Skip to comments.
Libertarians Aim to Take Over a 'Free State'
Star Tribune ^
| June 10, 2003
| Bob von Sternberg
Posted on 06/09/2003 10:41:16 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-160 next last
To: wallcrawlr
And it's simply impossible in this day and age to dismantle all networks of a state's responsibility. You're not going to get rid of the garbage collection. Actually, garbage collection is Very easy to privatize. It's private in most towns, maybe not in cities, but there's no reason a company can't collect trash for payment.
41
posted on
06/10/2003 7:44:02 AM PDT
by
JohnnyZ
(I barbeque with Sweet Baby Ray's)
To: Sparta
If that doesn't work, they'll use force to crush the FSP. Well, at least it will be clear then as to where liberty stands, or doesn't.
It would mean time to go 'Jeffersonian' on them.
42
posted on
06/10/2003 7:48:32 AM PDT
by
StriperSniper
(Frogs are for gigging)
To: LizardQueen; .30Carbine
Vermont won't work (I live there, so I know). The imported flatlander lefties would fight it tooth and nail, and the native Vermonters, who in many cases actually agree with the Libertarian position, would fight it on principle just because their state is being "invaded". I agree. I am a native Coloradan now living in VT for a little over a year. The "I'm a Vemontah, I do what I wanta" principle of individuality would have them cut off their noses to spite their face.
On the other hand, if the FSP understood this dynamic and came in as good neighbors, not too heavy handed, they might gain some real traction. Old time Vermonters have just about had all they can stomach of liberal flatlander policies. This state is an economic basketcase ready to implode. If the FSP could turn VT around, right in the heart of New England la la land, it would be hard for the nation to ignore. Liberalism exposed for the total failure it is.
43
posted on
06/10/2003 9:33:26 AM PDT
by
TigersEye
( Joe McCarthy was right!)
To: Clint N. Suhks
Don't forget open borders and fre trade.
To: xm177e2
So you deny that Libertarians have an overall "open border" policy? I would deny that Libertarians have taken over California!
Heh. I think the mention of Libertarians with respect to California was more a request that they take over (under the auspices of the FSP), rather than an observation that they were already in control.
One look around this "Golden State" and one can see the damage of the Dems everywhere...up to and including the energy "crisis," the highest sales tax in the nation, the coddling of "undocumented workers" (AKA - illegal immigrants), the most virulent anti-business regulations and legislation, and the most unAmerican anti-Second Amendment tripe around.
Curiously enough, I do think that the Libertarians would do a better job of running things at the start...but ultimately the state would simply self-destruct faster than it is at the present time.
-Jay
45
posted on
06/10/2003 11:18:18 AM PDT
by
Jay D. Dyson
(Liberty * Liberalism = Constant)
To: Clint N. Suhks
Actually I think Liberaltarians do, the difference between Conservatives and Liberaltarians is with societal boundaries NOT federal boundaries. Am I wrong? Hard to say for sure. Judging from some of the things I've read by various Libertarian scribes, I don't know that there is even a consistent view of this issue among the Libertarian rank and file.
-Jay
46
posted on
06/10/2003 11:20:39 AM PDT
by
Jay D. Dyson
(Liberty * Liberalism = Constant)
To: Centurion2000
I read a similar article where Muslims were trying to organize the takeover of one of the less populous states for similar political reasons. The idea was to take over a small state elect Muslim senators and replace the state constitution with the Sharia. The Feds would crush that FASTER than the LP
Lol, no quicker way imaginable to mobilize the 20 million deer rifle army! ;P
To: Uncle Fud
"So you deny that Libertarians have an overall "open border" policy? " I can't deny that, it's true.
It's also pretty much the same in practice as the "amnesty every couple of years" which is the Republican policy. So what about it?
I don't recall the amnesty practice being Republican in nature. Indeed, in California the phenomenon appears to occur every 7 to 8 years and seems to be the exclusive domain of the Democrats (no doubt to increase their voting base).
All that said, I don't think the two (amnesty vs. open borders) are the same in practice or outcome. The former is like a roof with a thousand small holes in a rainstorm. The latter is like having one huge gaping hole in a roof in a rainstorm...and being told that it's an improvement since there are fewer holes.
-Jay
48
posted on
06/10/2003 11:28:54 AM PDT
by
Jay D. Dyson
(Liberty * Liberalism = Constant)
To: Reagan Man
How about a few paragraphs now and then. Paragraphs are a needless government intrusion onto an individual's right to post unreadable stuff. Only statists and looters insist on paragraphs.
49
posted on
06/10/2003 11:30:42 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: Jay D. Dyson
If that's true, it's just one more thing I hate about Liberaltarianism.
To: xdem
So you deny that Libertarians have an overall "open border" policy? Not at all.
http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.html
The point is that illegal immigration is driven by large welfare payments. Were the welfare payments ended, there would be less immgration of people coming here only for handouts. People immigrating to the U.S. to work are far less a problem.
Your point is well-made and well-taken. And I concur that the welfare bit needs to end, but we cannot discount that public opinion is an emotional (rather than logical) beast. A few stories in the media about how some "poor 'undocumented worker'" being denied assistance will generally succeed in painting such a policy as "mean-spirited" and its practioners as Evil White Men Who Put Money Ahead of Humanity, yadda-yadda-yadda. Then the masses will be swayed by even more horror stories to the point that we'll have both open borders and a renewed monetary drain on the citizenry.
