What's your idea of a perfect society?

[sabertooth]

here now we don't need to be vulgar by compairing are few libertarian commrads to vegetarians.

I believe the Greek city state ideal that is more akin to kds dream is worth picking on as much as any of our other Ideals.

Think of Athens and the birth of modern democracy and how much they accomplished in so little time before falling prey to the hoards of infidel invaders and over extravagant and decadent city planners. they did build a small oasis of life worshiping people who were dedicated to the Ideal that one must cultivate mind body and spirit into a whole and well balanced being. If that spirit could be reserected it would give some improvement to society as a whole, but its still just swishy washy.

We need to have public academies that teach children more of the classical education,. Children should learn how to develop actual skills instead of empty black and white facts. People need to develop into I higher quality at an earlier age than is currently expected, the new life of each generation has the potential to have the health and wisdom of the Olympians, but it is stolen from us by organization that dont want freethinking men of great quality roaming free in society(we are being culled on so many levels. We need to first develop more perfect individuals before trying to attempt to change society. Where are the Renaissance men of our generation( they are languishing in the public schools)

[pioneer]

Pioneer, your previous post had tons of great points but the problem you are going to find yourself in is that despite the fact that your views are not 'moderate' they would certainly be overpowered by either extreme that obtained power. This probably the main factor in why people leave/burn out from that movement, because its a house of criticisms and judgments rather than solutions. You can see this division even within this small selection of RPD dieters so you can see how it would be worse on the larger scale of 'meme' uptakers. People do in-fact believe we are approaching the worst tyranny and all this other nonsense, I think that is fairly self explanatory and present philosophy without my need to prove it here. No matter how much 'liberty' is in the role against the 'increasing socialist fascism' or whatever nonsense, you have behind that spectrum a whole group of people intending on dictating how others will live. Religion is just one piece. It has also been stated that there is no need for government, which is not at all what libertarians believe as you point out and as I've said multiple times. The reason that it is important is these distortions affects how people view all the little political decisions, I won't repeat those again as I don't want anyone to feel stupid.

this is a discussion forum, its my opinion if we are going to talk reductvism, we begin by both scientific and traditional models, instead of what we wish was correct based on our distortions of reality, like veganism, which I cannot dissociate from libertarianism.

Well, the idea that we are approaching the worst tyranny is open to interpretation. On one hand, no, there is no way we could possibly be in the worst tyranny because think of times in history like the egyptian slaves and even examples today like china's semi totalitarian government. However, the kind of tyranny, which is possible, is the subtle formation of power in the hands of an oligarchy (which is already happening). The very notion that this oligarchy has the power to do whatever they wish to do is what is truly scary. If 1% of the population can do anything they want, how is that free? How is that just? This whole argument we have is not about the formal government, rather an invisible oligarchy of a few powerful men. And if you wanna bring logic or facts into this, this is just pure history. Do the research, and you will find that pretty much every society had an oligarchy. What makes our modern "civilized" society any different?

Call us crazy, or what have you, but our main cause is fighting for the right to know the truths that are kept from us. A society without secrets would be a great start. It's what kennedy fought for, and theorists feel that that is why he was assassinated. When we all get down to the bulk of it, the main thing we need is REAL information. Real education. Without these essential things, what is the point of voting? I dont know about you, but my dream is to vote for a candidate who I know I can honestly say I know his/her real agenda. Lets stop beating around the bush with politics. I feel that once the deception and lies are ceased, we can live freer than we ever have. After all, a society, which is full of deception and lies is never really free. How can I expect to make an intelligent vote when I am not given the essential information to do so, because the information is filtered? This is just my opinion, so don't judge.

A perfect example is area 51. That whole issue is absurd. The government wants to keep it from us for our "protection" because we are apparently either too stupid to handle the information, or the information will allow innovative minds to spark invention and speed up science. For that, I see no other reason to keep that information from the public other than secret governmental projects with possible alien technology. Imagine how much more advanced we could be if we knew what really is in area 51.

Who knows, maybe the whole idea of area 51 was made up by the government to keep minds like us busy looking into stupid crap like aliens while the real dogs are making a killing selling unethical drugs. You just never know.

[KD]

Sabertooth: its not an issue of vulgarity. Its no mystery that many vegans are libertarian, because they want to a.) do whatever they want including raising their children however they want and claim all sorts of paranoia to prove such b.) tell everyone else what to do and what is right. I'm not comparing people here to vegans, I'm saying that you can't base an entire philosophy on ideas that are basically made up fictions with no basis in reality + that people ultimately will not make the best decisions for themselves/others and the whole history of civilization proves this particularly when involved with commerce and profit. Many progressive policies re slavery, child labor, rights for gays etc... would have never occurred within such proposed systems of 'liberty'. I'm not trying to destroy anyone's unique personal dream, only keeping it within what I see is relevant when looking from a traditional perspective of workable societies that in almost all circumstances leaned toward collective efforts and minimal wealth. And by saying this doesn't mean I am against wealth in general only that its a poor motivator for creating a workable society when the only means for creating wealth are largely destructive.

again, no offense to both you guys because I respect your passions and such, but libs hate Kennedy and they Hate Hoffa, unions and don't believe in any public education, and anyone that tells them they can't do what they want to do. My posts are not perfect or absent of sarcasm and some jibes here and there, but honestly I think you've missed the boat on some key points which is why I'm being very vocal about it. Theres really no compromise with many of these folks. Pioneer, If you are focusing on the oligarchical aspects of society and its wrongs rather than government per se, than you arn't a libertarian or a republican in my mind. It is true that that some corporations have used the governmental structures to hold on to more power and yield more influence than they could without a government, at the same time, the very nature of that competitive style marketplace is bound to create these kinds of situations whether there is a 'medium' as I said at all. It is important to focus on issues of how the government and the FDA support bad (understatement) policy of subsidies and such, but honestly I think the only solution to that is going to be to get enough non San Fransisco residents to make a fuss over organic farming and other such thing rather than theorize toppling a government or electing people that feel that cutting programs indiscriminately is their most patriotic duty.

[majormark]

KD, let it go dude, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to libertarianism. Comparing vegetarian's fanatic attitude with the rational principles only shows your confusion. That's why I suggested you get informed first.
Quit throwing irrational, hate replies here.

And, pioneer, the words "anarchy" and "chaos" are do not have the same meaning. One is "no rulership or enforced authority" and the other means "lack of order or predictability" (from Wiki). I used to think they are the same.

[KD]

Mark you have said the same thing in every reply since my first moderate comment aobout the nature of even getting bogged down with such extremes, never giving a single shred of response or 'rational' evidence rather than judgment, that is very clear to see.

heh, I just see bullshit everywhere .

I have always found it odd that all the natural health groups gravitate to the same 'alternative' politics and often even have pretty narrow understanding of what it is they are fighting for and against, other then not wanting to pay taxes or force vaccinated etc... Ironically for me the idea of governing a complex system simply, and stating the simplicity as the efficacy and saving grace of that system that seems overworked or over-exploited, is sort of akin to like the appeal of breatheranism or some similar thing. I'd like to not have to eat too but the world isn't exactly set up to yield to my every desire or even my pursuit of every freedom, nor do I believe that there arn't certain sacrifices beyond even the most basic social contracts that seem to result from having the benefits of a widely inclusive and dynamic system.

yes very offensive and ignorant to one who is totally insecure about reality perhaps. libertarianism is 100% based on the constitution which you have not read or understand, you are talking about something that isn't even what I'm speaking about apparently so there should be no reason to be offended. Yet you've dodged any personal questions about specific points in favor of blanket stonewalling and referring to base tropes like I am misinformed or whatever without even citing specifics. which things in particular are incorrect? that libertarians believe in a donation based government or that you yourself have donated in your life to others well being as a model for your libertarian'' progress? your use of words like 'hate' flows very well into my definition of non-acceptance of others theories that seem irrational like umm..compassion towards others

[pioneer]

KD, let it go dude, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to libertarianism. Comparing vegetarian's fanatic attitude with the rational principles only shows your confusion. That's why I suggested you get informed first.
Quit throwing irrational, hate replies here.

