Stosselian Libertarianism

From an article linked at Real Clear Politics, take a look at why John Stossel considers himself a libertarian.

I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.

So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.

When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"

I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.

"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."

If you don't get Fox Business Channel, demand it!

Bookmark our site!


Consider advertising on our site!

Interview: Mike Farmer from Bonzai

Mike Farmer is the chief writer at the libertarian blog Bonzai. This is number 38 in our interview series. According to his site: This site is about libertarian ideas, politics, economics, government, freedom, property rights, entrepreneurship, innovation, objectivty and other such stuff important to humans. I uphold libertarian principles and believe wholeheartedly in minimal government, or no government if it would work -- this blog explains why.

1. Do you consider yourself more of a libertarian or a libertarian conservative? Why?

I consider myself a classical libertarian, individualist, free-thinker, not a conservative in the sense of social conservativism. Although I agree with conservatives who promote limited government and free market principles, I'm dynamic and liberal regarding how people live their lives, as long as they aren't violating the basic individual rights of others.

2. Who did you support in 2008 for President and why?

I sat out in 2008 because I didn't see any candidate worth voting for. Barr was not a good libertarian choice, because of what I consider conservative-statist tendencies.

3. What has been President Obama's biggest achievement in office?

Obama's biggest achievement has been to place a focus on civil liberties. As a nation, we were becoming too willing to trade liberty for security regarding the "War on Terror", so I think it was wise to narrow our war efforts to Al Quaeda and start withdrawing from Iraq.

4. Biggest failure?

Obama's biggest failure has been his unwillingness to fight against corporate welfare and allow large corporations to fail. Obama is a statist and he's creating a new state/corporation alliance and power-structure.

5. What is the best part about running your site?

What I like best about running this site is the ability to express my views and be a part of the national/global conversation. I feel as if I'm participating in a libertarian shift in thinking that is constantly growing.

6. Anything else you'd like to tell folks in internetland?

I am basically a person who believes the State has grabbed too much power and the answers to societal problems lie mainly in the private realm. If government would back off from regulations and central planning, I think we would see a free market much different in the 21st century than the early years of capital formation and growing pains. My site is dedicated to fighting statism and promoting libertarian ideas and the power just beginning to awaken in the private realm.

http://bonzai.squarespace.com/

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

A Strong GOP-- Liberty Caucus Included

Fellow co-blogger Mr. K wrote in a recent article that the Republican Party must stand tall on defense issues with libertarians. He is essentially right-- we all need to band together, especially in the face of threats from Iran and terrorism.

The unifying force of a common defense policy helped push President Bush to his 51% victory in 2004. Yes, there were many different factors, but none weighed more on the American people-- especially Republicans, libertarians, independents, and some intelligent Democrats-- like the defense policies of President bush. These policies promoted freedom while remaining strong and on the offense. President Obama's plan offers neither.

Many libertarians are anti-war and isolationist. Just look at Ron Paul's movement. What's important is that pro-defense Libertarians and libertarian Republicans band together to fight on this important issue. People like Neal Boortz and Eric Dondero are strongly pro-defense while sometimes siding with the GOP.

Defense ties in with other major issues-- gun rights, global warming, and the toothlessness of the United Nations. Only with a strong policy, just like that advanced by Reagan and Bush can the GOP and libertarians see eye to eye and win the White House in 2012.

Divisions will likely help the Democrats and a third-party run of 'purists' is likely to put Obama back in the White House. Think about that.

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Obama: Lesser Political Parties "Unnecessary"

Richard Edelman
Conservative News and Reporting
"News for the rest of us"


WASHINGTON- In what experts are calling a "ground-breaking move," President Obama Sunday called "lesser" political parties unnecessary, hinting that he may consider outlawing them.

"There can only be so many points of views in our country," the President said at a press conference on Sunday. "It is clear that parties such as the Socialist Party, Workers Party, or Libertarian Party will never represent a meaningful percent of the American public. They simply cannot contribute to the electoral process.

"I hate to say it, but it may be easier and cheaper to remove these parties," President Obama continued. "In a time of recession, we can benefit two-fold from removing these smaller parties. One, by ending these entities, it will be much cheaper to run elections and count votes. Two, we need political unity in a time like this, and lesser parties, such as the Constitution Party, only serve as divisive.

"I will never say that we should get rid of these parties," Obama said, "I just feel the need to outline the benefits that are possible."

The President's speech, which has largely been ignored by the media, has still been met with massive resistance. "I can't believe what he is alluding to," said Henry Epstike, a member of the Green Party. "To say that we must silence dissent by getting rid of other parties is ridiculous."

Patricia Chires, an Independent, stated her outrage, stating, "What, just because I think that machine politics are ruining the two-party system, I am wrong? I don't like the Democrat or Republican party because they don't listen to their roots. But am I suppose to join them because the President demands it? I don't think so."

Even with many lesser party members stating their disapproval with the President's proposal, he still plans to make a speech to Congress within the next month.

"It is something we must deal with," the President said. "We cannot have dissenters in the government."



If you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below: