Despite personal integrity, historical record of Constitutional support, and consistent intellectual development on fiscal and monetary policy, the only candidate offering liberty to Americans, Dr. Ron Paul, can only pull in 5-10% of the vote. Perhaps it’s his principled stand on the Constitutional method of declaring war or his desire to close the pig trough in DC, I can’t say, that ‘conservatives’ had no interest in his candidacy.

Even though his stand on gun rights, ownership and carry, should have carried every gun owner in America, gun owners–too–fear liberty. As Dr. Paul states:

“I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

“I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

* H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
* H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
* H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
* H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

“In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.

“I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.

“You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.”

Too bad Republicans don’t care either. So yeah, giving up hope seems like the only option if you’re a Republican who favors civil rights, rule of law, and fiscal responsibility.

As for the ever-absent libertarian minority, I’m sure they’ve convinced themselves (incorrectly) that if they leave the government alone, it’ll leave them alone. So they’ve been toiling away at their jobs, saving for rainy days, buying ammo, and pausing only momentarily whenever they pass a newspaper headline blaming mortgage lenders for the mortgages people accept. It’s tempting to count these folks out, but as previously noted, these folks are the ones with the guns, and libertarians are nothing if not proud. I don’t know what will set off these ambivalent libertarians, but if the government is allowed to continue its current path, it will happen.

I think we can hold the line until the end of the next president’s first term, be he/she gun grabber(D), gun grabber(D), or gun grabber(R). It seems very likely that if the D’s make it into the white house with no R majority to challenge them, things will start happening pretty quickly. I think the worst thing libertarians could do during the next unpleasantness is stand up and become a target when the people are looking to blame the government, and the government is looking for a scapegoat.

Hey. I’m an anarchist and I don’t think that “that Hillary wants to put you in an internment camp in North Dakota for the crime of loving Jesus or owning a gun”.

Is it that you don’t know what you’re talking about?

Collectivism isn’t the answer. Even France is turning back to a more conservative position. Now is not the time to give up. It has taken 40 years to screw this country up. It will take some time to right the ship.

The cause is right and the cause is just. Don’t give up on the Republic. Or you will live in a social democracy.

Been nice knowin’ ya, Grandest Experiment.

ColtCCO

Re-read what I wrote:

Sometimes it makes sense to collectivize things that everyone needs (and that the market doesn’t provide on its own) so that everyone has access.

Gasoline is inexpensive enough, even at upwards of $3/gallon, that virtually anyone can afford it. The same can not be said for, say, health care. Apart from that, gasoline is a particularly poor example, because the government actually spends a whole lot of money ensuring both an abundant supply of gasoline and a relatively low price for it. Very few of our interventions in the Middle East over the years would have gone on were it not for concerns about oil in the region. Those interventions prove quite expensive.

Noooo, we want the fluffy chocolate bunny NOW dammit!

This creates a funny mental image

People are always asking Lenin’s question, “What is to be done?”

The fight for liberty is never over. Nor is the fight for tyranny. Or for the nanny state. (Are the two combined the tranny state?)

The whole point of the study of political history is understanding that the tension between them is always there. One woman’s liberty is another’s predation, one man’s reasonable governmental function is another’s socialist tyranny.

Sure it’s possible that the last three centuries of Anglo-American liberty are drawing to a close, but the fight isn’t over. Withdrawing to a remote mountain cabin and fantasies of revolt are impractical and antisocial.

I agree that we have this government because we as a culture chose it. Just as we choose American Idol over C-Span or the History Channel. We as a culture can change it every two years. We thought we did in 1980 and 1994, but were fooled. Stay engaged, work for candidates you like, educate others, be a good example. Nobody is going to be exactly what you want, accept that. I can see tremendous differences between President McCain, President H. Clinton, and President Obama.

We still live in a free society. We might define freedom differently, but the important ones remain. Build on them. Maybe- I doubt it, but maybe- “free” “health” “care” is the Verdun that the Socialists won’t quiiiist be able to take. Surrender insures they do.

