Atlas Shrugged Part 1 the Wait is Over

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Review

I have been keeping an eye out for this movie for some time, I have seen one group or another pick up the rights to Atlas Shrugged over the last 10 years, most wanted to make a movie out of it and at one point a mini series out of it, which I thought made the most sense. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were at one point slated to be in an Atlas Shrugged Movie. Like most fans of Atlas Shrugged I was on the fence, yes I wanted to see this book and its characters come alive on a small or large screen and in doing so making the characters and ideas accessible to more people, but at the same time could you really do the 1000+ page novel in 2-3 hours, and the reality was probably not. I am happy that the producers decided to split the book into its three parts and make three separate installments, that certainly makes it less challenging but still difficult. Now that the producers had 6 hours to tell the story, I was pulled more toward the enthusiastic side of the fence I was on.

To be clear I am fan of the book so I went to the theater with the predisposition of wanting to like this film, I am only really putting my thoughts down on “paper,” at the request of some of my friends who are on the more skeptical side of the fence and asked me what I thought of the film. In general with expectation that even with 6 hours (assuming the other two parts are made, nothing is certain in life or Hollywood)to play with that it would be hard to completely represent the novel perfectly, I liked the movie, and I’m glad that I went to see it on opening day. Was the film perfect?, no but I did enjoy seeing the characters on the big screen and it was true enough to the book and for me that out-weighed the deficiencies.

From the beginning casting was a concern, imdb.com revealed a lot of names that were not exactly household names, but that was to be expected in my opinion as I’m sure that Atlas Shrugged is not a favorite of the Hollywood types and it would either take people with a lot of courage to thumb their nose at the Hollywood establishment or people trying to make a name for themselves. Originally I had concerns about Dagny and Hank Reardon, now that I have seen the movie I am happy with the casting for the most part. Taylor Shilling was a convincing Dagny, and Grant Bowler was a competent Henry Reardon, and the people you had a visceral disdain for in the book, Wesley Mouch, Phillip Reardon, and Lillian Reardon pretty much turned my stomach on film. While John Galt was really just a shadowy figure at this point I felt he may be the weak link. The few appearances of Paul Johansson’s John Galt seemed forced and heavy handed, the good news you really don’t ever get a gook look at him so they can fix it. The bottom line is that I felt I was watching Dagny, Hank, Lillian, and not actors playing them.

If you have read Atlas Shrugged then I can’t tell you much about the story that you don’t already know, but there are some things unique to the film that you need to be prepared for. In order to avoid doing a period piece they attempted to a trick to make the the story more contemporary, rather than make the story set in 30’s and 40’s, they set the film in the very near future (2016), and in order to make the railroad relevant to modern audiences the file was set in post fuel crisis America where the US is largely cut off from International oil, alternatives are obviously not panning out, and outside of Ellis Wyatt no one is producing and domestic fuel, so the country has returned to the railroad as a major source of transport. The first five minutes pretty much established this new time-line and the rest of the movie is pretty much true to the book as much as 350 or so pages can be in an hour and forty five minutes.

That being said the story does seem rushed, much like the Fountainhead movie seemed to me, but if you know the book your brain fills in the gaps nicely, After setting the scene in the future you are thrust into the middle of the Rio-Norte Line dilemma and the Equalization of Opportunity Bill, and it goes fast from there. It goes so fast that I’m not sure it would be good exposure for someone unfamiliar with the book, so keep that in mind you intend to go with some who is on the fence about reading Atlas Shrugged. I feel they were about as true to the book as they could have been in an hour and forty minutes, not that its perfect and you certainly find things to nit-pick but on balance it was a B+ effort cramming Part one into movie format.

Most of what was glossed over from the story I could live with, but there was on thing that I really felt they missed the mark on and that was the whole conversation with Ivy Starnes and the altruistic compensation plan that brought about the downfall of the 20th Century motor Company. They should have spent more time on how that happened and should have had Ivy Starnes tell the story and expose the face of evil, instead they just had Reardon explain it to Dagny on the drive to the plant, I felt they missed and opportunity to relay one of the major points of the book. There were other smaller things (nit-picks, but still enjoyed the movie), because attempt to bring the novel into the near future they skipped opening of the book, I wold have really liked to see the city, with the lights out and the calendar in the skyline as Eddie Willers walked by. I also wanted to see Hugh Akston make that hamburger, Ayn Rand vividly described the philosophy professor making that hamburger, I wanted to see it, a small point but I would have liked to see it. The last thing that comes to mind and this is a minor concern, was for the most part they ignored the cigarette with the dollar sign for most of the film, it was absent in all the disappearances of Mulligan, McNamara, and Wyatt, but they made a point of showing it when Dagny was speaking to Akston at the diner and there was no indication that Dagny noticed it.

When I walked out of the theater I was happily satisfied with what I saw, part of me wanted to find fault with it but in the end I was happy to spend some time with the characters that I enjoyed from the book, and for me that is what it was all about. The question I have been asked is should a “fence sitter” go see it and my answer is yes, for me it was worth it to see Dagny, Hank, and Francisco on the big screen. Just seeing the rails made of Reardon Metal stretching though beautiful Colorado vistas was inspiring. Not every one will like the film people who should stay away include people who are looking for a verbatim recitation of the book, you wont find it in this film or probably ever, also if you are the kind of person who lets some of the small details bother you like Hugh Akston not making the burger, or “its 2016 why are they looking at paper files and not a tablet computer” and if you believe that Atlas Shrugged should have never been made into a movie I doubt that this movie will convince you otherwise, then don’t go. Most fans of the book will enjoy seeing Dagny, Hank, Eddie, Ellis,and Francisco and for that alone it will be well worth going, and when you think about it may be the only time in most of life times to see the Characters brought to life in the movies, given how long this movie took to come into reality, if the film does not do well there won’t be financial incentive to try again so if your waiting for a better version film you probably won't see it your life time.

A qualified 4 out of 5 dollar signs.

What I Learned While I Attended My Sparring Session

I tried sparring today and I learned some things
1) I was told that no one is any good their first couple times sparring, I found that I am no exception.
2)  Even when I think that my hands are up, I still get punched in the face.
3) That I have a hard time punching someone who didn't make me angry, even when he let his guard down (to let me hit him) I found that I pulled my punches (to be fair he wasn't wearing head gear).
4) The ability stand my my ground against fast moving objects, a posotive trait while playing ice hockey as a goalie, is not such a good trait while boxing.
On a positive note I have nice full lips without the aid of botox.

On Giving Back

On Giving Back

All my life I have been an advocate of small government, and individual liberty, as I get older the smaller I want government to be. From the time my parents pulled me out of middle school band concert, when the school officials decided to make it into an impromptu protest against a tax reduction measure, my parents supported, I have had a wary eye toward the power of government. I am what most Libertarians call a minarchist, I believe the only purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals, as a result I don't see very many legitimate rolls for government in individuals lives. Through out the time in my Republican past and certainly now in my Libertarian present, my views are often met with a couple of refrains, 1) don't you want to be part of a civil society, and 2) I would usually get some form of the “your selfish, because you don't want to give back.” First of all point number one “the civil society argument,” which isn't topic of this particular entry, I will say that government doesn't make society civil, that should be culture and philosophy, government should only be a failsafe, if you depend on government force to make society civil, I would argue that our society isn't very civil, and has bigger problems. What I have been annoyed with lately is the “Give Back” concept, it assumes that I don't, it also drops context because it always used to justify further legalized plunder of what I worked for, and forgets what I am already giving back, as if the current amount is a given and has always been that way. It also assumes that what you earn would be more moral in the hands of someone else.

