Are not Libertarianism and conservatism synonomous? Libertarians want less Govt in your private lives. Smaller Govt... Smaller budget. Libertarians believe charity begins at home. So let's feed our starving kids before giving billions to Pakistan to make their corrupt wealthy and their Military challenge our Soldiers. Ron Paul makes more sense than you might think. Libertarians do not base decissions on personal beliefs. Because someone doesn't believe in Gays or Abortion does not mean he can or would challenge these people nor the laws protecting them. As a libertarian you have to look at the law and say does it protect peoples constitutional rights? Does it infringe on anyone elses? Would it impose on the privacey of ones own home life? And that is where the decissions would come. Motorcycle helmets is a great one, who can suffer the consequences of choosing to wear or not wear a helmet. Only the rider thus it should be their choice. New Hampshire state moto says it well. Live free or die!

Yes indeed Bill. It's this individualism, and personnal responsibility that Libertarians hold so dear. However, there are many that think that "They" know better than "Us" and that we need to be guided on how to live our own lives. Mainly that comes from the left, but guys like R. Santorum show that many Republicans also believe they need to be the hand that guides people's lives. Scary thought, don't you think?

We are not sheep! I agree 100%

LD: so....who is your candidate to sit in the oval office beginning in 2013 providing the world doesn't come to an end?

Jimmy, I'll give you one guess.

I can't remember the Libertarian Candidate for President's name...?

The Libertarian canidate is Garry Johnson, however I will be voting for Dr. Paul. I see every other canidate besides those two continuing the policies of this Administration. They will continue to extended their executive powers. It's the very nature of Govt to grow. Each canidates pays lip service to this, but I beg anyone to show another canidate that will do otherwise, obeying to the constitution.

LD: It doesn't look like Mr. Paul will garner enough votes within his own party for the Republican nomination and since Mr. Johnson is running on the Libertarian Ticket, I presume you will be writing in Mr. Paul's name on the ballot. I do not recall a write-in Candidate ever winning the Presidency. So would not your efforts be more worth while by supporting someone, like say Mr. Johnson, whose name will appear on most state ballots? Would not a "good showing" by the Libertarians better aid the political policy you promote rather than say... a less than 1% write in finish for Mr. Paul?

I understand your point. Alot of the idea right now is that us Paul supports need to "shut up, and get in line." and vote for ABO (anyone but Obama) which is understandable. I do too believe Mr. Paul has a large chance of not winning the nomination. But I believe, the ABO idea is what gets us in worse shape. Maybe my vote for Dr.Paul will be more so that I can sleep soundly at night, so that I know, when we get the next Big R republican in office(more spending, more warfare, etc..), I'll know that I wasn't a part of it.

However, I know that wasn't your point, so please, don't mind my rant. As a true libertarian it might make more sense to vote for Mr. Johnson, but again, I am voting out of my own convictions, and not strategy. But you make a very strong point though.

Well stated. Nice to see some stirring of the pot here on these pages.

Well thank you for your kind words.

Who do you think you'll vote for Jimmy?

Mur, for the most part that describes the ideas fairly simple. However, the roots of conservatism and libertarianism are much more rich and intellectually complex than the paragraph described though. Still, its a fairly accurate description.

May I ask though, what exactly is your point by posting and Auburn university description of political stances?

By the way, the link you posted is broken, it went straight to an HTTP 404 error.

Nevermind Mur, I see where you got that impression. It was the first post that asked that question. I should of read it before posting my comment.

You (or should I say the author you reposted) is correct, the two are not synonymous.

Murrelet, not to be mean but I would like to point out.... If you would look under Conservatism... Pay close attention to the "see also notation"... I think that may point out that in some definitions they are infact, synonymous.

Dr Paul should run either independant or as a libertarian and should make that switch soon. I don't feel that this will just affect the republicans. This will give a logical option when you compare the other two options

Mur, you are right. Libertarians stongly believe not imposing ones values upon another by power of the STATE (thats the key word), now that doesn't mean you can't be a Baptist and speak to someone about your faith. The key is it has to be voluntary. If it's not, libertarians are against it.

And yes, there is a sub-category of Libertarians with an anarchists-like feel. Many of the followers of Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and Llewellyn Rockwell are considered "anarco-capitalist." Only because they believe the State only hinders the free exchange of capitialism.

Yet most, standard Libertarians (including I) believe in the role of Govt, as it's defined in the Constitution. Many believe the its necessary to assist in third-party issues. Also, to enforce legal contracts and protect private property.

This is a very good blog.

I too will cast my vote for Ron Paul.

I'm tired of these wars in the middle east.

All of our wars or "police actions" beginning with the Korean conflict have been more about keeping Americans employed and allowing defense contractors to make millions of profits (while making foreigners hate us as a country) than they have had to do with protecting anyone from anything.

President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex in his farewell address.

Oh yes we need to legalize marijuana.

Right now the war on drugs is over and drugs won it.

And I will vote for Dr. Paul on the republican ticket.

It is a shame that to run for local office as a Libertarian you have to get on the ballot by petition.

TOT, speaking on defense spending. Here is a cool clip you might like on the subject.

3 Reasons Conservatives Should Cut Defense Spending Now:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=byVNw3rfiy8

I've heard this alot, and as my tag implies; "fighting fallacies with facts.." than I feel I must correct a few misconceptions.

Many people cling to the "Dr. Paul racist" thing. Usually it comes from a lack of understanding, and it's human nature to "fill in the blanks" when one doesn't understand something. Many on the Left use that when they don't understand something. "Well...it must be because he's a racist."

Case in point, Janeane Garofalo made the point on Keith Oberman's show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noDmhJ...

that the Herman Cain "hides" the racist elements of conservatives. And that Hermain Cain MUST being being "paid" to run by white people.

Again, its a simplistic answer to a problem she couldn't understand. When you are lead to believe, that one group of people must always vote in a certain direction, it rocked her world to see someone that didn't fit her preconceived notion. She than went to the most irrational, unintelligent conclusion she could muster. And if you want to use the definition of racism, than Ms. Garofalo expressed it well. Passing judgement on a person's action or achievments based off the color of skin. You could literally see the steam coming from her ears. "Does not compute...does not compute!" This is why many on the political Left express more racism than any group. They believe in class roles and that everyone needs to be in "their place."

Yet, Dr. Paul does not work for "the white people," but rather wishes opportunity for everyone. The best thing you can do to help someone is to give them opportunity. And many Govt policies hinder this, be it dependency on the welfare state or overburdensome regulations that hurts job growth. Both of which HURT more than HELP people. Dr. Paul wishes to abolish these elements so that everyone can prosper.

Lastly, the whole Ayn Rand-Rand Paul thing is, again, another urban myth. To clear up this misconception, I will post a clip of Rand Paul himself debunking this myth.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IfQ04fmj9oc

Murelet, As I stated Libertarians are true conservatives. Your definition is of the current political stance ...not really a definition. Further, Libertarians do not base decissions on personal beliefs, they base it on your rights as long as they do not infringe on others rights. Abortion is a tricky one though... As you are infringing on the new life so I would have to side with pro life. I am not sure I know of any white men getting abortions though!

Bill, the abortion thing is a tricky subject. Even within the whole Libertarian movement, there is division.

I have known many Libertarians who believe in choice thru and thru. However, I am on the other side, which Dr.Paul described very well in the first chapter of his book, "Liberty Defined"

He argued that how can a country wish to up hold "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," if it can't even up hold the very first word.

Here's an audiobook clip from this chapter. Take a listen (15 minutes total)

Ron Paul - Liberty Defined: Abortion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLa7BS...

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

"Thou shalt not kill"

"At some point it becomes murder"

Is there in fact any difference between early term abortion and late term abortion??????????????????????????????????

.

Mur, which part of Bill's description did you disagree with?

You have to understand, in our system, just because a few believe in a certain way to handle public utilities (in this case, you brought up roads) doesn't mean they get their way. It doesn't compromise their principals about the topic because they were unable to, say, make public roads to private. However, it could also mean something else. Who's to say. Everyone is different. You can't judge a whole political idiology off a select few.

But I'm curious as to this "old social order." Exactly what order do you mean? Can you explain?

It's statements like this that show Ron Paul doesn't have a clue. See:

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/02/1...

We see almost DAILY the results of people "putting into their body whatever they want." The latest is Whitney Houston, who - for some inexplicable reason - will be honored by flags lowered to half staff in New Jersey at the direction Governor Christie. This just shows how skewed our society has become - where indiscriminate drug abusers are honored the same way as former Presidents of the United States and military who die in foreign lands for us.

If flags at half staff are appropriate for what was probably a drug-induced suicide (Houston had been trying to kill herself with crack cocaine and prescription drugs for years), why not give her a 21-gun salute?

sebekm, I am so sorry to see your post above.

You are very good at using this medium.

I saw nothing in the piece you mentioned above which rendered Ron Paul "clueless"

Actually quite the contrary.

In this age we have many stupid people who see hell bent on destroying themselves.

Such as the notable local young man who is dying of aids because of his life style choice.

If and idiot chooses to smoke crack I don't see a whole lot of sense in wasting a lot of money paying enforcers to prevent it.