The MADD and the Swift Boat Veterans should inspire us all. You might disagree with their aims, but both engaged and won, coming from nothing.

I blame the media to a large degree. Instead of acting as a watchdog of government, the modern media culture has become its lapdog.

No, no! Not government’s lapdog, but the clergy in the Church of State.

It’s “Something really bad happens”

‘We’ are the type who’re prepared to survive ’something bad’. It’s the old question: If you have a population of 100,000 of which 1,000 are Survivors and a catastrophe kills 90% of the population, how many Survivors will you have left? Answer: Approximately 1,000 – they’re Survivors, after all.

To pick a recent possibility, assume a bad flu pandemic – something as virulent as 1918 but with modern trasnport spreading it. Some of ‘us’ would survive such a pandemic because we’re set up for bugging out (and thus would avoid catching it), but most of us would have only a slightly higher survival rate for the flu than the general population (I figure we’d do slightly better because we’d probably do a bit better at avoiding it). But it’s not the flu that would take out the most people – it’s the social collapse something like that would cause. And that is something we’re better equipped for.

Barring the ’something really bad’ we can only hope for a gradual swing of the pendulumn. Hard to get with all the shoving it’s getting in the other direction but no reason to stop pushing.

There’s more to it than that, though. Because when you provide them with the good information, the other (pro-law-enforcement) side will present them with scare tactics, talking about how prohibitions on these behaviors will undermine the ability of law enforcement to “protect you” from “the bad guys.” The current debate over the FISA bill is a perfect example of this.

Instead of acting as a watchdog of government, the modern media culture has become its lapdog.

You and I don’t agree on much in this world, but on that topic, Amen, brother!

Nah, the post was about 2,000 words too short to sound like you.

Uncle:

The problem here is kind of what you say it is: people really don’t want small government. They often say they want it in the abstract, but when you get down to the details of what that means, they don’t like it at all. Sure, shrink the size of government, but don’t take away my program.

Where I object is with the conclusion that this means they don’t like freedom. The fact that most people want a safety net of some sort doesn’t mean that they want to be told what to do, when to do it, where to do it, etc.

At the end of the day, I’m a pragmatist. Sometimes it makes sense to collectivize things that everyone needs (and that the market doesn’t provide on its own) so that everyone has access. Transportation, education, and yes, even health care, are all examples of this.

Whether they realize it or not, what libertarians are arguing for is the law of the jungle, and very few reasonable people actually want that.

Depends on how you frame it to voters. It’s very hard to get people to swallow an entire philosophy, which is why libertarianism goes nowhere, because they are selling a philosophy, and not issues. A lot of libertarians are going to argue that selling philosophy is how it should be, and that’s exactly why the movement goes nowhere. You have to sell the philosophy to the public one issue at a time.

You & I may like the thought of “Liberty!”, but to many people, it sounds edgy, risky, and , well, DANGEROUS. To function in a truly liberated world takes a certain amount of skill, knowledge and courage – and we all know how well THOSE are spread around..

1) Stop voting

2) ??

3) Liberty!!

What’s step #2 then?

That’s why I said I’ve given up on seeing #3; because only a minority of people seem to be interested in the topic.

Yu-Ain Gonnano

Hell, who thought 20 or 30 years ago we’d even be discussing privatisation of SS as anything other than a Libertarian wet-dream.

We’re talking about privatizing Social Security, yes, but we’re also talking about public health care. We’re talking about national CCW reciprocity, but we’re also talking about National ID Cards. Every step forward is accompanied by a retrograde shuffle.

I think California got like this not simply because Libertarians had minimal impact, and not just because the leave-me-alone ethic nullified their choices, and notwithstanding their unwillingness to compromise shifted things another direction — but also there was a concerted effort to lower the bar far below subsistence-level issues down to Universal Everything – making Liberty and self-reliance, and even Adulthood’s Big-Boy Pants look too uncomfortable and expensive, hard and unfair.

One side was willing to give-away everything to seize the remainder – whether it actually had anything or not, whether it actually could or could not – to reap the reward of perpetual illusion and live in a haze of American Idol and fluffy rainbow clouds. They’re obviously dangerously insane, but the venality was pervasive and nothing was done to prevent it.

