RIP Ronald Reagan

[Mr.Anon.E.Mouse]

"My Memories of Ronald Reagan's Passing" by Anon E. Mouse

Ronald Wilson Reagan passed away with 5 or 6 hours of my mom. She was friends with Reagan and spent a lot of good times out at the ranch. I liked Reagan for his compassion and for being kind to my mom, so my attachment to him was purely visceral. Losing both of them at about the same time sucked dick.

Anyhow, I drove back here to the Bay Area from Fairburn, GA, alone, giving myself a lot of time to be alone and all that stuff, low and slow over Route 66. On the second day of driving, I turned on the radio to listen to the national memorial and had to pull the damned car over because I felt like all the nice things folks said about reagan applied to my mom, too, and it ws just too much to bear, so there I was, a puddle of tears and snot, sitting on the side of a highway out in the middle of Wet Dog, OK.

As luck would have it, I went through my mom's photos and what do you think ws right there on top? A picture of her and our former President! Whoa, huh?

So there you go.

[Radar]

Actually, I'm a good libertarian. And there aren't several types of libertarians. There are some who claim to be libertarians, but who really aren't. This is the biggest problem in our party. You get a bunch of morons trying to change the party into the Republitarian party or the Demotarian Party. You get people who say they don't support the initiation of force, yet support starting a completely unprovoked war like that in Iraq. You get people saying they don't support government force to tell us what to do with our own body...unless it's having an abortion. Then it's ok to initiate force against them.

There are no shades of gray. You're a libertarian or you're not. You either support the initiation of force for political gain or social engineering, or you don't. Claiming to be a libertarian who supports the war in Iraq is no different than saying, "I am a Christian because I believe in every part of the bible other than the parts about Jesus". By definition if you don't believe in Jesus, you're not a Christian, even if you believe in every other part of the bible.

The same is true of libertarianism. You can support smaller government. You can support the elimination of income taxes. You can support legalizing drugs. You can support unrestricted gun ownership. You can believe in nearly every part of libertarianism other than the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle), and you're not a libertarian. You can disagree with the Libertarian Party in all areas but as long as you believe in the NAP, you're still a libertarian.

For the record, I'm a fantastic example of a Libertarian and an intelligent, reasonable, open-minded, well-educated, well-rounded person in general. Not to mention I've got a wonderful sense of humor and a warm personality.

Oh, and did I mention humble?


Your Friend in Liberty,


Paul T. Ireland
Executive Committee
Libertarian Party of California

[Trilby]

Well. There ya go. That is what's wrong with Libertarians.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Dogs who aren't living in a piper's house do often visibly dislike the sound of the pipes. I use visibly advisedly: I'm taking upwards of 90dB and maybe more right there snuggled into the instrument -- I can see the dog's mouth moving, but if he's any distance away, I cannot hear him.

[Radar]

I've got news for you. You're not a better libertarian than I am in any sense because you're not a libertarian in any sense. The Non-Aggression Principle IS libertarianism. It defines libertarianism. Saying the LP should dump the NAP is like saying Christians should dump all the stuff about Jesus.

Libertarianism has been a philosophy for hundreds of years. It has always been about self-ownership, personal responsibility, and the non-initiation of force for political gain or social engineering. This is the foundation of libertarian thought and libertarian philosophy. You can't take away any part of it.

Republicans are no closer to being libertarians than Democrats. If anything Republicans are even worse than Democrats. They grow government at rates even the most socialist of Democrats would be ashamed of. They violate civil rights in the name of "security", they think it's the job of America to rule the world.

You think you're more libertarian than I am because you'd misuse the U.S. military and violate the U.S. Constitution to overthrow some dictator somewhere else on earth. The war in Iraq was NEVER about setting people free, and there will always be some dictator. But the tyrant becomes us if we attack.

You're saying that if some foreign country has a form of government other than democracy, or has policies we don't like, or treats its people in a way we don't like, that alone justifies America launching an unprovoked war of aggression to overthrow those people.

What if China decided they didn't like the way Americans live, and doesn't like our policies? What if the rest of the nations in the UN agree and decide to overthrow America? Would it be ok? Would it be ok for the UN to decide America should be disarmed and to tell America they'd send in people from Cuba, China, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to inspect our missile silos, military bases, the pentagon, and even the whitehouse at 3am without warning?

Why not?

The answer is because America has sovereignty. No more or less sovereignty than any other nation on earth. No nation on earth requires America's or the UN's permission to develop any weapons they choose or make any policies they want or to have any form of government including non-democratic ones.

Why should the rest of the world respect our sovereignty if we won't respect theirs? The fact is America's authority ends where America's borders end. We aren't the police of the world or the enforcers of UN sanctions.

I wish freedom for every single person on earth. But before we go around starting unprovoked wars trying to free other people, how about we free American people first. Our civil rights are being violated at an alarming rate. How about we fix our own country and restore the freedom we had just 30 years ago? How about we return America to the vision the founders had where government played virtually no role in our daily life rather than getting involved in almost every part of it?