Seb, the reason why Paul is a supporter for legalizing drugs is that he's consistant with his principals. Where is it found that its the role of the Federal Govt to regulate what people put into their body. His positions come from the constitiution and the powers it is/is not given. He does, however, say that it should be left up to the states, which he draws from the tenth amendement.

See, the constitiution and the proper role of Govt has been so far removed from society, it's almost normal not to do something "outside" the proscribed role.

Here is a good clip on the drug debate. Its from the late economist (and Regan advisor) Milton Friedman. Please take a listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0...

Just to clarify, I do not drink, smoke, or do drugs. I think they are bad for your health, but the arguments are hard to go against.

I could go on to clarify how Ron Paul is not a racist, and that it's a fallacies to think otherwise given bad information.

However, Murrlet, I have a feeling it would do no good, because I think you WANT to believe this.

If I am wrong, and you are indeed ARE open-minded to his positions, please let me know, and I'll clarify much of the media spin you are reposting.

One more thing on the clip I posted,Seb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0...

Milton Friedman makes a good argument that by making drugs illegal, the Govt keeps the prices up and, essentially, props up these drug cartels that fight along our borders. It's very similar to the bootleggers and mob men in the early 20th century.

You don't have to be "into" drugs to realize it's a money pit that has, and will never work.

Sadly, anti-supporters like Mur, find this logic hard to grasp. And in doing so, cling to ANYTHING that helps them understand (except the truth) which is why you hear/see things like what she posted;

"Libertarians are usually just Republicans who want to smoke pot."

The shear logic COMPETELY alludes them.

"I saw nothing in the piece you mentioned above which rendered Ron Paul "clueless""

When somebody - especially with Paul's stated positions on drugs - says that we should all have the right to put whatever we want into our bodies - and ESPECIALLY right on the heels of Whitney Houston's suicide-by-drugs - they are CLUELESS. They have learned nothing from the "legacy" of drug abuse over the years, and how these substances - "put into our bodies whenever we want" - can ruin the lives of not only the abuser but also their wives, children, and others who care about them.

When it comes to a politician - for me - there are some things which will FOREVER preclude their getting either my support or my vote. With the locals, it was those SNEAKY PAY RAISES they tried to push through awhile back - in particular where the mayor basically tried to nearly triple his own salary behind closed doors. For Ron Paul, it is his stance on drugs and his frequent states of "amnesia" as to his published positions on the issues.

Specifically:

*Anybody that Snoop Dogg wants elected to public office is somebody I'm against.

*Further - anybody who subsequently pleads ignorance and disavows the content OF HIS OWN POLITICAL NEWSLETTERS is somebody - IMHO - who is not to be trusted.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

*I DO NOT SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMA.

*I PROBABLY (no - make that UNDOUBTEDLY) WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM LATER THIS YEAR.

*THE CANDIDATES BEING PUT UP BY THE OTHER SIDE HAVE BEEN GOOFY, WACKY, WEIRD, FLAKY, UNPREDICTABLE, AND SO POLITICALLY WOUNDED THAT NONE OF THEM CAN PREVAIL AGAINST THE INCUMBENT.

Romney is the "best" candidate, but I do not believe he will be able to defeat The Obama Machine - barring an economic meltdown of biblical proportions or the discovery that the President is an illegal alien.

The Bottom Line on Ron Paul and drugs is this:

The solution to the problem of drug abuse is NOT to legalize putting whatever we want into our bodies. This will not eliminate the causes of drug abuse, nor will it eliminate the senseless deaths and personal destruction that drug abuse contributes to.

The solution is to treat the true CAUSES of drug abuse - which are rooted in the way our society has "progressed" down through the years - and to maintain strict control of those substances which have shown to do the most physical and psychological damage to the human beings who use and abuse them.

Paul's position on drugs only reinforces the drug abuser's rationalization that his or her continued abuse is "okay." Meanwhile, their lives and livelihood are going down the drain.

I CONDEMN Ron Paul for this position.

Seb, it's a much bigger issue to Libertarians than that. The issue lies at the heart of all who wish to be the social engineers of our society. Who's decision is it? Right now, the State keeps a constant reminder that you are not in control of your own body. I will be writing a piece on this to clarify the many misconceptions.

I understand that the issues are not simple, but on this particular ONE - for me - it knocks Ron Paul out of the running because his stated position IMHO is destructive and possibly disingenuous.

(Besides that, he just seems wacky to me...)

I also realize that if one professes to be a "libertarian" and there's only one true "libertarian" in the ball game, one might feel mighty lonely if they disavowed him/her. Well...join the club. I've been Mr. Lonely and looking for a few good candidates for years. I'm tired of having to vote against people and cast my ballot for "the other guy."

And when they promise "Change You Can Believe In" - especially when they are a favorite son of your home state - and you STILL get more of the same - even when you control BOTH houses of Congress in addition to the White House - what's left to do?

I say: Bring Back Zell Miller....

"I understand that the issues are not simple, but on this particular ONE - for me - it knocks Ron Paul out of the running because his stated position IMHO is destructive and possibly disingenuous."

I understand, I once thought like this too. However, what is MORE destructive is proping up a government that is allowed to control every facet in our lives. Constant war, constant spending, constant regulation. Thats what will kill a society more than someone smoking pot. That, my friend, I turn to history to prove my point.

Yet, I find it sad that someone like Dr. Paul, who's whole idea of goverment comes from what the Founder wrote (and what was intended) is now considered "wacky."

The all-controlling "government" and the libertarian "vision" you describe are at opposite ends of the political and the philosophical spectrum. IMHO - the libertarian approach IS NOT THE SOLUTION. To go from a hypothetical where "nothing goes" (in your opinion) to one where "anything goes" (as my interpretation of the libertarian approach suggests) will not solve our problems. The approach that is needed is somewhere in the middle, which is what the "mainstream" political movements claim to espouse.

So I guess we can just agree to disagree on this one. But if Ron Paul is an excellent example of a "libertarian," I will NEVER vote for one in my lifetime, and I will continue to speak out against what he stands for.

Thats a common misconception. The libertarian apprroach is, and has never been "anything goes." Rather we believe in the role of govt as its described by the constitution. Again, a concept far lost on much of America.

Excuse my bad spelling. I meant, "the libertarian approach is not, and has never been..."

It is not a "misconception" when you consider the context in which it is applied. Ron Paul can try to hide behind the Constitution in his newsletters and his "drug use" ideas, but it's just a smokescreen, especially when he claims ignorance, amnesia, whatever, after-the-fact when it suits his purpose in his Presidential campaign.

You used the phrase "a government that is allowed to control every facet in our lives." My use of the phrase "anything goes" is no more of an exaggeration than yours. I used the two in juxtaposition to make a point - which is that they are extremes on the political and philosophical spectrum - NEITHER of which is the solution to our problems or should be the foundation of ANY society.

IMHO - the "libertarian" point of view I see promoted today is closer to the "anything goes" philosophy than our current state of society is to an "all-controlling government."

I do not believe in an "anything goes" society. Without laws, we can have no protection of private property. There are many other examples I can give, but thats just one. For the record, I, or the Libertarian stance are not infavor of "anything goes."

The "stance" we were discussing is one which proposes "putting anything we want into our bodies" without limitations or qualifications. I don't know what you call it, but it sounds like ANYTHING GOES to me.

And I was focusing on Ron Paul's statements and actions in my remarks. A "standard bearer" of a "stance" or philosophy/ideology is one who has national prominence - such as one who writes books/newsletters for national distribution, and runs for political office (President of the United States would be a good example).

So please excuse me if I don't consider your opinions to be reflective of the "libertarian stance," as it comes across in what I read and hear in the national media.

When Ron Paul says what he says, he can expect to get what he gets.

Especially from me.

(P.S. If I am wrong about your national prominence as a libertarian standard-bearer - i.e., if you ARE one as I have defined it above - please let me know.)

Fair enough, yet we need to be specific. When I speak of choosing what to put in ones body, I am speaking of substances.

When we say ANYTHING, that means ANYTHING, which is NOT specific. That could include anything from murder, theft, licenses, trading, speech, etc, etc. There are any number of issues we could bring up if we say the words ANYTHING. I, again, am not speaking of that but rather substances put into ones body.

I do respect your opinion though. My stance comes purely out of respect for the individual. I am not in favor of a tyrannical state choosing for people whatever the current flavor of politician is in office.

There are only two ways to choose; either by yourself or forced from someone else.

I, too, am mainly speaking of substances, and I believe that we should NOT be able to put WHATEVER substances we want into our bodies. "We" are not always fully responsible for our actions - either by reason of age, maturity, or current mental health status. Nor are we experts in all of the effects (interactive and otherwise) of "anything" we think we might want to put into our bodies.

This is basic stuff - which may in fact be in line with actual libertarian "dogma," but Ron Paul qualified NONE of this. To make the absolute statement that he did elicits the type of response that he gets - i.e., the "endorsement" of druggies like Snoop Dogg.

If Ron Paul doesn't REALLY mean what he seems to say, as an educated man he should anticipate the confusion and cut it off at the pass by going beyone the sweeping statement. As it is, his statements are being taken at face value. That's how I'm taking them.