You would have the same thing in other libertarian issues. For instance, I think most people would agree that the militaristic police raids and no knock warrants are a bad thing, if you present them with the right information. Turning that into reform in that area is harder, because you have to get people to vote on it. Most people like property rights too, Kelo decision aside, but you have to get people to vote on it.

Of course, getting people mobilized on those issues isn’t going to be easy. Most people don’t envision that they’ll ever be victims of a no knock raid or eminent domain abuse. It’s far easier to mobilize people to defend their own interests, which is why there’s a fair political constituency for lower taxes and gun rights, than there is for curbing police abuse and eminent domain.

I blame the media to a large degree. Instead of acting as a watchdog of government, the modern media culture has become its lapdog. There just aren’t enough journalists out there educating the public on these issues to make a real difference. That’s where blogs I think have an opportunity to shine.

When the time comes, those with the firepower reset the game.

10% of the population is 30 million.

In perspective, there are 2.4 policeman and less than 5 serving in the military per 1000 people in the US .

We are just quibbling to save the other side a huge lesson.

Quibbling IS peace.

I’m not saying give up. Just being realistic about what we’re up against.

I don’t think it’s gullibility to suggest there might be a way out of this mess. There’s no fundamental reason why libertarian ideas can’t get traction. 10-20% is enough to affect election outcomes. I am realistic enough to know that libertarians are unlikely to suddenly get excited about the political process, and that we’ll continue to be marginal because of that.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

You pretty much can’t have one without the other for very long.

So you’re afraid of the anarchists posing as Libertarians are you?

Anyway, as I’ve said, I’m glad that the cause of liberty has expanded enough that we are fighting over stuff that would have been considered minor just a few decades ago. It’s a hopeful sign. You just have to look at the longer trend than just the last 10 years.

It may not be winning as fast as I would like but I just can’t see it as losing. Hell, who thought 20 or 30 years ago we’d even be discussing privatisation of SS as anything other than a Libertarian wet-dream. And while that battle hasn’t been won yet, talking about it is now mainstream.

Can 300 million Americans be led by the nose back to freedom by 5 million…I think yes.

Ya gotta just keep banging away at it.

2) ??

3) Liberty!!

What’s step #2 then? I have a feeling “magic” isn’t going to cut it.

Look, I’m not saying I like those things, I don’t. I’m not saying that things are all rosy either. But they’re a far cry from being the harbinger of the downfall of democracy and the age of tyranny.

It’s not tyranny I’m worried about. It’s the tinfoil hatters who think that Hillary wants to put you in an internment camp in North Dakota for the crime of loving Jesus or owning a gun.

I’m worried about the fact that we’ve become just another European-style Social Democrat country, only with better gun laws and a bigger military.

Our society today reminds me of ancient Roman, more concerned with the circus and government bread, paying others to play their games or music instead of playing themselves. The parallels are disturbing and obvious and all the idiots refuse to learn from the history of Rome, condemning us to repeat it.

But they’re a far cry from being the harbinger of the downfall of democracy and the age of tyranny.

Actually, democracy seems to be the culprit. People want free stuff and politicians line up at the public trough to shovel it to them.

And I didn’t say tyranny. I said nanny. And, of course, there’s that whole big brother thing.

Chris, could they ever?

The way I see it is that over the long term the trend is still very positive on the liberty scale. Sure it ebbs and flows. Hell, it wasn’t but about 40 years ago that segregation that was still legal. And today’s gripes are “Oh noes, we got cameras at Red lights”? Yep, you’re absolutely right, things are getting worse. /sarcasm

Look, I’m not saying I like those things, I don’t. I’m not saying that things are all rosy either. But they’re a far cry from being the harbinger of the downfall of democracy and the age of tyranny.

Most citizens can tell you who the finalists on American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, and who got voted off the island last week on Survivor, but don’t know the names of their Senators, Congressman or Governor.

As Kris Krisoferson wrote, “freedom’s just another word…”