Feeling kinda disheartened

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Just wait...it will come...

...the real question is, will people be financially prepared when it does come? The answer to that question is "no" for about 95% of the U.S. population.

Fed Up

You've dodged the rest of my post to focus on a huge 'what if' .. anything to say to the rest of my post?

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

gold standard is not central to libertarianism...

...but it is Constitutionally mandated (the "certain weight" kind, not the paper backed kind).

It is because of this lapse of correcting that which is against the Constitution that has allowed our government to cause inflation, allow us to become the world's largest debtor nation, as well as fight our undeclared wars.

Fed Up

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

State constitutions can be changed...most criminal rights are given under state constitutions, if you had 0 state and local taxes that'd be pretty good for a lot of people, with all that you'd have a radically different society, probably one that would so different from American you'd be "state on a hill"

the only thing you'd HAVE to do is pay income taxes (which really are not that bad alone considering all the deductions and exemptions) and accept paper dollars from travelers...anything else you could have libertarian world

It's a neat idea, and I think that's what the Free State Project people were trying to do, but it's tough to get people to pick up and move to an area with an unknown job market (to them, anyway) in a place they are unfamiliar and, especially in the case of NH, a weather system that is unattractive to some people.

There are already states that turn a blind eye to marijuana use, but the state-sanctioned use still has to be in secret because of the federal nature of the prohibition. And while any non-violent drug offender would immediately be pardoned in a state that elected a libertarian governor, state officials can do nothing about people caught by the feds inside the state.

Not to mention the free rider issue with revolutionary-esque movements. Finding 500k people that are willing to ACTUALLY do something risky right now, when it's a bit more realistic than it will be in the future, is damn near impossible. People would rather use the existing framework because it's already setup and is very easy to go vote when you're supposed to. And if a state were already setup with the ideals, they could easily go partake in the advantages of the system... but getting TO that point is a logistical nightmare.

The people pushing for the ideals driving the Republican and Democratic parties used the existing system (and are still) to move toward their goals. And they did it from inside the parties. That seems to be more realistic in the introduction of the libertarian ideas: by taking back one of the existing parties from the people who currently control it.

What was so weird about this election cycle is that RP got SO popular on the internet and "grassroots" movements, that it seemed possible that the sentiments were getting really picked up by the people. It was misleading. The internet renown translated poorly into people going and voting for him. I know I, for one, learned something from the process and I hope others did too. I think it'd be foolish to give up, the basis for support is there. It's just a matter of time and the two main parties continuing to fuck up.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by motivez

You've dodged the rest of my post to focus on a huge 'what if' .. anything to say to the rest of my post?

what is a "what if" to you, is the "elephant in the room" to me. To me, it is an inevitability that only a few understand.

Fed Up

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

what is a "what if" to you, is the "elephant in the room" to me. To me, it is an inevitability that only a few understand.

Fed Up

You didn't address the rest of my post though

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It's a neat idea, and I think that's what the Free State Project people were trying to do, but it's tough to get people to pick up and move to an area with an unknown job market (to them, anyway) in a place they are unfamiliar and, especially in the case of NH, a weather system that is unattractive to some people.

So in other words, they're fine with bitching about how bad everything is, but when push comes to shove, they don't want to give up anything they have in order to help make what they say will be a positive change.

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

What was so weird about this election cycle is that RP got SO popular on the internet and "grassroots" movements, that it seemed possible that the sentiments were getting really picked up by the people. It was misleading. The internet renown translated poorly into people going and voting for him. I know I, for one, learned something from the process and I hope others did too. I think it'd be foolish to give up, the basis for support is there. It's just a matter of time and the two main parties continuing to fuck up.

If all of his supporters were to pick up and move somewhere, he'd have enough votes to become mayor or whatever I'm sure, especially in one of the states where there isn't that large of a population

I also think that because it's so easy to manipulate online polls and a "decent" amount of people on the internet can often make it appear there are more than there really are.. that supporters of his were far too overconfident

Pretty much every thread I wanted to know about his field operations in various locations, how well the e-support was translating into boots on the ground, a solid primary organization in key states for him (like NH..), but no one ever had any information, and now we're seeing that it's because the organization really wasn't there outside of the internets.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Grouch

Don't forget all those wasted votes for Huckabee and Paul that sure helped McCain rather than Romney.

So, let me see if I can get this straight...


McCain claims he is a strong conservative now and will fight for low taxes, low spending, etc. People like you claim "It doesn't matter what he says, it's his record." And rightly so. In light of his record, he's horrible. I won't vote for him.

At the same time, Romney claims he is a strong conservative now and will fight for low, low spending, etc. People then claim "It doesn't matter what his record is, what he speaks now is important. He has changed."


Umm, fuck that.


McCain, Romney, and Huckabee all were garbage.

Don't blame Paul supporters for voting for Paul. Those people would never have supported Romney. Or McCain. Or Huckabee.

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

If you guys really want change, there has to be a way for the rest of the country to take your ideas seriously. Right now, no offense, but the economic libertarian dreamworld you guys espouse in thread after thread doesn't exist anywhere, and hasn't ever existed in the modern world..

So it's theory vs practice, and without showing that the system works in the real world, no one (and by that, I mean, not enough people to make a difference) will ever take it seriously enough to allow it to be given a chance on a large scale.

Especially since, as you've admitted, people in general don't like Ron Paul's ideas that they see as crazy (ie: Getting rid of the Department of Education)

As such, the pragmatic solution for people of your ilk is to get together as a movement and decide on a single location where you then move and are able to elect people at the local level, and move up in time if the experiment is successful.

Without that type of sacrifice (And it'd be a sacrifice, people giving up jobs, homes, friends, essentially, their lives) for a social experiment, I don't see it happening barring some massive failure on a national level.

But then again, can you really expect what many see as a radical political movement to succeed without some sacrifice on the part of the people interested in seeing it succeed?

And yet, the people continually vote for more statism and more socialism, despite the Real World Examples of shittiness that arise from such systems.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by motivez

Sounds to me like you're making excuses for not really wanting to try. I don't mean that as a slam on you personally, more of the idea of "We might run into obstacles, so lets just forget it!"

The problem is there isn't really a core set of ideas that describe a majority of libertarians, which is really integral in the concept of the political ideology, people being free to do / believe what they want about various policies, etc.. compared with the other political parties that have enough smaller issues that are central to their beliefs that people rally around them (ie: pro-life vs pro-choice, etc)

Because of that fracture, it may be unrealistic to expect enough people to be willing to move somewhere, but that to me says they don't have enough confidence in the power of their ideas (or the power of their specific ideas in a free market of similarly minded folks) to be willing to sacrifice anything to do it.

If you guys moved somewhere and set up your city the way you wanted, and eventually were able to take over the state, and the Federal Government did something you think is unconstitutional, then you could take it through the court systems to challenge their authority.. so it's not like you'd be without recourse.

It's been tried already

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

Sounds to me like you're making excuses for not really wanting to try. I don't mean that as a slam on you personally, more of the idea of "We might run into obstacles, so lets just forget it!"

The problem is there isn't really a core set of ideas that describe a majority of libertarians, which is really integral in the concept of the political ideology, people being free to do / believe what they want about various policies, etc.. compared with the other political parties that have enough smaller issues that are central to their beliefs that people rally around them (ie: pro-life vs pro-choice, etc)

Ask any two Democrats or two Republicans how to solve any one issue, and you'll get 4 different answers. Libertarians are no different.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

State constitutions can be changed...most criminal rights are given under state constitutions, if you had 0 state and local taxes that'd be pretty good for a lot of people, with all that you'd have a radically different society, probably one that would so different from American you'd be "state on a hill"

the only thing you'd HAVE to do is pay income taxes (which really are not that bad alone considering all the deductions and exemptions) and accept paper dollars from travelers...anything else you could have libertarian world

Honestly I think it's a lot more complicated than you're suggesting, but you raise an interesting point. I think a few states might be good case studies for something like this, not the least of which would be alaska.

I'll think about it when I'm done being emo, I guess.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by lew

And yet, the people continually vote for more statism and more socialism, despite the Real World Examples of shittiness that arise from such systems.

The people I know in various European countries like how it is and wouldn't trade it for what we have here (although one of my friends from Sweden recently moved to TN for school or a gf or something, I can't remember since I haven't talked to him in awhile), that includes Sweden where they pay incredibly high amounts of taxes

Where can you point to that the libertarian system is in place (or has been in the recent and modern world)?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by motivez

So in other words, they're fine with bitching about how bad everything is, but when push comes to shove, they don't want to give up anything they have in order to help make what they say will be a positive change.