This is more realistic than our present immigration policy of mostly allowing in people who'll vote Democrat.
All told, I am hard-pressed to disagree that anything is better than our current system. I personally subscribe to the unrealistic notion of border closure. I know it'll never come to pass, but it's the only solution that makes sense to me.
In other areas, the Libertarians are less realistic. I strongly disagree with the Libertarians' position on defense and foreign intervention. Even if we withdrew from the world, many would still hate and attack us.
We are in violent agreement here! ;)
-Jay
51
posted on
06/10/2003 11:38:37 AM PDT
by
Jay D. Dyson
(Liberty * Liberalism = Constant)
To: Paleo Conservative
Have you ever read how the Feds tried to impose their will on the Mormons in Utah? Nope, but I seem to remember something about an aborted secession attempt there or something like that.
52
posted on
06/10/2003 12:10:26 PM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
To: wallcrawlr
But Disch warned that, " 'Leave us alone' is not a viable political strategy. Libertarians want a limiting force, cutting back taxes and dismantling government. And it's simply impossible in this day and age to dismantle all networks of a state's responsibility. You're not going to get rid of the garbage collection." Just goes to show you how deeply and scientifically a so-called "political scientist" thinks about government.
You ARE going to get rid of the garbage collection, and allow individuals to contract with BFI, Waste Management, or their neighbor with a pickup truck to haul away their trash, if they don't care to do it themselves.
She spent years in college worshipping at the altar of all-powerful government, and she's been blinded to the obvious.
53
posted on
06/10/2003 12:41:02 PM PDT
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: wallcrawlr
This won't work. While I sympathize w/ the FSP, many small states like Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, etc. are already very free. What would the free staters do? lower the drinking age to 18? Send the militia to seize federally owned land? Privatize the weights and measurements committee?
The majority of "oppression" in this country comes from the feds. 2 senators and a congressman would not affect that so much.
The biggest problem w/ government today is that both the feds and some states circumvent their respective constitutions. The checks and balances inserted into those constitutions that check the growth of government no longer apply and now it's just a grab bag of free money.
54
posted on
06/10/2003 2:04:23 PM PDT
by
jjm2111
To: Kuksool
Part of the fun in liberal emigration is they leave their current socialist cesspool because of crime, taxes, government corruption, etc. and then when they come to their new domicile, they quickly enact the same policies that got them there.
55
posted on
06/10/2003 2:08:25 PM PDT
by
jjm2111
To: jjm2111
Some fools never learn.
56
posted on
06/10/2003 3:32:40 PM PDT
by
Kuksool
To: Tamsey
Actually, on the face of it; it's not an entirely bad idea. I've often wondered what it would be like if groups of conservatives, not extremists, just strong conservatives, some Libertarians, could go into an area and 'settle' into it! It doesn't even matter what party, necessarily, (as long as it isn't Communist, or Nazi, etc..).
If liberals can do it, why then not us? It could be a subtle thing, just enough to not scare the liberals and put them on the defensive too much. It might not be too practical to do it on a sudden large scale, like this guy is suggesting.
But maybe a bit at a time, just doing what the extreme liberals are doing in some places. It makes me sick to see what some of these extreme left-wingers are doing in the states that were the 'cradles of the American Rev., such as Virgina, New York, Massachusettes, Vermont, New Jersey, etc..! Not to mention what they are doing to some states in the "Old West", or California!
57
posted on
06/10/2003 6:49:21 PM PDT
by
dsutah
To: dsutah
The trick is to find a way to subsidize freedom. Something like granting militia service, firearms ownership, and homeschoolers tax credits for the police and school costs that the state doesn't incur. Something like granting people with sizable savings accounts a tax credit for the welfare payments they will not demand. Perhaps along the lines of giving toll highway users credit for cents off at the gas pump for the public roads they are not using.
Governments subsidize slaves, and slave holders, and have since time immemorial. The antebellum south required non-slave holders to serve in the militia to guard against potential slave rebellions. Now they subsidize welfare moms, and provide 3 hots and a cot for people who act so inappropriately that they end up in jail.
58
posted on
06/10/2003 11:45:46 PM PDT
by
donmeaker
(Time is Relative, at least in my family.)
To: LizardQueen
I think Vermont would be the perfect state. Any state that approves of gay marriages is further down the Libertarian slope than most of the other candidates.
But I'll admit my interest is entirely selfish. A part of me wants to see this experiment play out just so these endless debates "principled" Libertarians have around here can finally be put to the test.
Secondly, if 20,000 folks want to move to Vermont and remove Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy and Jim Jeffords from their jobs, I'd be quite pleased. Any Libertarian elected would *have* to be an improvement over those three.
Please have them scratch Wyoming and New Hampshire off their lists. They are dependable GOP states with good conservative people. I just don't think the Libertarian message will fly in those parts. Better a place like Vermont where their intelligence and morality are already in question.
59
posted on
06/11/2003 12:08:15 AM PDT
by
Tall_Texan
(Liberals go into politics to make money. Conservatives go to stop liberals from stealing theirs.)
To: leadpencil1
ping
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-160 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson