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.

Libertarian Assumptions Help Prevent Election Success

Don't let the title fool you, I am Libertarian and little in this world would make me happier (certainly nothing politically would make me happier,) than ballot box success for the Libertarian Party, and like minded advocates of Liberty. I have recently been coming our of my post election hiatus from politics, trying to focus on work and family after a very busy wedding, holiday season, and taking the CISSP exam. I figured it was time to start reading and keeping up on thins socio-political, I started by picking up and reading Neil Boortz's new book Somebody's Gotta Say It, and today I also greeted the Libertarian Party News letter with an enthusiasm that was missing over the the last few months. This particular issue featured an overview of the eight candidates seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for president. Each of the candidates were asked to submit a 150 world blurb introducing themselves and explain why they are seeking to be the nominee of the Libertarian Party. I sat there reading each introduction with looking for a differentiator, but as I read the article, something else jumped out at me. Among the talk of goals for growing the Libertarian Party, rolling back taxes, winning in or pulling out Iraq, I noticed talk about reaching the liberty minded voter, “most Americans will respond to messages of freedom.” One candidate wanted to capture the right-centrist majority. Thinking back to reading Neil Boortz's book in particularly a chapter called “Freedom Loving- I Think Not,” I had to ask are they, that is do the majority Americans really love freedom. I know on its face the question seems absurd, but its worth examining.

As I stated earlier what had given be pause about this premise was recalling what I had read in Mr Boortz's book. In that chapter he recalled why he had given up doing his radio show on the fourth of July because inevitably he would loose his cool listening to various callers proclaim the virtues of our Freedom loving society, and dismiss that idea saying that by and large we are a nation of hypocrites. He would start out with the usual (and rightly so) arguments that most citizens of this country can't name their representation in congress, name the vice president, and get their news from the Daily Show on Comedy Central (he put it as Entertainment Tonight). We have all heard these charges before in way shape or form, from various late night man on the street interviews to just talking amongst your friends. Mr. Boortz then started to cite specific examples of opportunities Americans had the chance to embrace freedom albeit in limited ways. Americans turn to the government willingly it seems to regulate what we see on TV, the Medicine we take, and retirement. The privatization of Social Security was the center piece of the argument. When President Bush tried to propose that Americans get 2 % of the 14% of the money taken from them so they can invest it as they see fit, the Idea was overwhelmingly rejected. Neil figured that a freedom loving people would not only embrace the idea but demand it and expand it. He made a pretty good case that the vast majority of Americans want no more responsibility other than what to have for dinner, watch on TV, and what to do over the weekend. I think his argument does have some merit, and as a result I am not sure that most Americans only want the amount of Freedom/Liberty that they are willing to take responsibility for, and by and large that isn't much.

Where does that leave Libertarians running for office, on a message of freedom and personal responsibility? If Neil is right then we find our selves selling a very unpopular message that you are responsible for your own happiness, success, and life, that if you elect us, we will try our best to take away your ability to blame others for your position in life, no longer will the government, the rich, minorities, or your neighbor. Can the Libertarian message ever motivate a majority of Americans if most Freedom Loving American embrace the welfare state in some way shape or form. Most never question Schools, the FCC, the SEC, but they sure seem to have opinions on 911 conspiracy theories, the Iraq war, the Attorney General non-scandal, to me these are all short term distractions from the long and slow erosion of our freedoms, but that is a topic for another day.

I am not sure the public is ready for our message, while I will still go forward and press on, however I will no long make the assumption that Americans are a Freedom loving people. I have said before that there has to be a philosophical change before there can be a political change. The Politics of it all are still necessary as politics serve as a vehicle to discover philosophy for many people. Outside of that attitudes need to change, and this is going to be a long and slow process. The Progressives, Socialists and other enemies of Liberty have spent the better part of a century and half dismantling the under pinnings of freedom piece by piece. The process to restore it will be similar. We cant just cast a vote for Libertarian and be done with it. In our daily lives we must take every opportunity to stand up for Liberty, when you out on the town and people are discussing an issue, don't be afraid to take the side of Liberty. Don't let cute little sayings designed to undermine the individual go unchallenged. Just today I voiced my objection to quote posted on a friends blog, (sorry heather,) what seemed tame enough, was really evil at its core and intent, and I sure my friend didn't mean it in a harmful way, but the idea gets out there. The quote for those interested was “There is somebody smarter than one of us, and that is all of us,” seems nice maybe even comforting, and I may have come off as a nut as a result of criticizing it, but I just can't let that kind of thing go any more. It always starts small, the longest most lasting ideas do, and then they grown. I will end this now as I am starting to drift off topic. So what do you think? If you are Libertarian or Libertarian leaning are we selling an unpopular message? If you are not a Libertarian do you really love Freedom?

Sparta, Spandex and Disturbing Distortions of '300'

The battle of Thermopylae was real, but how real is the movie "300"? Ephraim Lytle, assistant professor of hellenistic history at the University of Toronto, has seen it and offers his view.



read more | digg story

One in six Europeans living below poverty threshold: study

One in six Europeans living below poverty threshold: study



read more | digg story

It's Not Your Place!!

It's Not Your Place!!!

One day we are going to wake up in society where we won't be free to exercise our freedoms in public or in our homes, and most of us will be accomplices in helping the architects of the nanny state accomplish this goal. Most won't realize it, because they would be lending their support to what they viewed as a popular cause. I am writing this because recently I read the state that I reside in (Virginia) and the state that I once resided in and hope to again one day (New Hampshire the Live Free or Die state) are attempting to impose smoking bans in public places (restaurants and bars). Most polls say this is safely in the pro-smoking ban camp, and smokers are not a popular bunch, so its easy to support a smoking ban, hell some smokers will support it just to help them quit their habit. It would also be easy to say that I am smoker who has a vested interest in opposing the ban, and I am exaggerating the assault on freedom that I eluded to earlier. I do smoke Cigars on occasion, never while eating in a restaurant, and occasionally at a bar where the owner or management chooses to allow me to, but most of my smoking is done at home or in specialty tobacco shops. The Virginia bill SB1161 protects both homes and specialty tobacco shops, so why get all worked up about this one might ask. Aside from the regulation creep (remember in the 70's and 80's all that was asked for was to separate smoking from non-smoking, and smokers largely agreed as a reasonable compromise), is that the logic, the argument the methods, can all be used to restrict other behavior that nanny state supporters find objectionable, and once you swallow those arguments and accept those premises it hard to resist them on other issues.

Forget what you hear about concern for public health, smoking bans are all about people who don't like smoke around them, and rather than make a choice that a truly free society requires of them (which do I value more going to that restaurant that allows smoking or finding another that caters to non-smokers or even just going home), they would rather use the force and power of government to change others behavior to suit their will. Rest assured that if tomorrow there was a ground breaking irrefutable study that smoking harmed no one other than the one smoking, they would still work to have the government force proprietors to ban something they would otherwise allow. The next time you are in a establishment that allows smoking and you wish there was a law against it, just remember it is not your place, and if you don't like go someplace more to your liking or better start your business that caters to like minded people.

Unfortunately, the advocates of coercion don't really make the argument easy, they know that most people have had the concept of freedom totally driven from their minds. They introduce a third party to justify their argument. First it was secondhand smoke (for the sake of argument lets assume that it is dangerous, although the matter is far from settled) affecting non-smoking patrons, and then it was food service workers and their exposure to secondhand smoke. In both these cases the assumption that is passed off, is that these “victims,” have no choice and that their freedoms have been infringed by those dirty smokers. The fact is the patron and the worker are not forced to be there, they have the same choice that the non-smoker mentioned earlier has, and that is to choose between going into an establishment that appeals to them but allows a behavior they disagree with or remain in a smoke free environment and go somewhere else. If all else the they will appeal to us based on effects on society, health insurance, medical costs, increased government expenditures, (that would lead to another argument about the government and its involvement with health care), but do we want a society that is no longer based on freedom of choice?

We now see that they have started in on fast food, there are people who hate fast food for whatever reason, health, big companies making money selling food they think is sub-standard. They launch campaigns of education against fast food, processed food and junk food, when results don't happen fast enough (like McDonald's going out of business) they introduce the third parties, like children in obesity campaigns and the health insurance arguments like you saw in the anti-smoking efforts, look at the extra-cost to society in health care costs (most of the times it private insurance, that people choose to opt into). I wonder how much sports injuries cost us in health care costs, the only difference is someone thinks it is acceptable behavior to play sports. I say that it isn't someones job to dictate what individual behaviors are acceptable. Now in New York he have laws banning trans-fats, we have gone from education, to third party victims, to legislation in record time. So what other behaviors will they go after next, I remember telling my friends in high school that fast food and junk food were next and it was only a matter of time. It has been about 20 years, and they are on their way to working on fast and junk foods, using very similar arguments. What other offensive behaviors, can they take aim at, alcohol, medications, don't under estimate their ability to make a crisis out of anything, eventually they will be on your doorstep, at firs asking you to be reasonable, then once you have given and inch they will take the mile. There will always be people that think your business is theirs and they will meddle your affairs. They can educate all they want, rant and rave, but we should draw line when they attempt to use the power of government step in and relieve them of burden of living in a free society and make a simple choice. I guess they feel they shouldn't have to. I say to bad.

It Is NOT Your Bar

It Is NOT Your Restaurant

It Is NOT Your Home

It Is NOT Your Life

My CISSP Ordeal

Over the past few months I have been studying for the CISSP exam. CISSP stands for Certified Information Systems Security Professional and is considered one of the standard measure of information security knowledge. I considered waiting until I found out if I passed or not before writing about this, but I felt that if I didn't pass that this would come off as sour grapes, and that would not be my intention. The CISSP is a 250 multiple choice question (as a kicker 50 don't count they are experiments, but they don't tell you which ones they are) test that you have 6 hours to take. When I first learned of this I figured that if you prepare enough that 6 hours would be more than enough time, and it is but not like I thought. I also heard of the tests legendary difficulty and stories of eighty percent first time failure rate on the first try. One friend of mine figure that it should rank up there with with Bar exams and Medical Board exams in stature. I believed that it was difficult, I don't know about comparing it to the Bar or medical boards I have not been close to either process. The test also is described as being a mile wide and an inch deep, you are tested on ten areas of knowledge, that are loosely related (Access control, Telecomunications Security, Security Management, Physical Security, Law and Ethics, Operations Security, Application Security, Cryptography, Security Architecture, Disaster Recovery Planning). I have to say it is every bit as difficult as promised.

I spent 4 months preparing for this exam. The first three month were light is spent time reading preparation texts in between getting married, honeymoon, thanksgiving, Christmas. In the last month I spent time taking practice quizzes (cccure.org) to assess where what areas I needed to re-enforce. That final week I took the week off from work to study, I also called in sub-goalies for my hockey team. One of my colleagues who took the test a couple of years ago told me that if you score 80% or better consistently on the cccure quizzes that you are in good shape and in the last week I was scoring in the 75-85% range on all the quizzes I was taking. I was nervous, but I felt that I did a fair amount of preparation.

Test day February 3rd in Reston VA came, and I was actually taking this test that I have put off for 3 years or so. The test is one of those choose the most correct answer type of thing, and I knew I was in trouble in the first 12 questions, as I put questions marks next to 8 of the first twelve questions, (that is my way of saying I answered as best I can but come back if there is time, because I am not as sure as I would like to be.) Most of the questions I could get down to two possible choices but I was hard pressed to to get into IC2's (testing organization) head and discerned from the question or the answers what was the most correct answer, in my head I could make a case for either. Over the span of the entire test I marked 68 questions to revisit, and that number could have been greater. It took me an hour to go through the first 50 questions (it took 2.5 hours to take 250 question quiz), and 3.5 hours to go through the first pass of 250 questions. Then it took me almost an hour to fill in the dots on the answer sheet, and to double check the accuracy. Then it took me till the 5 hour and 25 minute mark to revisit the 68 questions I had flagged, I didn't come up with a reason to change more than 5-8 of them but I still felt that I was doing myself a dis-service in my second guessing so I stopped at that moment and handed in my test. One of the proctors asked me how it was and I told him it was probably one of the work experiences in my life.

It has been 9 days since and I am waiting for notification as to whether I passed or not. The CISSP lives up to it reputation as a difficult test, and I hope I pass if no other reason as to not have to take it again.

The Libertarian Alternative - Sue Jeffers

Restaurant owner and LP activist Sue Jeffers on smoking bans and other regulation of the small business.