I am here to say that I do give back and I do it in two different ways, I give back voluntarily and involuntarily. Involuntarily, I am currently taxed, and I like to ask some one who urges me to “give back,” if they know how much I currently “give back” and how do they know I don't. First of all I pay somewhere between 25% and 30% of my income in income taxes, this doesn't count state and local taxes. When I buy something I also pay the state and local sales tax, in addition I pay for the all the corporate taxes on that item. Corporations don't really pay taxes, they are just collectors, as the taxes are just figured into the cost of doing business and are factored into the cost of the item or service, either by increased price or less people bringing you the service. By the time all is said and done by some estimates I pay 30%-50% of my money in taxes all told, so don't tell me we are not “giving back”. If you don't think that I am, I invite you to tell me what number constitutes “giving back”, and I insist an a number here.

The other way I give back and this way is voluntary, when I buy an item or a service, I am redistributing wealth in a far more efficient way than the government. When I get my paycheck at the end of my pay period, I don't cover the walls in my basement with it. I buy things and invest in things, I buy food, clothing, transportation, utilities, and entertainment, put money in my 401k, and IRA's. Wow what a life I lead, and its a good thing I do so people like Home Depot, Best Buy, Verizon Fios, and my local restaurants all hire people to take my money, and their suppliers hire people and services to get those goods and services to the stores and providers I frequent, and all the people along the way get paychecks as well, and they all pay taxes. Hopefully all those people will go out and buy the software that my employer produces. The more I “give back” with the first method via the government the less money I have for the second method. So again I do give back, should I stop contributing to the economy? Thats what you would have me do the more I am required to “give back,” by the first method.

There is a lot of talk about the “evil rich”, I would be careful of such talk because in todays society rich is turning out to be anyone who has a dollar more than you, so while some can't wait for big daddy government take that dollar, what they don't realize is that someone else is waiting for that same government to take away your extra dollar. I like what is mine and what is my family's, and I act to gain and keep what I value both material and spiritual and philosophical, and if that makes me selfish then I accepted that description proudly. Those who would call me selfish and advocate that I give back more, I have to ask if I earned it and it is some how bad that I keep it, why aren't the people accepting it considered selfish? What makes food in mouths of my family any less moral than food in the mouth of someones else's family? If I am selfish for keeping are they not selfish for accepting it? I guess they don't have to worry about it if the money is laundered through government. In the future I propose the we have an exit strategy for giving back much like we have when going to war, define why why what we give isn't enough and really justify that, and then tell us what point enough is, where it will be considered that we gave back. I think most hard working Americans if they really look at find that they already “Give Back”.

From Conversion to Convention

From Conversion to Convention

The Journey and Observations of a New Libertarian

Since I was 6 years old I have been interested in politics at some level. Early on it was largely because of my parents, my first recollection of politics came in the 1976 election. My parents were Ford supporters, or more likely Carter opponents, the morning after the election I remember hearing that Carter had won, from my classmates in the first grade, my teacher seemed pretty happy about it. After a few years of gas lines, huge inflation, the invention of the misery index and the general humiliation of the United States around the world, my parents view seemed vindicated. When I was punished as a child I was often grounded and television was always taken away even for the slightest of offenses, my parents often would make an exception for the news, I guess I was in trouble enough to loose my early dislike for news and world events, but I never let on. In 1980 I actually faked sick to watch Reagan's inauguration. Reagan years were good for my family and politics didn't seem as crucial through my teen years.

In college I met a group of objectivists at the University, and the message of individual liberty and the morality of the self interested man actually as moral. My objectivist years were probably one of the biggest influences in my life, it led to a parting of ways with my parents in some respects, (gun control, religion being the most noticeable). All the while I had maintained my Republican affiliation and I took a lot of grief from my friends about it. I figured they weren't perfect but hey they were the most likely to keep their hands of my wallet and I felt at the time the religious right was being placated.