Yes, the libertarians in question are, in fact, Americans

If all of his supporters were to pick up and move somewhere, he'd have enough votes to become mayor or whatever I'm sure, especially in one of the states where there isn't that large of a population

No, not RP. Even by just being in Congress he is doing good work. He's doing his part in the best way he can. It'd be someone else in the hypothetical, never-going-to-happen-as-you/Thor-outlined situation.

I also think that because it's so easy to manipulate online polls and a "decent" amount of people on the internet can often make it appear there are more than there really are.. that supporters of his were far too overconfident

Pretty much every thread I wanted to know about his field operations in various locations, how well the e-support was translating into boots on the ground, a solid primary organization in key states for him (like NH..), but no one ever had any information, and now we're seeing that it's because the organization really wasn't there outside of the internets.

I wasn't really referring to online polls. I was talking more about the multitudes of people who donated to his campaign. He got tons of money, and the average donation was a lot smaller than other candidates. THAT was what made me think he was getting support. THAT was the support that looked good on paper but not when it came to pushing the "Ron Paul" button or whatever else needs to happen to make the button get pressed more.

I'm hoping people learned their lesson this go-'round. Time will tell.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thewise1

It's been tried already

And didn't work why?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by lew

Ask any two Democrats or two Republicans how to solve any one issue, and you'll get 4 different answers. Libertarians are no different.

Sure, but the kind of change libertarians want requires sacrifices, and they have to start somewhere. Local elections are their best bet, and the easiest way to do that is to get a large quantity of similarly minded people in the same place

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

The people I know in various European countries like how it is and wouldn't trade it for what we have here (although one of my friends from Sweden recently moved to TN for school or a gf or something, I can't remember since I haven't talked to him in awhile), that includes Sweden where they pay incredibly high amounts of taxes

Where can you point to that the libertarian system is in place (or has been in the recent and modern world)?

America's colonial days are the closest thing to a recent minarchist society. America's West during the 1800s is close to anarcho-capitalism.

Anything within the past 100 years? Not all that much.

There are several countries in Europe that adhere to free trade principles, pro-libertine principles (drugs, prostitution, etc) and pro-peace principles, so they're very similar to libertarian but they also have universal healthcare and are statist in several areas. But I like them over the U.S. and I'd like to move there eventually.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by motivez

So in other words, they're fine with bitching about how bad everything is, but when push comes to shove, they don't want to give up anything they have in order to help make what they say will be a positive change.

I'd love to make a plan, but yes, I'm not going to give up everything to go out and try to do all this without any roadmap to success.

If all of his supporters were to pick up and move somewhere, he'd have enough votes to become mayor or whatever I'm sure, especially in one of the states where there isn't that large of a population

Yeah this would be basically labeled a cult and permacamped by FBI/ATF agents, though

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by motivez

If you guys really want change, there has to be a way for the rest of the country to take your ideas seriously. Right now, no offense, but the economic libertarian dreamworld you guys espouse in thread after thread doesn't exist anywhere, and hasn't ever existed in the modern world..

So it's theory vs practice, and without showing that the system works in the real world, no one (and by that, I mean, not enough people to make a difference) will ever take it seriously enough to allow it to be given a chance on a large scale.

Especially since, as you've admitted, people in general don't like Ron Paul's ideas that they see as crazy (ie: Getting rid of the Department of Education)

As such, the pragmatic solution for people of your ilk is to get together as a movement and decide on a single location where you then move and are able to elect people at the local level, and move up in time if the experiment is successful.

Without that type of sacrifice (And it'd be a sacrifice, people giving up jobs, homes, friends, essentially, their lives) for a social experiment, I don't see it happening barring some massive failure on a national level.

But then again, can you really expect what many see as a radical political movement to succeed without some sacrifice on the part of the people interested in seeing it succeed?

The rest of your post is written under the premise that "people of our ilk," and the ones with a "radical political movement" are in the minority contemplating a "social experiment." Since when did adhering to the "law of the land," The U.S. Constitution become radical? It is the non-adherence that has resulted in the hidden tax called inflation via the Fed. It is the non-adherence that has our countrymen dying in undeclared wars (funded by the creation of money out of thin air).

It is through our public education indoctrination system that this non-adherence goes unquestioned.

Fed Up