      Phrase it as you will—would you play high-stakes poker with someone if the rules could change as the game went on, as the players found it convenient to do so? Would you sell your house to someone with a contract that didn’t actually state certain terms that had to be followed?

      Reject DB’s statement if you want, I agree with it. The Constitution is supposed to be our rule of law, which means it must be understood as it is, not as how someone feels it should be at any given time. And to give it extra context, there are the writings of the Founders, which explain why it was written as it was, to accomplish certain clearly explained goals and to avoid certain clearly explained dangers.

      There will always be squishies, always be the relativists who don’t want to be constrained by rules. Not all of them try to explain this away by claiming it is mere “pragmatism” but there is always some reason for just drifting along, with no specific goal and no specific plan and no specific rules. Jes’ go with the flow, dude, and make it up as you go along.

Comments are closed.