Once we do that, we'll have far less enemies. How about we return America to being a neutral and non-interventionist nation that trades with and offers friendship to all nations but doesn't use our military to get involved in their disputes?

If you as an individual want to fight for the freedom of people in Iraq, or China, or anywhere else on earth, you should be free to go there and fight to overthrow that kind of tyrrany and to accept the consequences if you fail. You should be free to send your money, guns, and even yourself if you want to free the people of other nations. Just don't use MY military to do it because the military of the United States is only for the DEFENSE of American soil and ships and nothing else.

Not one person in Iraq is defending America. Not one U.S. military member in Iraq is following a lawful order. Each and every one of them is violating their oath, and the U.S. Constitution.

The fact is you can't be a libertarian and a supporter of the war in Iraq at the same time. Those two things are diametrically opposed. Being one disqualifies you from being the other.

[Undertoad]

I just want to say that I'm enjoying this, and also that Godwin's law does not apply if someone uses Hitler or Nazism *correctly* in this thread.

[Undertoad]

Oh, also, people in the mainstream parties will have something to learn from it. Radar's take is that the party should be limited only to hardasses who believe precisely as he does and therefore half of the people in it are there illegitmately. He thinks the LP will be stronger and more successful if half the people are purged from it. If you don't agree, consider what this means to your own party, if you affiliate with one. For example, many Ds now take the approach that the party will have more appeal if it takes "truly" Democratic approaches to policy. Does this or does this not work with Radar? Hint: the L party membership is between 20-25,000.

[wolf]

So what you're saying is that the Libertarian party would be precisely as effective demographically after the exodus as before.

[Undertoad]

Statistically, that's true. In the LP it doesn't really make one bit of difference if they represent 0.02% of the population, or 0.01%. In the DP or RP it makes a really big difference if they represent 50% of the population, or only 25%.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Considering the outcome of the last two national elections, it doesn't take many people to become a force to be reckoned with at the ballot box......if they get organized.

[Radar]

Actually what UT is saying is that the LP should sacrifice our principles for the sake of growth. This would make us no better than the major parties. Our uncompromising principles are what make us infinitely better than they are. I also believe the party would grow faster if we had a unified, consistent, and clear message without factions within the party arguing over them. In other words, I'd like everyone in the LP to actually be a libertarian. Not what I personally consider to be a libertarian, but what the Non-Aggression Principle (the defining characteristic of libertarianism) considers someone to be a libertarian.

UT is trying to make me out to be some twisted, hard-nosed, guy off the deep end but in fact the exact opposite is true. I welcome all libertarians to the party. And I'll work with non-libertarians outside the party on areas we agree on and work against them where we disagree. I'm a big tent libertarian. I just insist that everyone in the tent is an actual libertarian.

If the LP message had more continuity and consistency, people would be more apt to join the party. If I went to a store where I asked 2 employees to describe the products they sell, and got 2 entirely different and conflicting answers, I wouldn't buy that product. If I went to another store and got the same description of the product no matter who I asked, and it sounded like a product I wanted (freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, prosperity, etc.) I'd buy it without question.

Everyone should know that the LP stands for smaller government, personal responsibility, pro-choice in all things, and is against the initiation of force for political gain or social engineering.

Those who disagree with any part of that have no valid place within the LP. The purpose of the Libertarian Party is to carry out libertarian philosophy. Libertarian philosophy is based on the Non-Aggression Principle and Self-Ownership.

Whether or not the LP would be more or less effective is debatable, but our message would have more clarity, consistency, and continuity. Everyone would know exactly what we stood for. I think it would bring us far more members and better qualified candidates. I believe it would help us in the long run.

[Undertoad]

You need not sacrifice YOUR prinicples.

You think for some reason that there is a coherent philosophy based on the NAP. That's sad.

[Radar]

No, it's not sad. It's a fact. What's sad is you aren't educated enough or libertarian enough to realize it. The Libertarian philosophy is coherent, and is based on the NAP. It's been around for longer than many other philosophies.

[Undertoad]

I was Libertarian enough. I got smarter and studied more things. Applying the NAP as a complete philosophy is a joke.

What does the NAP tell you about epistemology?

What does it tell you about the existence of a supreme being?

Why do educated, 100/100ers use it to arrive at entirely different conclusions on the law and abortion?

[Radar]

100/100 people don't arrive at different conclusions about abortion. All libertarians support the SOLE DOMINION of each person over their own body and the organisms growing within it. NOBODY else on earth or anywhere else has any say in the matter. To question the life and death decisions someone makes with regard to the organisms living inside their body is like questioning the life and death decisions of a supreme being over the people on earth (assuming you believe in one).

Nobody who supports using the force of government to prevent or punish someone for any decisions or actions they take with their own body or the organisms within that body are a libertarian.

What does the NAP tell you about the nature of knowledge itself? Just that it's not up for us to determine what others are to know, or how they can know about anything.

What does the NAP tell us about the existence of a supreme being? Just that it is up to each of us to make that decision for ourselves, and nobody else on earth has any legitimate right to force you to believe in a particular supreme being or lack thereof.