I was even a College Republican Chairman for a year. That came to end when I wouldn't support some members wishes to protest and adult bookstore, that had existed for years without issue, merely because a friend of a member had opened a bridal store next door. My reaction was that you friend shouldn't have opened her store there, and I wouldn't lend my support or the groups support against capitalism. It became clear I wasn't wanted and I left, but I still voted Republican, because they in my mind had the least amount of plans for my wallet.

This was also the time I started hear about the Libertarian Party, my objectivist friends and mentors gave the same about of flack if not more about this, claiming that they really had no underpinning philosophy and ethics to back up Liberty while I saw their point, but I still felt it was an overly harsh criticism, at the same time I didn't get behind them mainly because of the “they cant' win,” argument, and I still wanted to vote against the Democrats 1) because they couldn't wait to get their hands on my wallet and 2) through college I came to realize the incremental march toward socialism the left had us on was more successful and more dire than I had originally had know. I wasn't super high on the Republicans either with the first George Bush caving to Democratic pressure to shutdown the government and raising taxes. My feelings were let them, shut down the government things will probably run better anyway. The recession hit, and you would figure people would learn but no, we elected Bill Clinton even thought the economy was coming back 5 months before the election and on a dime the press played up the Clinton “recovery,” but I called it the Wal-Mart recovery because for the most part that was when the wal-mart expanded from the south to the north, and it took me 6 years to make the same level of income that I made as a night loader when I was in high school.

When I left college I really had left college, for many years I was disaffected with politics, I figured that we were sliding toward socialism just one party was going to take the country there faster than the other. I was resigned to my objectivist friends view that there can't be a political change in this country unless there is first a philosophical change, and largely I still believe that today. I was curious however George W. Bush got elected, I wondered if this guy would fulfill the failed promises of previous Republicans, after he has a Republican congress. I ignored all his talk of compassionate conservatism throughout the campaign, I was hoping that was just empty campaign promises, no such luck he meant everything he said. He and the Republican congress spent like drunken sailors. From that point on I knew that they never meant what they said and they lost all credibility. He also laid the ground work for the Democrats to come in and reach into my wallet.

There I was after spending six years focusing on my career, I wanted to find a political outlet again, the Republicans had their chance and failed, the democrats were never an option and as far as I was concerned they were partners on the slow march toward the slavery that is socialism. I started thinking about the Libertarians again. I had always had similar views, at least 90-95% anyway and I had to believe there had to be a group that still advocates for Liberty. I started to do some research into the because the one thing I did know, I would be in for a great deal of frustration for the foreseeable future if I were to join, so I wanted to makes sure it was what I thought it was. I had concerns this party might be entirely populated by anarchists, 911 “truthers,” I also have concerns that given the attitude my objectivist friends had toward libertarians, that libertarians might have a similar attitude toward objectivists. I looked around the Internet, the LP web site wasn't a lot of help, it was focus largely on signing up members, not a lot of thought leadership. Web sites like LewRockwell.com seemed to be consumed with with the war in Iraq. I believe that there are some proper roles for government and that is to protect our individual rights from those individuals who would infringe on them, from foreign governments who would threaten them, and have a courts system to moderate disputes between individuals. Reading some web sites I had my doubts that libertarians believed as I did, there was a lot of if “we just leave everyone alone, they will all become western and leave us alone” and we seemed in there estimation who pursued foreign policy based on self interest and that we were the entire cause of the suffering in the world. I was sophomoric view of the world a lot of board posters had, they reminded me of people in college were easily led by their professors, and had never been out of the country outside of maybe a Caribbean resort. No one seemed focused on the lefts march to socailism or the rights inability to stop them.

