Steve G.

Still think people ‘don’t care’ about the Federal Reserve?

In Libertarian on September 2, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Then I guess you aren’t watching the Rally for the Republic today, where mentioning its abolition has provoked unmatched levels of enthusiasm several times.

The first time the Fed was mentioned, there was a long standing ovation and chants of “end the Fed!” The same thing has happened virtually every other time the subject has come up, and guess what: The Rally for the Republic has drawn a crowd around twenty times the size of the pitiful “Libertarian” National Convention, whose delegates were so stupid and unprincipled as to nominate a CIA operative drug warrior. The Rally for the Republic libertarians are about 1000 times smarter and more dedicated than the 49% in Denver who sold out to Barr.

For the Libertarians who, for whatever reason, want to believe the Fed issue is not a popular one; you’re wrong. For those who don’t think it’s important, watch Thomas Woods’s speech. I’ll post it here as soon as it’s up on YouTube.

  1. It’s truly sad when the President of the John Birch Society is more libertarian than the LP presidential candidate or chairman.

  2. Hey I just saw Bob Barr, he was speaking at some event Ron Paul was hosting last night and again at the Rally. It sure looks like them Paul supporters love that Mr. Barr! Looks like they have a booth along with the LP. Congrats to both for showing up at this all important event. Shame on the RP for ignoring Dr. Paul.

  3. FOX NEWS:

    “Paul said Tuesday he would probably not be endorsing any candidate, though he spoke fondly of Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr.”

    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/02/paul-plays-up-role-as-party-outcast-with-gop-counter-convention/

  4. So what?

  5. Hey, G.E. You need to apologize to the 51% of the LP that was smart enough and DIDN’T sell out to Barr, including me.

    Don’t lump everyone in the same boat. It makes you look bad for no reason.

  6. Woah…GE knew that I wasn’t watching the Rally today!

    GE sees all, which is why I’m going to convince him to run for Governor some day (and I’m not being sarcastic).

    I’m a bigger fan of GE Smith than I am of Ron Paul.

  7. I’ve been saying for years that abolishing the Federal Reserve System ought to be one of the main issues that Libertarians push. This issue has become WAY more popular lately, thanks to Ron Paul and Aaron Russo’s “America: From Freedom To Fascism”.

  8. While I agree that abolishing the Fed is a great idea, I would NOT consider the reaction of a self selecting crowd at a Ron Paul speech (thus already filtered for being anti-fed, and also shown to be not numerically powerful enough to get their candidate nominated) to be meaningful evidence that the idea is popular with the general public which is NOT at the Ron Paul rally…

    Assuming general opposition to the Fed from the crowd reaction to a Ron Paul speech is about as valid as assuming that most LP members support making English the official language based on an LNC press release…

    ART

  9. Jason – The Michigan LP is great and all, but I don’t think I could tone myself down to a level they’d accept. I appreciate the vote of confidence, though! Thanks!

  10. Art, the key is to EDUCATE people about what the Federal Reserve is and why it should be abolished. Once people have a basic understanding of this information there is a good chance that they will favor abolishing the Fed.

    This issue has become WAY more popular over the last couple of years.

  11. Imagine 10,000 big-L Libertarians showing up to a rally.

    Ron Paul is doing something right, and I don’t know, MAYBE it might be a good idea to emphasize the issue that is most popular with his supporters, who largely outnumber Libertarians? Yeah, I think so.

  12. Read what I say next time…

    I am NOT saying the Fed shouldn’t be abolished…

    I am NOT saying that working towards abolishing it via education, making it an issue, etc. is a “bad idea”….

    I am NOT even saying the idea hasn’t gained steam over the last few years, in part due to the Paul campaign….

    What I AM saying is that the headline question – “STILL THINK PEOPLE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE FEDERAL RESERVE?” as a commentary on what the general public thinks (and presumably therefore what the LP should be choosing for it’s hot button issue list) is NOT adequately answered by observing the crowd at a Ron Paul speech…

    Just that, and NOTHING more…

    Show me evidence of how the GENERAL VOTING PUBLIC feels, and maybe I’ll bite – say a Harris Poll of a large random selection of “likely voters” saying more than 30% think it’s important enough to be a vote swinging issue, and I might agree with you…

    However I say that Ron Paul’s numbers speak for themselves – he beat the hell out of the Fed in his campaign, and LOST…

    Sure he’s more popular than Barr, but that’s neither difficult, nor particularly noteworthy – Even Milnes might figure out how to accomplish it some day!

    ART

  13. Somewhat related, but did Paul ever make the ballot in Louisiana?

  14. Probably not. Today was the deadline, the SOS office was closed on account of Gustav, and last known communication with them (by the Socialist Party, I think) they said they would stick with today as a hard deadline whether they were open or not, effectively making last Friday the deadline.

  15. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that a Ron Paul rally produced standing applause for ending the Federal Reserve. Do you think Steve Kubby would get standing ovation at an LP convention for calling for legalization of pot? Or McCain at the GOP convention for fighting terrorists? (By the way, did you know McCain spent almost 6 years as a POW?) Or Obama for calling for more money for teachers?
    There’s a long hard row to hoe to get the general public to understand how the Fed manipulates the money supply, same as there is in getting them to understand how the war on drugs leads to more crime and corruption. The LP needs to be primarily an educational political organization whether it likes it or not.

  16. There’s a long hard row to hoe to get the general public to understand how the Fed manipulates the money supply, same as there is in getting them to understand how the war on drugs leads to more crime and corruption. The LP needs to be primarily an educational political organization whether it likes it or not.

    Yes, but sometimes that educational effort pays off. A lot more people are for ending the drug war than used to be, and the fed is becoming more of an issue with people you would have never expected to even know what it is before.

  17. Abolishing the Federal Reserve is a fringe issue that a few hundred Paultards at a last hurrah will support.

    It’s not a mainstream concern, and for the average American, it doesn’t matter.

    More people showed up for the Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in Philadelphia than showed up at the Paultard Rally in Minneapolis and the LP convention put together.

    Heck, more people showed up for the opening of the Comcast Center skyscraper.

    Until Libertarians start focusing on everyday concerns that impact real Americans, we’re not going to go anywhere.

    Keep waving that Little Gold Book in the air, though, and they will dismiss you as a nutty crank — as they have already with most of the Paultards who showed up at that rally.

  18. Inflation = theft from the poor and middle class, and is an everyday concern of every day people.

    Saying the monetary system “doesn’t matter” is beyond absurd.

    No, in Miller’s mind, what people REALLY CARE ABOUT is giving homosexuals special rights and welfare. Miller wants to Fed so it can print money for his partner’s health-care benefits.

    “Paultard” is an offensive word, or by the way. Miller, arch-hedonist and elitist, of course, doesn’t have to worry about having a child with Down’s syndrome or any other learning disability, so he can use the epithet with immunity.

  19. G.E. – as you know, Brian Miller doesn’t like Ron Paul because he doesn’t “champion” gay and lesbian causes. He will also point out that votes he’s made “prove” he’s a homophobe. I don’t buy any of this line of thinking.

    I also don’t understand, what I perceive as gay opposition to “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Maybe Mr. Miller or someone else can apprise me of the logic of this opposition.

    In Mr. Miller’s mind, it seems to me, he believes that individual liberty ends with being gay (or not). Gays ought to be afforded the same rights as non-gay people (I absolutely agree), but I think he forgets that most issues of liberty have nothing at all to do with sexual orientation or preferences.

    The issue of gay (and non-gay) relating to liberty are one in a myriad of issues, and should be treated as such, from a libertarian standpoint.

  20. More tina queens attended the White Party in Palm Springs than participated in any Paultard lobby.

    By that measure, the LP should drop everything and immediately campaign for meth-fuelled electropop orgies in the streets of every town in this fair land.

    And I couldn’t care less if “Paultard” is an offensive term. It’s also an accurate one.

    All you guys hitched your wagon to a Republican, pledged fealty to the Republican Party political process, and woke up wondering why your butts felt sore and distended. Despite all the warnings you got from the rest of us.

    Your little protest movement is irrelevant and accomplished nothing notable, politically or any other way.

    Sorry the truth hurts, but dreams are for children.

    Your hardworking hedonist,

    Bri-Bri

  21. In Mr. Miller’s mind, it seems to me, he believes that individual liberty ends with being gay (or not). Gays ought to be afforded the same rights as non-gay people (I absolutely agree), but I think he forgets that most issues of liberty have nothing at all to do with sexual orientation or preferences.

    One reason why LGBT Libertarians have to be so singularly focused on issues of gay concern is because non-LGBT Libertarians like GE Smith and Steve LaBianca are happy to sell out the queers to get the goodies they want.

    I’d love to be part of some big happy family where we’re all on the same page on all the issues and don’t need proprietary lobbies, but the continued excuse-making for Ron Paul’s atrocious record on the issues simply underscores the fact that… well… a lot of you guys just can’t be trusted to do the right thing, consistently.

  22. And no, I don’t want to read a tortured rationale about how Bob Barr is evil for writing DOMA, but Ron Paul’s enthusiastic support for the legislation is just wonderful because it’s Libertarian and all that.

    We tried things your way.

    Libertarians went the Paultard route, and failed miserably. They accomplished nothing noteworthy by selling out their principles to the Republican Party, and selling off inconvenient parts of the American populace down the statist river.

    Libertarians are now trying the Barr route, and it looks like that’s an equally miserable failure.

    Hopefully, both camps will observe their failure, sit down, stop their delusional dreams of grandeur, and let the adults in the real world — where people are more concerned about employment, foreign affairs, the economy and their everyday family lives than they are about “the gold standard” and “border fences” and “Zionist World Governemtn” — have a shot at running things.

  23. “Let the adults run the real world” — ah yes, the central bankers who can “fix” the economy, manage employment, etc. Just put Bri-Bri Miller in charge, whose everyday life is not infringed upon by inflation or war, caused and funded by the monetary system. Yes, the adults who recognize as the prime imperative of libertarianism the rights of sodomy and abortion, and could care less about the central planning of the economy by the Fed — just leave them with the KY and coathangers and they’ll be fine.

  24. Steve and I don’t sell anyone out for any “goodies” — you’re the one who wants the “goodies” in the form of government-mandated recognition of and benefits for your relationship. We just want freedom, and while the DOMA isn’t great legislation, it doesn’t really violate the principles of laissez-faire. As for DADT, you don’t have a “right” to get paid to murder brown people any more than you have a “right” to force your employer to pay your lover’s medical bills. Bri-Bri’s form of “libertarianism” demonizes the poor and aggrandizes the selfish; it’s only real inspiration is a hissy fit his special interest group hasn’t been invited to join in on the looting; i.e. it hasn’t gotten “equal protection under the law.”

  25. By the way, the crowd for of “Paultards” gave a standing ovation at the mention of the Austrian theory of the business cycle. They’re not stupid people. Bri-Bri’s opinion of the Austrian theory is similar to that of McCain’s.

  26. And some people say that I’m “very angry”!!!

  27. As a footnote to Mr. Miller, I support Mary Ruwart, not Bob Barr. Even though Mary is widely perceived as “left-libertarian” (I tend to disagree with this characterization of her) she does emphasize many issues which the left tends to favor. I am with her on giving “equal emphasis” to libertarian issues which have appeal to the left, as that given to those appealing to the right. (frankly, I very much dislike the “left”/”right” dichotomy – -all liberty is private property based, and is expressed in “civil” and “economic” liberty terms).

    That being said, I have just as much interest in eliminating “personal” coercion as I am in eliminating “economic” coercion from government’s actions. I am not looking for “goodies”; I’m simply looking for everyone to be free from coercion, regardless of when, who, how, where or why such coercion occurred. Gay/non-gay is one manifestation of coercion from government which I seek to eliminate.

  28. As for DADT, you don’t have a “right” to get paid to murder brown people any more than you have a “right” to force your employer to pay your lover’s medical bills.

    G.E., maybe I’m misunderstanding, but DADT is a policy for government to follow when it comes to sexual orientation. As Ron Paul said, he believes that gays in the military having sex openly is equally offensive as heteros having it. Don’t ask, don’t tell simply says that sexual orientation isn’t a qualification/consideration for military or other civil service (government) work.

  29. Like that “Paultard” Jefferson said, a standing army is second only to a central bank as an enemy of liberty.

    Fighting for the “right” of gays to murder with impunity at taxpayer expense, just because straight people have that “right” only lends credibility to the state and its killing machine.

  30. G.E., agreed, but having a military at all is a different issue. Having a “civil service” at all is a separate issue. That separate/different issue is the anarchist/minarchist or constitutionalist issue.

    However, as long as there IS a government, gay or not gay should not be a qualification for being in its employ. That, is what I thought DADT was about.

  31. The government passes a law that Christians can defecate in public parks.

    I’m against public parks.

    Do I still support a law extending this “right” to non-Christians?

    Killing Muslims is even more abhorrent than public defecation.

  32. You know, gays should wear the discrimination they receive at the hands of the state as a badge of pride. Wherever gay marriage is not accepted, then the act of living with your gay lover as a married couple is an act of defiance against the evil state; a heroic act.

  33. DADT is a policy for government to follow when it comes to sexual orientation

    Incorrect. It’s a federal statute that was duly passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton as president.

    Paultard’s Law Number 1: Never let pesky facts get in the way of ideology (especially when it’s trying to explain away some statist/control freak impulse coming from the Chief Paultard himself).

    The government passes a law that Christians can defecate in public parks.

    I’m against public parks.

    Do I still support a law extending this “right” to non-Christians?

    The government passes a law that African Americans may not enroll in public schools.

    I’m against public schools.

    Do I still support a law extending this “right” to black Americans?

    Wherever gay marriage is not accepted, then the act of living with your gay lover as a married couple is an act of defiance against the evil state

    Average Americans don’t want to “act in defiance against the evil state,” they want to get on with their lives.

    Not everyone is an anarchist drama queen. Hell, most Libertarians aren’t anarchist drama queens.

  34. Like that “Paultard” Jefferson said, a standing army is second only to a central bank as an enemy of liberty.

    Ahhhh, Paultard’s Law Number 1 in action again.

    You don’t get to claim Jefferson as in the Paultard vein. He was largely responsible for the creation of public schools in this country. When George Phillies didn’t advocate their immediate shutdown, you called him everything but a physics professor — but you’re trying to claim the inventor of the modern government school (and the founder of the Democratic Party) is now a right-wing Republican gold bug?

    Oh man.

  35. My experience of people is that ignorance is very abundant. However, it is not universal. Many people are aware of the difficulties of inflation, and are concerned about their money. We don’t have free market money, as the FBI raid on e-gold and the FBI raid on Liberty Dollar have proven. What we have is a medium of exchange, but it is a terrible unit of account because the meaning of the term “dollar” changes every year, generally toward less value. And, that also means it is a very poor store of value.

    My experience of Brian Miller is that he is ignorant of Thomas Jefferson’s role in public education. Jefferson did like a generally available education, but it was his plan to design into every township some land for supporting the cost of educating the people in that township. This idea didn’t work out, because the amount of land involved was not enough to pay for the cost of education, but it was also not his plan to have public schools paid for by tax dollars.

    In fact, Jefferson said that if public schools became tax funded operations, they would rapidly become propaganda mills for the government. Rather prescient.

    Jefferson was also dead by the time Horace Mann and his crowd came back from Germany and began to push the Prussian approach to educating cannon fodder. And otherwise militarizing society.

    Jefferson was clearly wrong about public schools. There was no way to fund them with land grants, and he should have anticipated the switch to tax funding. But, his purpose was to encourage education. As he noted, if people are not wise enough to govern themselves, it is better to inform their ignorance. The other choice, to take away the power to govern them supposes that there are “angels in the shape of kings” to rule us, which is clearly not available.

    Today we know that the best way to organize education is to have home schooling, private schools, unschooling, and other choices for parents and students. Perhaps a more imaginative Jefferson could have seen such things. But he was also a man of his time, and ignorant of many things we now know.

  36. Miller’s ignorance of Jefferson’s views on gold are not surprising. And he says “Palutards” don’t concern themselves with facts. I think it’s the Outright Liberaces that, like others on the Radical Left (which is what they are), don’t care about facts.

    Jefferson did not advocate federal government control of education, like the Ouright Liberaces’s statist champion, George Phillies, did. Any public education is evil, and Jefferson was wrong on this, but he was right on the evil of central banks and standing armies, so I can still quote him when it serves my purposes.

    If only there was any threat of Miller procreating, I’d wish him a “retarded” child on so he could see the pain that word causes. But since that’s not likely, he can spew his hateful filth without fear of it being turned against him.

    And by the way, no I do not support extending non-rights, funded by taxpayers, to oppressed groups. The Outright Liberace agenda is clear: EXPAND THE WELFARE STATE — Leave no Welfare Queen Behind. “Libertarians” like Miller are looters who want nothing more than their share of the loot. Once they get it, they can go back to their bathhouses and worry not about the effect on future generations — since they have no progeny to be concerned for. No, for statists like Miller, “libertarianism” is about hedonism and welfare, and what comes of the world once they’re worm food is of no relevance.

  37. This comments thread is incredibly disappointing. I see LaBianca defending the ban on gays in the military, and I see G.E. calling us “Outright Liberace” and claiming that we want to expand the welfare state. And I see NONE of our “allies” defending us on either point.

    I try not to attribute to malice what can be explained away by ignorance, but this thread has clearly crossed the line.

    I’m not one to scream “homophobe” easily, but that Liberace stuff makes it all too obvious what the real motives are in this debate.

    You should be ashamed. It’s an embarrassment to all of us in the LP that this kind of obvious and ugly bigotry is still lurking in our midst.

  38. The military is not the model for civil society. The military is evil. It exists by stripping away from those it inducts all their personality, including many of their fears, and replaces what they were with obedient and fearful but reasonably trained cannon fodder. It was idiotic of Horace Mann and his crowd to enthuse about the Prussian militarism of society, including education. But, all that’s done, and the question now is what to do about it.

    Ron Paul is wrong about sex. Sex is a normal human activity, and it should not be repressed. It is wrong to suppress heterosexual intercourse among consenting adults, just as it is wrong to suppress homosexual intercourse among consenting adults. Don’t ask and don’t tell is a policy of ignorance and stupidity, as if ignoring the fact that people have sex is going to make it go away. Don’t ask don’t tell is a policy for a rapist to prefer, not a consenting adult.

    The military does not believe that anything that happens to people inducted into and disciplined by its service can be none of its business. But, sex between consenting adults, like the letters men and women write home, like the private aspirations of individuals, like the thoughts in our heads, is none of the military’s business. And it is time for men and women to stand up and tell the military to go to hell. The military is not right about this issue, nor is it right about invading other countries, nor is it right about existing in time of peace. A standing military is a menace to peace, to civil society, to an orderly existence, to free markets, and to mankind generally. Men and women individually armed in defense of liberty are more than enough to defend the peace, keep domestic tranquility, and defend free trade and commerce with our neighbors.

    The military’s policies toward sex are antiquated, Puritanical, and evil. The military’s policies toward individual privacy are similarly antiquated, Puritanical, and evil. A private soldier has no privacy, often sleeps in a room crowded with others, has no private bathing accommodation, has no private place for his things. Everything is subject to inspection and review and disapproval from a hateful, evil, father-figure of brutality and scorn. By disrespecting the individual in the military, the hierarchy of the military shows its disrespect for the individual generally, for his choices, for his freedom, for his privacy, for his aspirations, and for his sovereignty. There has never been a militarily run free market society, and there cannot be one.

    Gay, lesbian, trans-gendered, trans-sexual, transvestite, polyamorous, and kinky people, among many others, have been discriminated against not only by the state but also by society, for many centuries. This discrimination is wrong, it is hateful, it is evil, and it should stop. It ought to stop here, amongst us, now.

    GE is wrong. Gays and lesbians and other sexually independent persons don’t want special privileges, and we don’t want state approval, and we don’t want his approval. We want to be free to choose our lifestyles as we see fit. We also don’t want to be attacked by the state, nor by gay bashers, nor by ugly Puritanical ideologues who think that minding our business, scorning us for having more than one sex partner, or deriding us for wearing our hair short or long is any kind of blessing.

    Steve is wrong. Don’t ask don’t tell is a stupid policy, it is an evil policy, it is a policy to encourage rape, it is a policy against human sexuality. If the kind of sex you prefer has nothing to do with your ability to be a soldier, then the military should have no policy about it. And, quite frankly, there should be no military – there is nothing in the experience of the last 5000 years to suggest that peace, prosperity, free trade, or individual liberty is supported by a standing military.

    I’m not sure about Steve, but it seems pretty clear that GE would just as soon not stand with gays and lesbians, even if it means he doesn’t stand on the freedom side of the line. I think that’s sad. I have many queer friends. Just as sexual preferences don’t affect suitability for military duty, they also don’t eliminate the ability to think, to dream, to create, to emote, to contribute to a peaceful and prosperous society. But GE seems clearly to prefer a Puritanical rant to freedom.

