precisely. all that's needed is to continue to keep the brushfires of freedom burning.

WTF are you talking about? I'm not going to watch that whole video but it appears, based on the title, to be about gender equality in pay or something.

What does that have to do with Kyle's "theory" that some unidentified aspect of America's diversity prevents socialism(?) from working(?) here like it does in European nations/Canada/etc.

I mean, you guys are throwing your usual pity party that crazy FlyWf is playing the race card on poor goodhearted freedomlovers, but Kyle was the person who introduced the concept of race into the discussion.

When was America free?

Ahh.

Not sure if I'd bet it but I wouldn't be so sure either if I was Max. Didn't RP get 2nd and almost win Nevada last year? And really high %'s in like Montana and Washington when the race was pretty much over?

RP doesn't need to turn into a world-beater to win the bet. The end states are like garbage time of a basketball game, and RP might be the only one trying.

While I understand your POV it seems to me that the ultimate goal of libertarianism is liberty. If there is legislation that increases liberty I think you should support it in spite of your overarching feelings against all legislation. I think you all acknowledge that we are not going to abandon government completely--a true libertarian society will not be achieved. Therefore, you should COMPROMISE, and support policies that further liberty.

CNN National Poll
10/14 - 10/16

Romney 26
Cain 25
Perry 13
Paul 9
Gingrich 8
Bachmann 6
Santorum 2
Huntsman 1

I generally do. But can you think of a lot of examples of such legislation?

Here's an example locally (seattle): The state is in the liquor licensing business with exclusive shops - pretty common in the US. They cast a vote to deregulate and allow grocery stores to sell liquor by granting permits. I voted yes to the option that would dismantle state-run liquor stores and grant licensure to all commercial businesses.

Same with medical marijuana. I hate the idea that the state chooses who can obtain these licenses, but it's a step in the right direction without really approving the electoral process.

At 5 pm ET Ron Paul will be on CNN with Wolf Blitzer to preview economic plan.

Ron Paul will be on CNN at 8:40am ET on 10/18/11 to discuss the Plan To Restore America.

Ron Paul will be on CNBC Squawk Box at 8:00 am ET on 10/18/11 to discuss his Plan To Restore America.

There should be LIVE STREAMING available for the press conference (3pm PT / 6pm ET ) today at the release of the Plan To Restore America in Vegas. Keep checking the http://RonPaul2012.com website for the streaming.

this article contains a link to an 11 page pdf detailing the plan...

2013: -$313 billion (deficit)
2014: -$194 billion (deficit)
2015: $13 billion (surplus)
2016: $19 billion (surplus)

To be fair I can't recall very many examples off the top of my head. I think the online poker legislation is a good example. I think potential marijuana legalization is another. I think legislation that promotes equal rights for the LGBT community, women, and minorities advances liberty. That's all that is really coming to me off the top of my head but I think throughout this thread there have been examples where the staunch framework of libertarianism can be an obstacle in advancing liberty. I think you can see some of this in RP's attitude towards gay marriage where he takes a "well it shouldn't be up to the federal govt to say what ppl can do" when the result is that individual states forbid gay marriage which results in a loss (imo) of liberty. So, supporting federal legislation in support of gay marriage would be a net increase in liberty yet I don't think he would support it.

lol!

'We can't compromise at all, however, we need exactly that right now!'

In rational-thought land, I've had an idea that can help make RPs name a little more noticeable.

What with that recent story in the UK over some dude being arrested for taking a picture of his child at a mall with his cell phone, perhaps RP supporters could latch onto the slippery slope idea of where America is heading if we don't start voting for civil liberties, as opposed to voting for safety in exchange for our liberties.

Would seem to put all the establishment candidates in one camp and could really make the average mall-goer really take notice of the only campaign that gives half a crap about our freedoms. Double trouble!

Though, it's not a catchy slogan, so it probably wouldn't help RP break 15%. = /

I have other reasons for not being libertarian--I think the framework fails wrt the environment (fish stocks, air pollution, animal populations, forests) and I believe in social programs (rightly or wrongly).

I think it was incorrect of me to group RP in with the libertarians who refuse to compromise. I think the only area in which he is probably pushing too hard against the status quo is his strong isolationist stance. I am also against the wars but I think advocating for 100% withdrawal of all troops everywhere scares people. OTOH, I think there are a lot of examples where he probably has compromised his ideology (I have no way of knowing what his true beliefs actually are) for some political gain this election cycle; notably a stronger stance towards abortion, advocating for audting the fed rather than saying that he would abolish it, and actually removing his criticism of the war on drugs almost completely from his presidential platform (correct me if I am wrong but I have watched every R debate and haven't heard him mention the WoD a single time).

This is hyperbole and you've failed to offer any concrete examples. Ron Paul's stances and proposals are already very tempered. No one is advocating anarchy.

And one does not compromise with blatant evil and destruction. End of story.

But if/when online poker legislation goes through is it really because enough people supported the bill politically? Or just because markets are hard to control? Seems to me that since it's hard/impossible to prohibit something, the government has every reason to want to allow it in some context where they at least get a bigger hand in it.

The Merge network is trying to setup payment processors in countries that don't cooperate with the DOJ as much and stuff like that. IMO it's people behaving freely that ultimately threatens government control and keeps them in check, and keeps their bills and procedures less draconian.

It's just assuming a conclusion to say this is an example of political support causing more liberty.

This is not his stance. Isolationism ≠ Non-Interventionism.

I do agree that a more reasonable and moral foreign policy (re: wars and terror) will scare people. However, I think it is one of the most important issues and is something that should not be downplayed because people are motivated by fear as a result of lies that they believe.

On my phone now, but to try and sum it up: A reduction of options (socialism) is more harmful for a society who have varied needs. Less so for an entrenched (anti-immigration) homogenous population. Especially so when military expenditures are relatively low and per capita income is high.

lol trying to argue w libertarians is like jumping into a pool of piranhas just nipping at your extremities. i gotta study but will try and come back later. keep getting aspoker and akspartan confused but please read my posts in succession.

I generally disagree with how libertarians get their message across too, for what it's worth.

I deleted that post. My points had nothing to do with homogenous populations. They would have been something like:

1. Scandinavian economies are, in many ways, freer than the US's.
2. I wouldn't agree that "socialism" is "working" there.

I agree with point 1 in a lot of cases.

As for point 2, I think there are varying degrees of "working well enough" programs in those countries.

Its extreme because that line of thinking can be used perpetually against whatever government we have in place until there isn't one. It eventually will put us back where we were 10,000 years ago when humans were hunter/gatherers and lived in social structures similar to that of chimpanzees.

Don't get me wrong, its perfectly ok to say that society would benefit from cutting government control on a specific issue or given context, but when you believe you have an inherent right to do absolutely anything, sooner or later you end up arguing that its ok to sell heroin to 8 year olds or to buy anthrax at the local store.

I would like to say that any libertarian would admit and adhere to some degree of moderation but that isn't obvious to me. There seems to be some truly absolute and dogmatic forms of libertarianism floating around out there. Its quite dangerous because for many people "don't tell me what to do" and "don't tax me anymore" become all the justification needed for being supportive or not of any form of government legislation.

You don't understand what libertarianism is.

Neither did the guy he was quoting, if he was talking about libertarianism.

you guys just aren't pure enough