I was starting to feel like there would be no political home for me, but luck for me it was a election year, and in my district in Virginia there was Libertarian candidate running for congreess, name Wilbur (Bill) Wood. Looking at his website I saw some common sense approaches to reduce government, and he wasn't trying to go for the libertarian home run and trying to achieve utopia over night. His site was linked to state libertarian site which had his campaign meetings listed in the calendar. I figured as last ditch opportunity I would crash Mr Woods Campaign, maybe the bloggers and posters weren't as representative as it seemed at the time, I will mix it up with the people with their feet on the ground. His meeting was scheduled to be at a sports bar 10 minutes from where I work, so we were off to a good start, if it wasn't for me at least I could have a drink and move along. When I got there I found 5 volunteers from around the district and one or two outside of the district, they were all reasonable, while we had differences they were calm and willing to discuss, a refreshing change from the dismissive attitudes I saw in cyberspace. The campaign staff was a little taken aback by my presence, they just weren't used to someone seeking them out to learn more about their campaign. Once they got over the shock, they jumped on the opportunity to draft me into their campaign, and I was willing to do so. It was a fruitless experience although it was fun, I put out signs, helped with debate prep, and sat in on strategy sessions, I don't know if I was a help at all but it was fun. My time was also educational, I found that most people really like the two party system, and aren't fans of the democratic process. I remember putting signs out at the debate and getting nasty looks and more than a handful of people tell us that we shouldn't even be there and that we were nothing more than a distraction, and we would be taking away time from those they were there to see. I guess some people only like to hear heavily financed points of view, so much for being against money in politics. Leaving the debate (after Bill put in a good performance) there were some positive reaction, there were comments like “I'm not going to vote for you but I'm glad you were in the debate, and you made some valid points,” I guess that is what you look for as a Libertarian, is to make some headway and educate. In the end we got a shade less than one percent, but I had decided to hang around.

Bill who was also the 10^th district Chairman wasted no time after the election to head up the Libertarian group in my county. Apparently there was once a robust group, but over the last few years it had died out. I am not and never really have been a good organizer, but I figured that I decided to be a member of the party, and if I don't do it no one will. I made contributions to the party both national and state, and I had donated to Bill's campaign, and I realized this was the first time I had put my money where my mouth was. I started up a meetup.com page in hopes to draw new members. It was very slow at first, who am I kidding it still is slow but not as bad as before. Six months after I started my group a funny thing happened Ron Paul decided to run for the Republican presidential nomination, and I saw my pool of potential members run to the Republican Party, the place where I came from. So far they aren't returning either. Maybe after the Republican convention happens and their dream of taking over the convention falls short they may return, but they maybe they will grow to like the trappings of being part of big party.

Time flies and I find another elections season upon us and a Presidential one at that. I was curious as to who would be running for the Libertarians, hoping that it would be someone who could capture the attention of the general public. The Democrats seemed more Marxist than ever, probably emboldened to be themselves by the blunders of the bush administration. They railed against the war and manipulated intelligence, but I doubt it would have been different after all it was Clinton/Gore who manipulated the intelligence and the media to get us involved in Bosnia where there was absolutely no national interest. The Democrats also cried about the spending of the Bush administration, so did I, but I suspect for different reasons, the Democrats hate it when other people try to buy back the votes they already bought. The Republicans also didn't put anyone that would entice me to come back, and yes that includes Ron Paul. I respect Ron Paul and I agree with him probably 80% of the time but I had a hard time getting past 10% of the 20% of the things I didn't agree with him on, and just when I thought I might I would run into one of his supporters, and they would kill any reconsideration on my part. The biggest issue I had with Ron Paul he largely had the right message but was the wrong messenger, and in addition his followers seemed to drive away as much support as they draw. Plenty of times I would run into a Ron Paul supporter who would be shocked that I wouldn't give my unqualified support to Dr. Paul, and instead of take the time to convince me, at the first sign of objection they would shout that I was stupid, or even worse call me a fascist, joining the growing ranks of people who either don't know what a fascist or Fascism is or willingly cheapen the term till its meaning is just people we don't like. In the end I felt Ron and Supporters would to more damage to the Libertarians than good, they play well with the converted, but they put off the general public and some of the converted.

I looked at the Libertarian field and most candidates boiled down to the what I call a Libertarian Utopian, one who thinks they can win and bring the Libertarian way of life to the country in one term. I only wish the left took the same approach a century ago, they would be as irrelevant as libertarians are now. Imagine if in 1920's the Democrats said elect us were going implement the Communist Manifesto as soon as we get in, instead they got us to buy in little by little playing on Judeo/Christen guilt and proposing government action/force as a cure, and I think we need to get back, in a similar fashion as people aren't ready for it yet, so I am not moved by them. Then there are the America is all bad types that believe we should take all shots at our populace because some how we deserve everything that happens to us, well given my position on the proper function of government I can't support that either. Remember the purpose of a political party is to win hearts and minds to do well in elections, much different than a philosophical movement some don't seem to get that in the Libertarian Party. The anti-war, anti-defense, candidates don't seem to realize you can't tell the difference between their Bush hatred (largely founded but overplayed as he isn't running again) and the Democrats, the people who are anti-war and hate Bush will vote democrat. They can be anti-defense/war, but just emphasize something that differentiates you from the major parties, if you say the same things they will just drown them out. There are some running for the Libertarian nod who aren't even Libertarians, not based on Libertarian purity tests, but by their own admission we have a green, and and independent seeking the Libertarian nomination. Finally there is Wayne Allyn Root is he perfect no, but he is articulate and the most media savvy Libertarian I have seen and he access to the media that none of the others (outside of maybe Bob Barr) will have their entire life. Mr Root knows we aren't going to win the election but he does see it as an opportunity to get the message out. I was excited after listening to him, I said this was the kind of guy that had I not already joined the party, would have peaked my interest and probably would have gotten me to join, and if he would have reached me he is likely to reach others. Here I am thinking things were going well, we might have a compelling candidate when there are probably more disaffected Republicans out there then Democrats, we might actually grow the party get more than 1 % in the general election. My spirit was renewed, I signed up to attend the national convention, I spent last Sunday gathering signatures for one of our candidates for US Senate here in Virginia, (much to my wifes chagrin as I was away all week on a business trip, and she can't understand why I support a group that doesn't participate and wants to loose). Things were going well, talk shows like Glen Beck, and Man cow, had Wayne on their show, He was on fox sports, Fox business, sure its not 60 Minutes or Night Line, but it sure is better than Internet radio when it comes to exposing Libertarian ideas to new audiences.

My optimism was short lived as I went to the Internet again, and started to notice what some of my friends in Libertarian circles refer to the “Purity Police.” These are anarchists in the Libertarian Party who see no role for government at all in society, they go beyond the founding fathers belief that government was a necessary evil, and some will criticize the founding fathers for not going far enough, I don't think they really take into the account the context of the founders achievement. The Purity Police, have been posting constantly accusing Mr Root of being a war monger, a criticism I find unfair as the Purity Police would regard anyone who doesn't subscribe to the niave view of foreign policy where all aggression in the world is caused by the United States, and that if we leave everyone alone (a good thing outside of trade) that everyone will love us (this ignores reality), is a war monger. They seem to leave no provision in their view of role of government to protect our rights from aggressors from abroad, or if they do they don't see the possibility of force being necessary. The Anarchists and Radicals also seem to think that Wayne Root may be using the Libertarian Party, this is the funniest accusation among many, what would anyone have to gain by using the Libertarian party, we get less than one percent in presidential elections, the LP is nonexistent in congress, finish a distant third most of the time in state races, and usually only hold a couple of local government seats, why is he using the Libertarian party? I know from my personal journey, if make the choice to join the Libertarian party you are believer of some sort, you don't come to the Libertarian party for prestige, because the first thing that happens is your friends, family and neighbors question your judgment, and I am sure that it is no different for Mr. Root.

When it comes to the Purists ( a term I use with a great amount of hesitation as it implies that their view of liberty resembles pure, and gives them more credit than they may deserve), they would rather have college professor type candidate who will people will barely see on C-SPAN. In various comments to Internet posts and blogs some will even stat they would rather have a candidate incapable of appealing to public and who can only reach the Purity Police themselves, rather than someone who although not perfect, could get advance Libertarian Ideas to a new group of people. I wonder if they know what a political party is for, and if they might be more at home in a philosophical discussion group, where they can congratulate themselves on how intellectually pure they believe themselves to be. When they insult people like Mr Root and Bob Barr, they insult people like me who came from somewhere else, and had to struggle with the decision to come here. It would be one thing if they would try to convince through argument and persuasion, but all to often they fall back on restating their original assertion louder and then they resort to calling names, but rarely to I see real debate. They don't want a big tent party, or even a pup tent party, they more want an umbrella sized party.

My wife often wonders why I spend so much time dealing with a party that has been so inept, and sometimes I begin to wonder myself. When it comes down to it, eventually my wife and I are going to have kids and the best things I can hope to provide them is life in a free society, and provided I do a good job in raising them, they will ask me what I have done, to further the cause of Liberty I can tell them I did something even if it in the end wasn't the right or most effective thing. I was thinking about ducking out of the Libertarian Convention, figuring that there was no use that the Libertarian Party was about ready to destroy itself or whats left of itself, with all the factionalism, but I have decided to go anyway. The Purity Police will have to do more than insult people on some blog comments to scare me away, I will make a determination when at the convention if the time I spent gathering signatures, helping out in campaigns and the money I donated was a waste or not. If I have to treat some “Libertarians” as hostile then so be it, they will get the same treatment that socialist will get. I know of a few people who are going that I have already learned from and know that Liberty won't advance if we keep the LP as some poorly executed exclusive debate society. It will be good to meet others who love liberty and care to advance it.

A Political Test

You are a Social Liberal (70% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (80% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian (80e/70s) Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

20-1 Things Libertarians Believe

Here is a list that may speak to part of my last post, what do Libertarians believe, I think that this list I found is a good attempt at boiling it down to what most Libertarians believe . It was titled "20 Things You Have to Believe to be a Libertarian Today." I noticed 17 i s missing so it should be 20 -1 things.

01. Taxes are way too high.

02. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a vital individual right.

03. Freedom OF religion by necessity must include freedom FROM religion.

04. The chief cause of societal problems today is government solutions.

05. Government should limit itself to the powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution.

06. If you harm or endanger no others, what you do is not the business of the government. A man’s damnation is his own business.

07. The Drug War does more damage to society than the drugs, and violates the Constitution as well.

08. Malum prohibita (Victimless Crime laws) have no Constitutional basis and should be done away with.

09. Government should have to obey the same laws it expects citizens and corporations to obey. Especially regarding the environment and labor.

10. Social Security should be privatized and forced to obey the laws. A government ordered ponzi scheme is still a ponzi scheme.

11. Freedom of speech includes the internet, and political conventions. Citizens should not be forced to stand in outdoor prison cells euphemistically called “Free Speech Zones” to state their opinions far from media or officials.

12. Free immigration strengthens America. Illegal immigration should be punished, legal immigration should be free, fair, and easy. However immigrants should not expect free handouts. All they should get is what anyone should get, a fair chance to rise as far as their abilities let them.

13. The welfare state doesn’t work. End it. Establish a $1 for $1 tax deduction for charitable contributions.

14. Our educational system is broken. End the federal Department of Education and return this issue to the states.

15. The tax system is in dire need of reform. Limit deductions to a very few. Your yearly taxes should be easy enough that a small postcard size form is all that is needed to figure them out, be you a billionaire or impoverished.

16. Amending the Constitution is a very serious thing and should not be advocated lightly or for mere matters of policy. Banning gay marriage or flag burning via amendment is not only wrong, but the attempt cheapens the Constitution itself.

18. The government should not be allowed to infringe the rights of citizens by collecting databases of legal activities by citizens. National ID cards or chips, V-chips, clipper-chips and the like should be choices by free individuals, not enforced by law.

19. The Constitution means what it says. We should not be going to war without an explicit declaration of war by congress as provided by the Constitution. Reacting to attack is fine, planning and executing an invasion sans such a declaration is not.

20. Free and fair debate is essential to a democratic republic. Any candidate on the ballot in an area large enough to give them a mathematical chance to win an election should be allowed in any debates, appearances, or forums.

Feel free to pass this around.

Source:

http://vandeervecken.blog-city.com/20_things_you_have_to_believe_to_be_a_libertarian_today.htm

Dissapointed

In September of 2006 I had finally come to the realization that the Republican party of which I was a part of (mainly as I had seen it as the much lesser of two evils for years), was not a guardian of individual liberties and free market capitalism, and I decided to leave the Republicans and become a Libertarian. I contributed to the national party and the state party (Virginia), I also joined the Wood for congress campaign. I figured that I would be giving up Election Day victories for the foreseeable future, but at least I would be holding a more intellectually honest stand. I knew there were some nuts in the Libertarian party, but I figured every party has its extremes, the Democrats have their environmental extremists, and unabashed communists, while the Republicans had their ultra religious right, I am not referring to most church going people, but the ones who secretly hold that the Taliban had it right with the exception that they follow the wrong god. In the end I figured the media portrayal of Libertarians was exaggerated, but lately I have had my doubts, because it is hard to discern where the Libertarian populace is on things.

Bill Redpath (chairman of the national Libertarian Party) once relayed to me what appeared to be a common thought and that is “people join the Libertarian Party for two issues,” and those seem to vary widely. My frustration has risen in the last week as I believe the Libertarian movement was presented a golden opportunity to differentiate themselves from the two major parties, but to my chagrin, with the exception of talk radio (Neil Boortz, Larry Elder), no one has picked up on it. The opportunity I speak of was handed to us by Hillary Clinton, when using very euphemistic language told us what here plans for our country were, She called for (and I am paraphrasing here) going away from an “on your own society,” ( I read that as a society based on individual rights) to a “were all in it together society, based shared responsibility and shared prosperity,” (I read as a society where government is above the individual and law, where the productive are subjected to unproductive, where everyone can share in same level of misery and mediocrity). I know as Libertarians we know this is what Hillary and most Democrats / Republicans are all about (based on the last six years I can’t believe anything else), and my be yawn as old news, but this is about a clear cut as I can recall her saying it. No matter what pet freedom project , you support smoking, guns, capitalism this effects you. Up until now the Democrats war on the individual and individual rights was in the marshaling resources phase, I consider Hillary’s remarks as the first open volley against the individual, they think that enough of the populace is ready to forsake their liberties and accept the yoke of socialism, and I fear they may be right.

What was the Libertarian response, crickets? Well not exactly, What did libertarians or the Libertarian party do? Did we stop eating our own in our inquisition of intellectual purity? Did we take a break from fighting the anitsmokers, antigun, and the envior-communists? No Hillary’s throwing down the gauntlet was largely ignored instead I got a mass emailing railing against Rudy Gulianani (which even if I took the accusations at face value, it is not as big a threat as Hillary’s war on the individual), and I also received the normal quota of Bush bashing which is fine and he has done much to be bashed for, but guess what he is done in two years time, and his approval rating is a 28%, I think you have reached point of diminishing returns on the bush bashing thing. So far the libertarian community has said little or noting in response to Hillary. The Libertarian Party has done nothing to seize on this can the Libertarian party be considered an advocate of liberty if it can't respond to such an affront? If we can’t stand together for individual liberties, then I don’t know what is important to other people who consider themselves Libertarians. Pleas e if any one knows of response to this that I am missing please let me know, until then Boortz and Elder and i hate to say it Hannity are the biggest defenders of liberty out there , no matter how much the libertarian inquisition disagrees with the first two on the war and out right hate the latter.