    Finally, with regard to Ron Paul, I think it is ignorant and hateful to call his followers “Paultards” and other names. Some of his followers are gay, lesbian, trans-gendered, and other preference seekers. Just as some of his followers are militaristic Puritanical ideological scum. To characterize all of them as mentally retarded is idiotic. And clearly offensive to the mentally challenged.

    Ron Paul is not perfect, and he is not libertarian at all on some issues. He is, however, the anarcho-capitalistic Austrian economics enthusiast’s preference in all things economic. Since economic misery affects all of us, just as other forms of war against the American people, it might be sensible to view him as a fellow traveler, and his supporters as fellow travelers.

    Obviously, they aren’t on the road to the same destination, with the same level of freedom and open mindedness as the rest of us. But they are against foreign wars and intervention, they are against military draft, they are against economic insanity, they prefer lower taxes and less business regulation, they want a smaller government in many things. Not all of Ron Paul’s supporters agree with him about marriage, abortion, or immigration. So we shouldn’t spit in their faces all the time.

    GE and Steve are also fellow travelers. If they are misinformed, then it would be well to inform their ignorance. If they are willfully opposed to freedom for some or in some area of activity, that doesn’t mean they cannot be tolerated for the good they do bring.

  39. “Outright Liberace” rhymes with “Outright LiberNazi,” which is Mike Nelson’s term for the group he was once a member of. I thought it was creative.

    John – Gays and lesbians do not want special treatment, as a whole. I do not make that generalization. I’m saying the Outright Libertarians, and statist libertines like Brian Miller, do.

    WTF? Homophobic? “Rather not stand with gays and lesbians?” No on both counts. “Puritanical rant?” What, because I pointed out a biological fact that Miller — who uses an ugly and hateful word to describe his opponents — is unlikely to procreate, and therefore will never have to endure the pain of having that word used in relation to one of his children? Because I chide a “libertarian” for focusing only on rights related to his sexuality and getting equal welfare benefits, while not only ignoring the biggest issue of them all, but making fun of people who take it seriously and give it emphasis?

    The double standard is pretty interesting. I guess Mike Nelson and Justin Raimondo are homophobic, too.

  40. John Amandall – How do I oppose freedom?

  41. 37 Rob Power

    This comments thread is incredibly disappointing. I see LaBianca defending the ban on gays in the military

    Rob, where and how did you get that idea? Please explain.

    38 John Amendall

    GE is wrong. Gays and lesbians and other sexually independent persons don’t want special privileges, and we don’t want state approval

    I will agree that libertarian gays and lesbians “don’t want special privileges”, but the overriding belief, as I understand it, is for gays and lesbians to have the same “marital privileges” as officially marriage licensed people. Remember, a license provides a privilege, and not a right.

    Steve is wrong. Don’t ask don’t tell is a stupid policy, it is an evil policy, it is a policy to encourage rape, it is a policy against human sexuality.

    I am “dazed and confused”. I said earlier that I believed that “DADT is a policy for government to follow when it comes to sexual orientation. As Ron Paul said, he believes that gays in the military having sex openly is equally offensive as heteros having it. Don’t ask, don’t tell simply says that sexual orientation isn’t a qualification/consideration for military or other civil service (government) work.”

    I am not certain how “I am wrong”, other than my understanding of DADT is wrong. However, I have made no judgment as to “banning gays in the military”. I believe that gay/non-gay is not a qualification or consideration for military service. How is that wrong?

    On its face “Don’t ask, don’t tell” simply means nobody asks if you’re gay or straight, and a person has no incentive to tell (it doesn’t matter with regard to the application for military/civil service), and therefore does NOT tell. In my view, this means that gay/straight is outside the purview of military/civil service requirements, qualifications and considerations.

    If this is not the way the policy/law is written, then I would like to know, but on it’s face, the concept of DADT is VERY libertarian.

    And, quite frankly, there should be no military – there is nothing in the experience of the last 5000 years to suggest that peace, prosperity, free trade, or individual liberty is supported by a standing military.

    I agree completely! However, I maintain that HAVING a military is a different issue altogether, from DADT! Please apprise me of your difference of viewpoint. Then we could have a substantive discussion. Before we understand each other’s perspective, substantive discussion is impossible!

