Sunday, December 9, 2012

Amash: "I Am Not Going To Take Anything Off the Table"

What kind of  libertarian could say this?
Everything needs to be considered to ease the country's debt burden, said Rep. Justin Amash of Cascade Township, a Republican with libertarian views. "I don't think it would be a good idea to raise tax rates," he said, but added, "I am not going to take anything off the table if we can resolve some of our biggest issues as a country."
Government taxes is one of two big issues. Without the Fed printing press and taxation, the government couldn't support any of its interventionist policies. Why would you not take raising taxes off the table?  In fact, cutting taxes aggressively should be put on the table.

Amash is being a politician here (and a bad one) and not a libertatrian. A libertarian should be advancing the libertarian cause, not advancing the state by agreeing to higher taxes. Sad.

(ht Felix Bronstein)


  1. People I've known for years cannot understand how angry I am at the situation that's developed over many decades.

    It is sad that people like Amash get elected on a libertarian platform and fail to try what they were sent there for.

    I can say this with the utmost sincerety: if I was sent to Washington, it would be a badge of honor to be hated by everyone in that city. I would be Dr. No #2. That's what we need. This is no time to be a wishy-washy douchebag.

    1. Amen. Especially to that last paragraph.

    2. ... have you actually seen what Amash has been doing in congress or are you just talking out your ass?

  2. 100% off subject - my apologies.

    But is "suspended????


    1. Whew! Just a tech problem, apparently. I thought the "fingermen" had blackbagged Tom!

  3. The comment by Justin Amash, rather than merely showing his views on the taxation issue, actually betrays a core attribute of a statist: collectivism.

    Consider this gem:
    "Everything needs to be considered to ease the country's debt burden..."

    Translates into: "Everything, no matter what it means to INDIVIDUAL rights and liberties, needs to be considered to ease the COLLECTIVE'S debt burden (which is not really the collective's debt burden at all, but the government's debt burden. It's just that they don't actually produce anything therefor have no money of their own)."

    This sneaky one, where he wants you to know he hates raising taxes (i am a small government guy, honestly i am), yet still won't take the big government solution off the table, because the "country's big issues" need to be resolved.

    "I don't think it would be a good idea to raise tax rates," he said, but added, "I am not going to take anything off the table if we can resolve some of our biggest issues as a country."

    In other words, big government statists cause the problems, and Justin Amash thinks that as a solution, the American people need to foot the bill, if necessary.

    Collectivist: Collectives before individuals.
    Statist: Spending/debt the problem; steal more money from the public the solution.

    Justin Amash isn't ashamed to be both, even if he wants you to know he won't like it.
    That last part is especially for the apologists.

    1. Amen! This is something I've said time and again: Why must I and my children and childrens children pay for YOUR fiscal criminality? Before long they spin tales about "WE, OUR, EVERYONE, etc. etc. etc.." Well then... you don't mind paying off my mortgage then do you?

    2. Sooo... do you know anything about Amash's voting history or principles?

    3. Oh boy. You're one of those who's going to tell us that what he said is just "strategy", right?

  4. Damn. What the heck, Amash? I just defended you in my last EPJ comment.

    This is headed down the anti-libertarian trail...

    BTW, Peter Schiff has recently been saying he disagrees with Ron Paul refusing to agree to hypothetical $10 spending cuts for $1 tax increases- on the condition that the cuts would happen immediately and not later (which is never). Anyone care to comment on that?

    1. Schiff is great. He was attacking the American with Disabilities Act the other day on his radio show ("Why should a company be forced to install ramps for maybe one customer a year? if a charity came and said they wanted to install the ramps fine but not coercion...) But lets face it, Schiff isnt in congress and if he was he wouldn't be able to come out with stuff like that.

    2. That's still not libertarian. A proper libertarian strategy would be to only push for spending cuts, regardless of how tiny the proposed tax increases are. Libertarians should refuse to compromise when the compromise involves increasing aggression against someone else.

    3. Does the 10 dollar spending cuts mean the taxpayer gets that money back?

      Because the 1 dollar increase in taxes definitely is taking money away from them.

      Why should any libertarian be willing to accept paying government even more money in order for them to do what they're supposed to be doing in the first place?

    4. Peter Schiff is right - a tax increase is much less harmful than continued spending. Why? The answer comes right out of Ron Paul's playbook. Without spending cuts, the money is spent in deficit. That means they don't actually have to raise your taxes in order to reallocate the resources, it happens anyway. The money is still spent, and you still pay the cost, even though your taxes went up.

      So yes, if spending were to be cut today, it would be worth it to take a tax hit - you would be measurably better off, whereas if taxes are never raised but spending is also never cut, we all know where that is going to lead us.

      Of course there is the counter argument, which I am sympathetic to, that low taxes are the only thing that restrains spending. This is obviously true to some extent - look at what happened to the Clinton surplus. As I'm sure Schiff knows, the main problem with President Reagan compromising on taxes is that we got the tax increases, but the spending cuts never materialized - the cuts were not made "today". This is why Schiff is emphatic about that point.

      Anyway, we can disagree about the methodology, but the point that spending is much more harmful than taxation should be clear to everyone. Spending is what causes the reallocation of resources. Taxation just makes explicit the promises on your wealth that were made implicitly by spending - and will be realized by debt and inflation regardless of the level of taxation.

  5. It's ok to compromise in order to inact some decent change, rather than hold your ground and be lost and forgotten.

    1. And what exactly would that "decent change" be?

      Come on now, give us the info.
      Will he force government to stop spending? Will he force it to start cutting?

      You must know something we don't.

      By the way, i wonder if the general public knows all of the compromisers in congress better than they do Ron Paul.

  6. The stupidity never ends. These "libertarian" politicians you keep attacking are not libertarians. Justin Amash is a Conservative Republican. Rand Paul is the same. You are aware of this

    yet you continue to scream and yell at the only 2 Congressman who are somewhat close to libertarian on some issues, because they are not entirely libertarian.

    This may be the most counterproductive and idiotic strategy ever conceived.

    The next time I convince a liberal to end the war on drugs I'm going to spend all my time attacking him for not being a complete libertarian. That makes so much sense!

    1. Calm down, Robert. The reason Rand and Amash are getting taken to the wood shed is that many people in the libertarian movement hold these two up as the heir apparent to Ron Paul. Once people stop putting these guys names out there as leaders of the libertarian movement then we can call off the dogs.

      You are completely missing the danger that these guys are because you correctly see them as conservatives, but seem to believe that is the view held by most in our movement. Go right now and create a post on the asking who are the next leaders of the libertarian movement, and I guarantee the two names that pop up most will be Rand and Amash. This is a problem when libertarians are trying to put non-libertarians in Ron Paul's place.

      Besides, what possible ill effect do you see from Wenzel pointing out where they differ from libertarians? Why are so many people like you complaining about a Rothbardian pointing out where a politician is wrong? If Nancy Pelosi supporters started reading this website would you get upset at Wenzel if he started pointing out every time she did something that wasn't libertarian?

      I'm not trying to coddle politicians who presume to rule over me. If they want me to praise them then the answer is simple, stop saying and supporting non-libertarian views.

    2. Are you paying the liberal's salary?

      In that case you should be attacking him for not giving you your money's worth.

      Or when you buy a crate of beer at the supermarket that only has 4 bottles in it, your strategy would be to compliment him on at least giving you 4 instead of the 3 the other supermarket gave you.

      And i'm not even mentioning the fact that voters have no choice in the matter of paying Rand Paul's salary.
      God forbid we DEMAND something for it in return, instead of kissing his ass for the scraps he's willing to give us.

    3. The only reason anyone should seek office is to further the libertarian ideology. Period. The change libertarians hope for will NOT come from inside Washington. There will be no repeal of any horrid law from a mass of libertarians being elected, The reason Ron Paul is so adored is because he's a politician that pops up every 100 years or so.

      Dr. Paul has always held that he stayed in office to give a platform for our ideas, because he knew the change would only come regular old citizens. Change from the top by force is how collectivists advance their agenda, individualists persuade an educate from the bottom. High office is simple a better lectern, one not so easily dismissed by the statist media.

      So imagine the damage caused when a "libertarian" flops about in front of the entire country. If Amash wants to be a pro-life conservative, fine, but he must be expelled from anything to do with libertarianism because HE IS NOT ONE.

    4. Finally SOMEONE gets it. The closer you are to being libertarian as an elected official, the more you're attacked by Libertarians for not being libertarian enough. It'd be funny if it wasn't so damned sad.

    5. @ James

      You can see he gets it, right?
      That's why you haven't spent one single sentence on using good arguments on proving why ours are wrong.

      Life must be swell when you can dismiss disagreements simply by attacking motives instead of reasoning.

  7. Republicans espousing libertarian views generally find it easier to be elected than those who do not. Unfortunately there is no penalty for false advertising in politics.

  8. I don't think a libertarian would say that. Considering Justin Amash is a "pro-life conservative" according to his website, and a Republican according to the party he belongs to, I don't understand why you keep attacking him for being the least bad Republican in Congress.

    It's a fascinating strategy you are perusing here. Exclusively attacking any Congress person who is somewhat libertarian on certain issues because they are not total libertarians.

    Some of us who aren't insane and want to advance liberty, would recognize the value in pro-life conservatives moving towards libertarianism on certain issues, and urge them to consider doing so on all issues. But I guess fanatically repeating the demonstratively false claim that they are libertarians who have betrayed us is more fun and/or productive?

    Oh wow a liberal I am friends with just emailed me that he recognizes my arguments against the minimum wage law and understands it should be repealed. I should respond by attacking him now! Advancing liberty, the EPJ way!

    1. This is complete nonsense. So you believe that Wenzel is driving them further away from libertarianism? Or that if he praised them where they are right they will become more libertarian? Total nonsense. Wenzel has zero impact on their political decisions. But if you weren't looking at things so ass backwards you would see that the non-libertarian positions are causing less hardcore libertarians to move further away from our beliefs. Go look at all the people at the daily Paul defending voting on $600 billion "defense" spending as the right thing to do. There are tons of them arguing that Ron Paul was too hardcore on this issue and Rand has the right of it by taking the non-libertarian position. These posts are not for Rand or Amash. They are for all those who don't see why their non-libertarian positions are wrong.

      Do you tell your friend who now agrees with you on the minimum wage that that is far enough? Will you not correct them when they take some other liberal position?

    2. I posted this on Facebook yesterday.

      If there was one message I could get across to every libertarian, it would be the one Huebert is spreading in this video.

      When I go to sites like the Daily Paul, I quickly realize that there is a big disconnect between how the leaders of our movement think liberty can be achieved vs how the followers think it can be achieved. In my humble opinion, people like Robert Murphy, Robert Higgs, Stephan Kinsella, Doug French, Doug Casey, Jeffrey Tucker, and on and on should be putting up YouTube videos making this same case in different words. Far too many people who support libertarianism think it can be achieved through the voting booth. I believe that this is the biggest fallacy that needs to be addressed, and there needs to be much more videos like Huebert's setting the record straight.

      Here is what Jeffrey Tucker responded,

      "Yes, it has been fascinating to watch. It turns out that libertarians, of all people, are the bunch who are most likely to be naive about the state. Nearly all have underestimated its strength and its evil. More than that, most libertarians are not even clear on what the state is. I think this is because a theory of how the state actually works either doesn't exist or hasn't been well propagated."

    3. You're really stubborn, aren't you?

      It is not libertarians like Robert Wenzel that thinks or espouses the view that Amash and Rand Paul are libertarians. It is a number of commenters who keep insinuating that they are. Wenzel is being sarcastic when connecting the word "libertarian" to these people.'

      So when he asks the rhetorical question "What kind of libertarian could say this?"
      The obvious answer is: "A libertarian WOULDN'T say this."

      Get it? This blog is saying that they are NOT libertarians.
      The point is being made to those commenters/visitors of this blog that keep believing that they are, or who believe that they will somehow save the masses from big government.

      P.S. The definition of insanity is repeating the same mistake over and over again.
      Which is what people who believe the system will bring more liberty in the long term are doing.

  9. he's being a politician because his district isnt as safe as say, Ron Paul's. By the way, Ron Paul voted in 2001 to give the president the authority to wage war against any country or entity he determined was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and Ron Paul knew damn well it would lead to a costly war and occupation against Afghanistan which has cost a trillion dollars and caused much death and destruction. Why? Because even Ron Paul has to be a politician some time; if he voted against it after the hysteria following 9/11 he would have lost his seat in congress and been hounded out of the GOP.

    1. Apparently you are unaware that libertarians have no problem with going after those who attack you.
      As far as i know, Ron Paul did not vote for "occupation" but for bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. That has nothing to do with bringing democracy to some country still living in the 7th century, or fighting an eternal war against a bunch of backward bearded cavemen.

      Ron Paul's position was justified both by the constitution as well as libertarian principle (within the context of minarchism anyway). He was not being a "politician". He was being RIGHT.

      Suggesting that you may support robbing the public even more through taxes to pay off the debt the government created with their big government schemes, is completely the opposite of being right; it is in fact being a stereotypical politician.

    2. He voted for the authorization after 9/11 along with the entire congress to give the president broad, unconstitutional authority to wage war against any country and any entity he determined were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Why did he do this? because he was being a politician, he simply could not vote his conscience otherwise his career would have been over. If he was being his usual principled self he would have insisted the president declared a war against Afghanistan and maybe, he would have voted for it or not. That is the constitutional position. The war powers act and the authorization resolutions are not constitutional. Ron Paul would never usually want to grant a president that much broad power than he did with his vote for that authorization but he did, because he knew it would be untenable not to. Sorry to burst your bubble... Please research this. Perhaps Ron Paul's staff should also look at this before trying to imply with Rand Paul that the apple has fallen far from the tree.

    3. AnonymousDecember 9, 2012 4:55 PM - Correct.

      Congresswoman Barbara Lee was the lone dissenting vote against authorizing military intervention in Afghanistan. House Joint Resolution 64 dated September 14, 2001. This was a reactionary move which opened the door for the debacle which continues to this very day. Rep. Lee gave a brief and courageous speech prior to that vote:

    4. "He voted for the authorization after 9/11 along with the entire congress to give the president broad, unconstitutional authority to wage war against any country and any entity he determined were responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

      Again, provided the war would be against any 'country or entity' that was actually responsible for 9/11, there is nothing wrong with this from a libertarian standpoint. You have NOT proven that he agreed with occupation beyond that specific mission and certainly not with bringing democracy there. Sure, it may not be constitutional, but i don't give a damn about that because i'm a libertarian.

      When someone like Rand Paul votes for sanction against Iran, he is voting for aggression since Iran has NOT done anything to America. And this is just the issue of foreign policy we're talking about.

      Even if you were right, to use this single one issue out of a decades long career to imply that "the apple has not fallen far from the tree" is a sweeping, nonsensical statement to make. Rand Paul has probably made more anti-libertarian statements, and possibly votes, in his very short career thus far than Ron Paul has made in over 20 years.

      I should also say that in no way is anyone responsible for the abuse someone else would end up making of a decision. If occupation is the result of a vote for war to bring terrorists to justice, only those in favor of occupation are responsible. By this "guilt by association" nonsense one could not even have the right to defend oneself merely because the chance exists that someone else goes too far and starts torturing burglars.
      Ron Paul has acted like a libertarian, and libertarians are NOT pacifists who turn the other cheek.

    5. The problem is it was never proven by the government that the people they accused of doing 9/11 actually did it. A lot of evidence points to the Israeli Mossad being involved. So Ron was wrong to do that.

  10. Why couldn't hurricane Sandy have hit Washington good and hard? Would have been nice to see those assholes paddling in the streets, and congress shut down for a couple more weeks.

    Except for Ron Paul.

    1. yep, because everyone in DC works for the government... and anyway, it's awesome seeing innocent people suffer just for living in the same city as the politicians we rightfully despise...

  11. A true Libertarian, if elected, would be proud to be scorned by the adherents in the temple. I'd rather serve one term, have nothing passed of my legislation, and get tossed by the electorate than ever spew this.

  12. The little factoids will continue to dribble out. Glad to see attention brought to them - whomever the politician is.

    The libertarian label is being associated with and used by many in the GOP who are attempting to distance themselves from the Bush stigma.

    They remain GOP statists, just a different veneer.

  13. Amash is a great libertarian...a great Cato Institute libertarian, which is to say not a libertarian at all.

    1. Or a Paul Ryan "libertarian." Full head of hair, too stupid to know that Ayn Rand wasn't a libertarian but thinks she was. Total dope, therefore someone Cato would love to have making speeches to them.

  14. Reading these comments endorses the perception that libertarians are better suited to Rothbardian anarcho-liberty than conventional politics.

    Means like nullification, secession and barter are more effective libertarian methods than attempts to capture a political majority.

    That said, it will do more harm than good to throw "friends of liberty" under the bus for minor infractions. Let us at least wait and see how Amash votes before we start the engines of excommunication.

    Amash and others must by the nature of their elections work within the framework of the existing (rotten) system. Amash in particular has been quite good in the vast majority of his votes.

    To call him a "statist" is an exaggeration. He is wrong on this issue but even if not pure enough for some, he is as good as we will get without Ron Paul around.

    There will be many small battles that will need to be won before liberty is regained in this country. Amash will be on the side of liberty for all the important ones.

    1. I explained why he is a statist. If you call it an exaggeration i would appreciate logical reasoning explaining why it is so.

      When you are open to the possibility of the state forcibly extracting even more money from the public than they're already doing, for the benefit of solving problems the state caused in the first place, then you're a statist.

      Please explain why the argument above is either wrong or an exaggeration.

    2. Well, as I said, he is wrong on this issueand well deserves a trip to the woodshed but, I am willing to wait and see how he votes. His track record to date is much, much better than most in Congress.

      Until you can find some more Ron Paul's and get them elected, he is as good as we have. And it should be noted, even Ron Paul has been criticized on occasion. As has been pointed out elsewhere, I'm not even sure Amash refers to himself as a libertarian. Paleoconservative is probably closer.

      As to his being a "statist", I'm pretty sure you can count the "non-statists" in Congress on one hand and have all your digits left. Ron Paul did not run on a campaign to end the state. Does that make him a "statist"?

      It ultimately becomes a matter of degrees. Amash has taken many more positions in opposition to "statism" than most in Congress. Until the arrival of libertarian Nirvana we had best utilize the tools we have, even if imperfect.

    3. "Until you can find some more Ron Paul's and get them elected, he is as good as we have."

      If you believe in politics as the solution to bring more freedom, yes, but it would be pointless to have any standard whatsoever. By the view of 'least of all evils', voting for Romney would become acceptable just because he is marginally better than Obama.

      "I'm not even sure Amash refers to himself as a libertarian. Paleoconservative is probably closer."

      I don't know if he's ever referred to himself as a libertarian. But other people have, and so it becomes important to hammer in the point that he is NOT a libertarian, and why he isn't. A number of commenters just don't seem to get that.
      And as a result, people like Jim DeMint and even Mitt Romney have been called libertarians in the last couple of months. That's what happens.

      "Ron Paul did not run on a campaign to end the state. Does that make him a "statist"?"

      If Ron Paul got his way, he may as well have ended the state. Libertarians recognized that. They also know that he knew the constitution wouldn't save freedom, supported the right to secession and so on. Do you see any state worth mentioning left if Ron Paul got his way? At the very least, Ron Paul could have been considered a minarchist, which is acceptable within libertarianism.

      To compare Ron Paul in any way to Amash or his son Rand in this regard is foolish. Amash just professed to be open to tax increases to fix the government's mess. Please do not tell me you would have ever expected that from Ron Paul.

      "Until the arrival of libertarian Nirvana we had best utilize the tools we have, even if imperfect."

      I don't consider politics to be a tool but a disease that will just infect us. Note how the likes of Amash and Rand Paul are not moving in the right direction but in the wrong one. That's because they have to if they want influence; it's how the system works. You can't infiltrate the maffia and turn it into the salvation army.
      And i should also note that i don't measure someone's worth by comparing him to the worst of the worst. By that standard, anyone would look decent.

      But hey, that's my opinion.

    4. If "it ultimately becomes a matter of degrees," as you have summarized, then why bother trying to defend yourself at all? Why not be honest in whoring yourself out for a good time?

      Why even pretend to "hold your nose," while you vote for evil? If you cannot bear to admit that what you're advocating is explicit assistance to evil men who want to do evil to you and yours - if only impersonally, and by administrative proxy - then why pretend that you're a friend to liberty at all?

      Why not simply admit that your goal is to gain and keep as much State power as possible, liberty be damned?

    5. I am not "defending myself". I am expressing my opinion and answering a request made by Tony. Where did you read that I said anything about "voting for evil". FYI I haven't voted in almost 30 years.

      You can take your sanctimonious bullshit and use it on someone who hasn't been around long enough to know a phony when they run across one.

      You are apparently too stupid to understand the difference between a political process and a philosophical movement.

      I clearly stated that I do not feel Rothbardian anarcho-libertarianism can be brought about by a political process. What about that indicates to you that I endorse the system?

      I clearly stated Amash is wrong on this issue of taxation. That said, guess who has endorsed Amash and even asked me to support him financially?

      Ron Paul,yes, that Ron Paul. He didn't even tell me to "...hold my nose..." while writing the check.. So go ask him about being "...a friend of liberty...".

      Now, perhaps Amash is an "evil man", I don't know him personally, but perhaps we might consider that he could just possibly be a decent man in an "evil system" trying to make it less evil.

      Perhaps, like Tony, you don't consider the political system a tool. That's OK by me. I do.

      Without it Ron Paul could never have reached as many folks as he did in his last two presidential races. It gave him the exposure he needed to sell his ideas to millions who would never have head them without this "tool".

      As for Amash, the fact that Ron Paul has endorsed him and said good things about him and the fact that his voting record is pretty decent leads me to be willing to give him some temporary benefit of the doubt.

      Now, I'm feeling especially generous today so this is much more of an explanation than your silly, sophomoric, snide reply deserves.

  15. I don't think you can achieve a libertarian society through politics, so if guys like Rand Paul and Amash go to Congress they're going to compromise. Ron Paul was there to educate. He took the long tail and he got lucky because of the timing of the financial crisis. Otherwise, he probably would have ended in obscurity.

    Ron Paul called for a return to the Constitution. What's libertarian about that? Does he even really believe in it? The Constitution purported to give the government the power to coin money, which is an illegitimate power for government to have. The language of the Constitution could have been much more rigid so as to forever forbid the feds from instituting an income tax. It created law which codified human slavery. Returning to the Constitution would actually be extremely bad for libertarianism because it would make the country more stable again. If the government followed the Constitution, it would give it a moral high ground which would cement it in place. Everyone in the world was much better off with the USG under it, however.

    As it is, the government ditched the law and it's on the brink of a collapse which MAY give libertarianism a chance. This scenario is what I hear (with a hopeful tone) from a lot of libertarian bloggers. It's a 5% chance at best. When it hits the fan, the GUNvernment still has the GUNS. Until then, well meaning people who see what's happening will try to gain office to "do something." It's not libertarian. If you support a politician, it's not libertarian--even the LP. Don't be disappointed with what he does if he gets in. It's a gamble. Maybe he does more good than harm. Maybe we somehow avoid the violence in the streets scenario. Maybe it's a 3% chance, but 12.5:1 is better than 20:1...

    1. "I don't think you can achieve a libertarian society through politics"

      The problem is that politics don't go away just because you decide you don't like them.

    2. Indeed. If you look at my comment more carefully, I think you'll find what I'm really saying. I think that politics has its place. Politics is great if you can use it and not let it use you. That's not easy! Hah, but that's what Ron Paul did.

      In the meantime, the attitude of the people in the country needs to change. Whether we end up with an anarchist society or not, that's what really makes our lives better. Freedom is not about politics in the main.

  16. Agent EPJ strikes again!

  17. Tony, Rand returned to the taxpayers a giant sum of money, far exceeding his salary.

  18. Quick question, what do you think about not raising the marginal rates, but eliminating deductions? If there is to be a tax, shouldn't it be equal and fair across the board? (Ala Fairtax?) I am not saying we should have an income tax, but in this case since we do, wouldn't eliminating things like the mortgage tax credit, farms subsidies, etc. be a step towards eliminating crony capitalism? Like to hear your thoughts!

  19. Wouldn't eliminating deductions be libertarian? Would that be a step towards eliminating subsidies to Monsanto and ilk, along with other things like the mortgage tax deduction and the farm subsidies, which distort the market and create low quality products as a result? So when a libertarian say "They will raise taxes", which are you critical of? Marginal or both marginal and after deductions?

    1. Eliminating income taxes would be libertarian. Eliminating special deductions to 'level the playing field' is more Hayekian, and I would say if it made the market less favorable toward special interests, it would be a step in the right direction.

      But if eliminating those deductions aren't accompanied by respective cuts to equalize revenue, or in other words, if those cuts allow the government to take more from the private sector, libertarians should be against it.

  20. I honestly think there are a lot of people that do not really understand what Libertarianism is. For reference everyone should read Mises and Rothbard.

  21. If the liberty movement is not successful in returning the Republican party to its senses, I can certainly see why. They crucify their own on a regular basis. Anyone that gets close to representing their views gets whacked at the earliest opportunity when they get close to making an accomplishment in the right direction. No wonder we cannot get anything done. MOST of you seem to NOT be able to govern yourselves properly, much less the country!

    1. Oh, yeah, that's the reason why libertarians can't get anything done. When someone does something that goes against libertarian principles, we point it out. Shame on us. And by "getting anything done," I assume you mean the non-libertarian goal of gaining political power. I guess getting more people to read and understand Rothbard wouldn't count as "getting anything done."

    2. Libertarians don't want to govern the country. I'm not sure you understand libertarianism.

  22. I wouldn't be so quick to condemn someone with a good voting record that leans mostly libertarian. Although we are people of principle, picking fights with everyone is unnecessary and will not advance the cause. You want to abandon one of the few congressmen we can actually count among fiscally reactionary statesmen? Look at the man's voting record. Look at his facebook posts. If those among us keep up this nonsense, libertarians' reputations for being whiners will only get worse. Check yourself, fools.

  23. And here comes the Menshevik walkout.