Question for the Libertarians on the forum

[mountainclmbr]

I am a registered Libertarian, but plan to switch to R before primaries. Right now I like Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee. Ron Paul comes across as too crazy and makes my wife upset, say bad words, etc. I agree with many of his positions, but he does not have a chance. I would truly like to see Ron Paul battle Congress in one of those full cage wrestling matches!

 

[Redworm]

I voted for him, who else was there? The sociofascist from Party D or the sociofascist from party R. Some choice.

Or, as South Park so eloquently put it, the choice was between a giant douche and a **** sandwich.

Badnarik is a nut, though. Nice guy, I'm sure, and has good ideas but you have to temper idealism with pragmatism. I hope our favorite doctor has done so.

 

[Let it Bleed]

C'est la vie.

Ne parlez pas français.

 

[Pat H]

Badnarik is a nut, though. Nice guy, I'm sure, and has good ideas but you have to temper idealism with pragmatism. I hope our favorite doctor has done so.

I think the fact that Dr. Paul has been elected to the US congress, what is it five times now, demonstrates a certain pragmatism in his overall political life. I think the last time, he was challenged in the primary by a Bush'ist, whipped him too.

 

[Redworm]

or it could show that the people of his district are merely as idealistic as he is

Either way, I hope he does the right thing.

 

[Manedwolf]

At this point in time it is my opinion that the democrats have their socialist element under better control than the republicans have their fascist corporate welfare and theocracy elements under control. Thus I believe that on balance the democrats are actually less of a threat to freedom than the republicans.

They do? Then why are their presidential frontrunners Obama and Hillary, both hardcore gungrabbing socialists?

I don't see any Republicans, even the ones I dislike, who are so rabid about taking away guns as the Democrats are. They try to hide it, but they always slip with the kneejerk hoplophobia and statism.

 

[Musketeer]

Also, Badnarik is correct about driver's licenses. Do research on the Right to travel which includes driving a car without licensure. Only commercial drivers require licenses by law, but I'd guess most of you don't know that.

right... So have you tossed your's and told a cop on the road that you don't need one yet?

 

[Pat H]

ight... So have you tossed your's and told a cop on the road that you don't need one yet?

No, but then again, I'm driving commercially more than half the time. Farm trucks, with the farm plate, are commercial vehicles in this state.

There was a somewhat well know case of the young man in Nevada who didn't get a drivers license. When he showed up to vote, they tried to prevent his voting on account of his having no drivers license. After he proved that he wasn't required to have one, they let him vote.

That brings me to the obvious questions, why do you think people should have drivers licenses? Why do you think drivers licenses should expire and require renewal? Should people be required to have licenses from the initial acquisition, often age 16, until 21 years of age, or should people of all ages be required to obtain permission of the state to drive on the public thoroughfare?

 

[Erich]

Oh dear. Bearing in mind that I'm of the libertarian persuasion and feel that one has the right to do pretty much anything that doesn't initiate force against another, I have to groan upon hearing the "you don't need a drivers license" talk (generally soon to be followed by the related, "I don't have to register/license my vehicle" argument). I get a nutbar demanding that I make this argument on appeal every couple of years, and it hasn't won yet.

So, at least here in NM, understand that Leviathan (that's "the State" to you non-libs ) will punish you if you don't have a license, regardless of what you maintain your "rights" may be.

 

[Pat H]

The state, and that's each individual state, does lots of things that aren't legitimate. We need to end those activities, the safest method of doing that is to remove their power to do so.

For example, here in SC, the State Law Enforcement Division gets to lobby the state legislature on restrictions and requirements for concealed carry of firearms, and most other weapons laws. Should we continue to permit such an obvious conflict of interest by a state agency? I posit that we should not.

Driver's licenses got a good thrashing at the hands of the US government via the national ID legislation; that is to say, it woke many people up to the real threat that Driver's licenses pose to people.

It's a good idea to actually study the history of both titling and licensing cars, and the beginning of the concept of the driver's license. All of them are 20th century constructs for the most part, and doing without any of them are mala prohibitum violations, most of which are disgusting restrictions on personal freedom that need to go extinct.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Also, Badnarik is correct about driver's licenses. Do research on the Right to travel which includes driving a car without licensure. Only commercial drivers require licenses by law, but I'd guess most of you don't know that.

I think the "right to travel" issue and the driver's license is two different situations. You have the right to walk anywhere you want to go within reason. Do you have the right to walk on private property? Drive on it? I say that's one of the limitations.
Do you have the right to drive? Sure...as long as you're not on PUBLIC roads that are funded by the State and Federal govt's. It becomes a PRIVELAGE then.

The "right to travel" when conceived probably didn't think the people would be traveling on govt. funded roads. However, the people that want nice concrete/asphalt paid for by the govt. has to abide by the rules that are set in place. You want the "right to travel"? Then hire a private company to build a private road after you purchase the land for yourself...

 

[FirstFreedom]

but I think the present crop of Republican Candidates may bring more people back into the Republican Party.

Umm, actually no. RON PAUL may bring more independents (registered) like me back to the Republican party. The current "crop" otherwise makes me want to regurgitate incessantly. In fact, aside from Ron Paul, it's EASILY the worst "crop" of so-called Republicans I've ever seen in my life. I will indeed switch back to Repub in time to vote in the primaries *IF* and only if Ron Paul is going to be on the ballot. If he's not, then I won't; it would be pointless.

 

[stevelyn]

I'm registered "Undeclared" so I can choose any ballot. I consider myself a Libertarian and I voted for Michael Badnarik.