And, pioneer, the words "anarchy" and "chaos" are do not have the same meaning. One is "no rulership or enforced authority" and the other means "lack of order or predictability" (from Wiki). I used to think they are the same.

Good point, and I did not write them as they were the same. I simply said that they would be byproducts of a world with no government. They are, after all pretty synonymous with one another. With no rulership enforced by authority, there obviously would be no order.

And KD, where did you get the notion that libertarians hate kennedy? Every single libertarian I know support Kennedy's values and motives.

This is starting to be a pretty heated debate. Everyone seems to be misinterpreting each others' posts, or not even reading them at all, which in my opinion, if you guys are going to bash someone else's views without giving them enough respect to read their entire post than that is just disrespectful.

In regarding the constitution, if some of you haven't read the constitution, or understand it's significance, just please be quiet. The constitution is a US document that has fallen. Anyone who blames our problems on the constitution obviously is either delusional or does not understand the ammendments. The constitution, if followed correctly would lead to a great society. Am I saying that the constitution is perfect? Not at all, but it stands for the people and goes with the notion that everyone should have equal birth rights, which is the epitome of freedom. Like stated earlier, the use of the constitution has contributed for better times in our history. Black and Women's liberation (for better or for worse), order, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc... Sure there are some fuzzy parts, and it certainly is not a blueprint for society, but it is a list of laws and rights that basically stand up for the people. The constitution is just a start, whatever else some great minds can come up with will be the next leap.

[KD]

And KD, where did you get the notion that libertarians hate kennedy? Every single libertarian I know support Kennedy's values and motives.

I'm talking politics, not values. Yes many contemporary conspiracy theorists believe that Kennedy was axed for being one of the few to actually take on the secret establishment - I tend to agree that that is likely FWIW. If one looks at his domestic policy to actually compare with libertarian principals its a different picture altogether.

- increased the minimum wage,
- increase and made Social Security benefits more expansive,
- urban renewal package ( more 'Robbin Hood' style governing)
- creation of the Peace Corps (extension of influence abroad)
- all the space program stuff (massive government spending)
- Area Redevelopment act which gave 400 mil in loans (taxpayer money) to 'distressed areas'
- created the Dept of Urban Affairs (more government institutions)

and this is after not even a one term president which was bogged down mostly with foreign policy.

the fact that the whole "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." which has been reversed to "Ask what you country is doing to you" by some clever libs is also one indicator.

which leads me back to my earlier statement that you arn't talking about libertarians but simply people who are suspicious and angry and also believe in a reductionist government which I have no problem with. Libertarians believe in the right to pursue liberty unfettered by government. My point with vegans was that people should not be able to pursue what they want unfettered by government. Pretty simple. I gave countless examples throughout history as to why that is so.

Nixon far more epitomizes what happens when one takes such views which appeal to business and other 'rational' folk, and way more of his eventual policies reflect this. As you said yourself (unless I am getting confused) you would vote Republican because libertarians are not in the fight for now. Therefore if you had to vote in 1960, by deduction you would have voted for Nixon and hated Kennedy. There's a great scene in Mad Men with this same situation.

In regarding the constitution, if some of you haven't read the constitution, or understand it's significance, just please be quiet.

yup. agreed. The very existence of the concept of liberty began in The Constitution and the European thinkers of Rousseau, Locke, Descartes and New World thinkers like Paine, Jefferson etc...It was liberty from unjust rule, not from rule itself. The fact that some believe certain rules are unjust does not make them so.

[pioneer]

KD, I know you say that we are not reaching the worst tyranny in history and I do agree with you. However, watch this video. If you are not already aware, this has to be one of the worst things to ever happen to the american people in history. It is downright diabolical and not just in the US, but now the US is having drugs dumped into other countries. The suicide rate for soldiers returning from iraq is the worst military suicide rate ever recorded, and I mean ever! Why? because soldiers are now required to be screened for mental issues and are given addicting drugs if they answer the screening questions in favor of the symptoms. The news is filtered so much, but this is actually a huge issue and should be on the front page of every paper. By the way, according to these screenings, anyone can have a mental issue. Questions range from "do you ever get scared in the war, do you ever feel lonely, are you ever sad, do you ever feel home sick." and these screenings are not just happening in the military, currently 46 states do routine screenings on teens in schools. Also, they can do it without the parent's consent either. Because of the psychosomatic drugs being pushed, the pharmaceutical industry now rakes in 550 billion dollars annually. This is just downright criminal.

I could talk on and on about this, but let the video speak for itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1nbZCNDgbY

[Brother]

I'm talking politics, not values. Yes many contemporary conspiracy theorists believe that Kennedy was axed for being one of the few to actually take on the secret establishment - I tend to agree that that is likely FWIW

I think this had him axed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110

He took on the really big scam in town. I wonder how the guy could sit down...i mean with a pair like that and all. Everybody who even tries to touch this ghastly babylonian system of money lending ends up dead or find that they are suddenly in possession of child pornography or drugs they never knew they had?!.

The money powers dont give a shit about increased the minimum wages and such social programs, because they are going to wipe the bill off on the rest of us regardless. They always find a way. It's the golden rule. "he who has the gold maketh the rules". SO when you give a small group of people the power to summon into being money from thin air, you effectively hand over the power of everything to those same people. I wonder how that arrangement ever came about. because it sucks!

Nothing can change, no social justice  is possible as long as that foul thing is in place.

[vladimir]

I like zeitgeist part 2. That was very refreshing.

[KD]

KD, ...pharmaceutical industry now rakes in 550 billion dollars annually.

sure, there is tons of scary things going on right now and alot of them ARE under the auspices of bad intentions which in some cases would fit the definition of conspiracy. Others I believe are more likely out of ignorance and desire to do either good things or merely profitable things.

my feeling is that although people have no problems 'questioning authority' of what the government of traditional media are telling them, they have far less filters in understanding that oppositional theories can be equally motivated by competing ideologies, particularly in regards to information about these such subjects of who has power. Hell you can see even with diet stuff there is more than two 'parties' head to head at all times so its no suspension of disbelief that things are not black and white. Politics is like a poker table not like pong or something. Its true The West has really put the strangle hold on things over the last 60 years on the world stage (other than China and a few 'rogue' states) even in our urban areas with organized crime of various ethnicities actually did pose small threats to power.  But alas this is what the people want, that is the hypocrisy of most of this stuff as it all comes down to safety of self and property which is the basic social contract. To me it makes pretty logical sense that Iran would want nuclear weapons, but even though people are suspicious of the US, somehow the people that pose a threat to the US or the mid east interests are still villainized so they have to sacrifice their 'peaceful' non-interventionist mindset. If you want to protect property, and your property only has value or increases value through oil and pharmaceuticals, (or like everyone indirectly profits through services paid for by such profiteers) then you have to pay to go bomb shit in other countries, and on the converse I believe are obligated to pay for all the other domestic fallout of such profits.

The money powers dont give a shit about increased the minimum wages and such social programs, because they are going to wipe the bill off on the rest of us regardless. They always find a way. It's the golden rule. "he who has the gold maketh the rules". SO when you give a small group of people the power to summon into being money from thin air, you effectively hand over the power of everything to those same people. I wonder how that arrangement ever came about. because it sucks!

Nothing can change, no social justice  is possible as long as that foul thing is in place.

I don't believe with a complex system like our own we can remove the electoral system and the governmental programs and the banking system and expect things to sort themselves out. It just doesn't work that way. Like I've said the things people do have control over the banking system for instance, they would just find some other medium to do so anyway. I don't see what other choice we have other than to create small models/examples of better living, better industries, and better communities while voting for policies that capitalize on the advantages of government while limiting its powers to benefit corporations or failed programs over individuals. and not necessarily 'bipartisanship' like the recent campaign finance disaster which wil just lead to more individually financed candidates. To unilaterally create policy based in either extreme of social theories (funding education always bad, cutting spending always good/ funding education always good/cutting spending always bad) is just no good.

[sabertooth]

Spoken like true yankee, and I respect many aspects of the yankee spirit, {utility over principle}


Its good  that we can still keep the discussion on higher ground, perhaps we can all learn from these fundamental differences in our perspectives.

I still believe  greater things are required to perfect an imperfect world, besides all the politics .

I watched a movie (dark city) in which a dieing alien race had taken control of a city of people and they used human bodies as vessels and could tune their minds in unison to cast a spell over the Humans, They were able to keep the people in the dark while they ran simulations and tryed to find out what made us human. sometimes a human wouldn't take to the simulation and would be driven mad by the futility of their lost existence. One man actively resisted to be imprinted with the soul of a killer, he learned to tune his mind to take control of their machines and he eventually liberated the humans from the parisites.

If we want to break free from the controls of bad society, we cannot just run headfirst against the political machines(they have to much momentum)

We all must first wise up and learn to tune the power of our minds in unison to steer the machine in a better direction.

Everything we have in society the good bad and ugly are a result of the power of the human mind to alter the reality of the environment it inhabits, so If we want to improve the social conditions in a way that will mutually serve the greater interest of people with differing goals; we must tune our minds and harness the power from within, in order to reach out, to teach, to learn, to grow, to sprout into maturity. With the maturing process of the mind, body and spirit  allowed to develop without being shrouded by the Vail of personal truth and ignorance, we can begin our attempt to build a perfect society.

[KD]

Spoken like true yankee, and I respect many aspects of the yankee spirit, {utility over principle}

I am not insulted

I prefer the term pragmatism however. and disagree (at least for myself and my own decisions - political or otherwise) that is has to be an either/or thing.

As I said somewhat jokingly before about the nature of government as people literally handing over power for pursuit of other things and that being a positive, I do find people seem to do better when they are involved in the things they know and are manageable. Unfortunately people do poorly trying to break down complex things into surmountable problems so they tend to just endlessly fuss over or criticism the complex things and talk about how until the big complex things change there is no reason to really do any of the smaller things. Makes little sense to me. If there is no chance of eating a 100% healthy diet in a pure environment, do you eat a 100% unhealthy one?

I tend to not even get in these political debates anymore because people don't know how to separate them from themselves, but the main reason i'm sort of vocal and possibly nasty about my POV is because I think from a health perspective it can be rather poisonous to see the world in such a way and I see it all the time even in non-political discussions. Ultimately there is no way to PROVE which systems are better, but one CAN look at particular issues and see how they shift peoples experiences and have fruitful arguments about that I think. For me I can see countless examples of where people have worked at their best collectively and examples of programs that have been highly successful.

Again someone getting involved in improving their health, does it make any sense to be burdened with constant thoughts about what is in the air, water, feed, internal stuff like vaccines, or triglycerides, BG etc....? certainly there is a time and place to work these things out and educate others if one desires and sometimes it is absolutely necessary to do so. However on the individual level, its way better to tackle smaller components of things within a larger underlying goal until one has a true understanding of that whole. This is true even if it is not ideal, otherwise the process of approaching an ideal becomes rather impossible with a distorted body/mind whatever.

[Brother]

I don't believe with a complex system like our own we can remove the electoral system and the governmental programs and the banking system and expect things to sort themselves out. It just doesn't work that way.

Let's just do away with the banking system as we know it to begin with. The idea of usury is offending and detructive to everything else we set out to do. I am neither pro or con democracy. It sort of works, has its good things and its downsides. For the mental state we are in atm. I suspect it is "as good as it gets" for now.

2 philosophers was debating what the better kind of governing would be. Democracy or Monarchy. After much debate they concluded that monarcy would be better for the individual and the reason offered was. "For as long as you keep the law of the land and pay your taxes, the king could care less what you waste your time with....unlike your neighbour!".

I LOL'ed

To unilaterally create policy based in either extreme of social theories (funding education always bad, cutting spending always good/ funding education always good/cutting spending always bad) is just no good.

I agree entirely. personally I figured out the left/right paradigm was a construct about the time my stones dropped, which was also about the time i started to ignore both "sides" rethoric. We do need an agreed to mechanicm that enforces voluntary fully understood contracts and we need someone to keep people who have intent to hurt others in check. Anarchy, self adjusting justice  works well in a small setting but would destroy a large society. We need a financial system and we need money to facilitate trade. People who think that breaking down every social structure will lead to heavenly bliss has been misinformed. But as you say, it needs to be kept in tight check. People in positions of power and authority should be 100% open for all to see. that should be a requirement of those kinds of jobs. I want to read their fucking emails!

[SkinnyDevil]

libertarianism is 100% based on the constitution

Actually, that is incorrect.

Libertarian philosophy stands on it's own, and the movement exists beyond the borders of the US.

The word "Libertarian" was first used by an Englishman back in the late 1700s and in the US first, if I recall correctly, by William Sidis (roughly 1940).

Modern libertarians are typically constitutionalists (with regard to rights granted to the government), but not strict (in the since that additional powers are handed over to the government and the vagueness of the constitution sometimes lends itself to the expansion of powers).

[majormark]

Watch this video where Stef explains why one cant limit the power of the state by using politics. He thinks libertarianism will be achieved when future generations will wake up more and more to be able to recognize how immoral it is to have a state. Maybe paleo diet can speed things up a little by providing healthier brains.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McNo62gpw6M

If (planets being aligned) Ron gets elected, he can:
 - Cave in and ignore his campaign statements (same old, same old)
 - Follow his agenda to limit gov starting a massive riot because it would step on many toes (with people wrongly concluding that libertarianism = chaos when things return to "normal")
 - Somehow, magically, manages to overcome any obstacle and implement his plan (everyone is happy and pink pinnies jump around with joy, or not!)

Which one of these is more likely to happen?

[KD]

Actually, that is incorrect.

Democracy exists outside the US, but the models for all the democratic revolutions in Europe were based in the upheavals in the US. It doesn't make everything the same or that things can't separate and have their own unique principals and adherents. Whether the term was coined earlier or not, I can almost guarantee most international theory is coming out of mid century America and based in the US's revolutionary history.

Not to get Bill Clinton on you, but the point was, was that and that the very idea of 'liberty' is a concept that was invented sometime in the latter part of western civilizations as response to situations where there was truly no freedom for large portions of society and there was literally no proper discourse and consciousness in place to discuss such things. To use these expressions in such hyperbolic ways in comparison to REAL slaves and REAL inequalities while citing such documents as rubbish is foolish, particularly when based on current and more surface beliefs discounting those document's importance and relevance is simply bad argumentative strategy.

the key word here is 'based'. its fine if one wants to have their own take on what libertarian means to them and its origins but there is no way these arn't based on ideals of thinkers that have evolved out of the constitution and prior, like as I said in the works of Descartes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Paine, up to Jefferson, all of which I have read extensively. So the fact that I have to read every website or youtube video on our current government misplacements of power to understand libertarianism is not valid netiquette in the discussion of such things IMO.

You make a good point though as its incorrect that the constitution when interpreted strictly (without amendments) leads to the necessary limitations to satisfy many with such reductionist ideals, as the very nature of democracy will inevitably leads to pluses and minuses of power shifts, particularly when the systems for electing officials are not fair in themselves (which they never were even in the beginning).

[sabertooth]

Any man outside of the control of the internatonal Numbers racket will not be allowed to achieve positive change, if the independents and libertarians get into office their efforts will be sabotaged and their policy's compromised by the money interest they are attempting to control. This is where my anger stems from, no matter who you are or what you believe in you just can run against the type of machine that is in place, and expect to be effective, there are forces greater than the heart of the people at play.

Obama is the great whore and the policy's he negotiates and presents(sales man style) have been decided for him by the internatonal numbers runners and not as his personal or political ideals; is that clear, real men no longer hold the reigns of government only a consortium of progressives and profiteers. The flesh and blood of the people is fodder to be manipulated into accepting the policies generated outside of their sphere of influence. We are made to chose between dumb and dumber and the people are feed up, but are still powerless to do anything but gripe and protest, shake your fist in anger and curse the gods, or just vote for Ron Paul

[SkinnyDevil]

Democracy exists outside the US, but the models for all the democratic revolutions in Europe were based in the upheavals in the US.....its fine if one wants to have their own take on what libertarian means to them and its origins but there is no way these arn't based on ideals of thinkers that have evolved out of the constitution and prior...

KD - I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, and I understand your position. However, I was taking issue with your assertion, and I quote, that "libertarianism is 100% based on the constitution".

That statement is inaccurate, plain and simple. Has nothing to do with my having my own take on what "libertarianism" means. Words have meanings, and I have no intention of having my personal definition of a word in common use.

Libertarianism has roots in all of what you cite, but it is not "100% based on the (US) constitution".

My critique was not meant to refute your other arguments. It was merely meant as a tool for you to forge a sharper edge on your arguments.

[SkinnyDevil]

If (planets being aligned) Ron gets elected, he can:
 - Cave in and ignore his campaign statements (same old, same old)
 - Follow his agenda to limit gov starting a massive riot because it would step on many toes (with people wrongly concluding that libertarianism = chaos when things return to "normal")
 - Somehow, magically, manages to overcome any obstacle and implement his plan (everyone is happy and pink pinnies jump around with joy, or not!)

Which one of these is more likely to happen?

#3.

Surprised? Here's real-world proof: Gary Johnson.

Gary (a libertarian) ran as a republican for the state of NM. Dems were against him and republicans were against him. The state was in debt and in trouble.

To oversimplify history for brevity & discussion's sake, He won, then he told everyone things would be painful for a while. They were as he scaled back, privatized, and more. No one thought he'd be re-elected, but 2 years in things began to change...for the better. The state in the black, jobs increasing, unemployment decreasing, services increasing as costs went down.

We was re-elected by a large margin. Miracles continued.

He left office triumphant (though republicans hated him for calling for decriminalization of drugs), and then in came Bill Richardson (also a candidate in the last presidential election cycle). In  no time flat, the state was back in debt, services decreasing, and the like.

When will we learn? I don't know, but the point is, Ron Paul would be able to manage quite a bit to help the country.

[PaleoPhil]

KD - I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, and I understand your position. However, I was taking issue with your assertion, and I quote, that "libertarianism is 100% based on the constitution".

That statement is inaccurate, plain and simple. Has nothing to do with my having my own take on what "libertarianism" means. Words have meanings, and I have no intention of having my personal definition of a word in common use.

Libertarianism has roots in all of what you cite, but it is not "100% based on the (US) constitution". ....

I don't want to get into the political debate, but Skinny is right on the facts of this question. Allow me to illustrate...

The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to Milton Friedman includes William Lloyd Garrison's "Man Cannot Hold Property in Man." Murray Rothbard wrote approvingly of Garrison in his essay, "Why Be Libertarian?" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard199.html). Rand Paul said "one of my favorite historical characters is William Lloyd Garrison." (http://phdoctopus.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-on-william-lloyd-garrison-and-segregation/) Yet Garrison publicly burned a copy of the US Constitution in 1844, declaring it "a Covenant with Death, an Agreement with Hell" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lloyd_Garrison).

Ironically, Rand and Ron Paul are Libertarian constitutionalists (they would likely disagree with Garrison's opinion of the Constitution, though even Garrison would have been less opposed to it once slavery was abolished and rights for African Americans and women were added), but not all libertarians are constitutionalists. There are also minarchists, anarchists, agorists, objectivists, leftists, anarcho-pacifists...you get the idea (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism). So Skinny is right that libertarianism as a whole is not 100% based on the (US) Constitution, or any constitution, for that matter.

KD, you quoted a number of other influences beyond the US Constitution, so perhaps what you meant was that most US libertarians share similar values with those codified in the US Constitution, or are strongly influenced by it, or something of that sort?

[SkinnyDevil]

Ironically, Rand and Ron Paul are Libertarian constitutionalists...

Ron more so than Rand. Rand is far less Libertarian than his father.

I live in KY. I'm not sure what all Rand has said on the national stage, but locally he has said some VERY un-libertarian things.

[majormark]

#3.

Surprised? Here's real-world proof: Gary Johnson.

If there were no pink ponies it doesn't count lol.

Ok, I'm not surprised but actually more interested in details. Do you know other examples?

[SkinnyDevil]

If there were no pink ponies it doesn't count lol.

Ok, I'm not surprised but actually more interested in details. Do you know other examples?

I have no examples of pink ponies. I accept defeat (hahaha!).

Gary Johnson is the only example that comes to mind in terms of the executive office (though there may be smaller-scale examples of mayors who are libertarian or libertarian-leaning).

However, at the national level, there are 2 groups of interest.

1) The Liberty Committee - Formerly known as the liberty caucus, this group is made of of libertarian-leaning republican congressmen like Ron Paul, Jeff Flake, Jimmy Duncan, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Caucus

Also of interest is the related PAC, the Republican Liberty Caucus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Liberty_Caucus and http://www.rlc.org/

2) Similar to the above group(s) is the Democrat version, the Democratic Freedom Caucus. Not nearly as active or as organized as their republican brothers (and seemingly less libertarian), they have never-the-less been on the move for quite some time.

http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/

There are meetup groups sprouting up across the country in support of both of these movements.

[KD]

SkinnyDevil : OK OK. I concede that my wording was not completely accurate and my meaning too ambiguous. I'm glad you appreciate at least some of my thinking, if not agree with it. Especially with this lifestyle, I certainly have my own frustrations with our current settings sometimes, but I see advantages too. If I have a main motivator or agenda, its certainly to have honest discussion about such things instead of jumping to conclusions about how right something is, just because something else is is so "clearly" "wrong".

Phil: Right, I mean if someone really even wants to get into the discussion of what is freedom, you actually have to look back at the historical precedents for such things. I did not mean to imply that all libertarians were constitutionalists or Americans or any other thing, only that if we are going to be talking about liberty, and the systems created by men (good or bad or necessary) to facilitate such liberty, than we need a little constitution in the mix.

2 philosophers was debating what the better kind of governing would be. Democracy or Monarchy. After much debate they concluded that monarcy would be better for the individual and the reason offered was. "For as long as you keep the law of the land and pay your taxes, the king could care less what you waste your time with....unlike your neighbour!".

I agree entirely. personally I figured out the left/right paradigm was a construct about the time my stones dropped, which was also about the time i started to ignore both "sides" rethoric. We do need an agreed to mechanicm that enforces voluntary fully understood contracts and we need someone to keep people who have intent to hurt others in check. Anarchy, self adjusting justice  works well in a small setting but would destroy a large society. We need a financial system and we need money to facilitate trade. People who think that breaking down every social structure will lead to heavenly bliss has been misinformed. But as you say, it needs to be kept in tight check. People in positions of power and authority should be 100% open for all to see. that should be a requirement of those kinds of jobs. I want to read their fucking emails!

heh, I think one of my favorite anecdotes about having a conversation with a libertarian (raw fooder, but not to typecast ALL libertarians of course) was similar. I asked him if within a libertarian (say world) system, if any group of people could create a democratic representation based system within that as a sort of mini state, particularly if their situation was not working per their needs. He said of course not, that would be illegal as it is immoral.

I personally think transparency and awareness are valuable tools to making progress (prior to any great revolution). I mean there are lots of freedoms and resources at ones disposal. Many people don't even have a library card. go figure.