    I’m not sure about Steve, but it seems pretty clear that GE would just as soon not stand with gays and lesbians, even if it means he doesn’t stand on the freedom side of the line.

    I stand with all libertarians who want to eliminate coercion from government, and work toward educating people about “private” coercion as well. To the extent that government is coercive toward gays and lesbians (I ask those of you who have more information on this than I do, to educate ME), I stand with gays and lesbians to eliminate such coercion. I will also say that I also stand with gays and lesbians regarding “private” coercion. So-called “gay bashing” is a horrendous infringement on life, liberty and property!

    Secondly, I highly doubt that G.E. would not stand with gays and lesbians regarding liberty . . . all infringements on liberty AND infringements specific to gays and lesbians.

    Basically, in this comment, I would like to point out that I am being wrongly characterized. Rob Power, you definitely misunderstand where I am coming from. I admit that I am not focused on, or possibly “in-tune” with the infringement of liberty, specific to gays and lesbians, but I do not support discrimination, coercion, nor infringement of liberty on ANYONE!

  42. DADT is not an “evil” policy — wanting to join the military is evil.

  43. Notice that the Outright Socialists label me “homophobic” while I said that the act of living with your gay lover, without state approval, was a heroic act. Even that much validation is not good enough — no, they want my MONEY, too, and anything less is “hate.” Oh, and they want my money in exchange for killing Arabs. Why should straight guys get to have all the fun?

  44. Oh, and I agree that its sad that the obvious and ugly bigotry — against the poor and especially against the mentally challenged — exhibited by Brian Miller is tolerated.

  45. Steve, DADT sounds like it would be OK, except that it imposes a double standard…

    If you are heterosexual, it is OK to be openly married, and there are even special privileges available to married couples (special housing on base, bringing spouse to new assignment locations, etc.) While fragrant heterosexual PDA’s are frowned on in uniform, there is no problem w/ being heterosexual.

    But even in states where gay marriage is legal, a gay military couple can’t even admit that their relationship exists. A gay serviceman isn’t eligible for married housing, can’t bring a spouse to a new assignment at military expense, etc.

    Even on the grayer side of things, heterosexual conduct is allowed, as long as it’s consensual. Homosexual conduct isn’t…. A soldier will get no more than a wrist slap for visiting the local whorehouse, but don’t let him even get caught DRINKING in the local gay bar…

    IMHO I don’t think that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is workable – it’s a blackmail / security risk (A friends spouse was in the Navy, and someone attempted to blackmail him into security violations by threatening to out him. He chose not to play and outed himself, his “reward” for honesty was getting thrown OUT of the Navy…)

    I think it should be replaced by “Don’t Ask, Don’t CARE where it doesn’t matter if a person is out or not, and the same rules apply to gay spouses as hetero spouses… In addition the UCMJ should be revised to make it gender neutral, with the same penalties for improper / non-consenting sexual behavior regardless of the combinations of genders involved…

    (Note that this ignores the question of whether we should HAVE a military… I agree with those that say it’s evil, but fixing that is another issue all together…)

    ART

  46. Art,

    Thank you for the several good points which (not being a military person myself) hadn’t crossed my mind.

    I shall digest your statements but here are a few off the cuff impressions:

    1-Visiting a whorehouse as opposed to a gay bar, would seem to me, to be outside of the don’t ask don’t tell “policy”. Though it is against libertarian thought, prostitution is illegal in virtually all states, while frequenting a gay bar isn’t. This seems to be more of a selective enforcement of “extra-curricular” activities, not a DADT issue.

    2-A “legal” marriage isn’t something that even needs to be discussed, but men and women will do things, go places with their spouse as a “married” couple. Again, outside of DADT, IMO.

    Now, housing for married couples, but not for two gays in a relationship is definitely a problem. Again, if the issue is legal gay “marriage”, that may change the perspective on these things (note that I say “may”).

    Final off the cuff thought – Rob Power was wrong to accuse me of “banning gays from the military”. I admit that I am not plugged into gay and lesbian liberty concerns, but I am definitely NOT in favor of banning gays from the military. Now banning the military . . . that is a discussion for another day! Thanks for your insights Art.

  47. Steve – Like we discussed today on the phone, Art is right in that DADT is oppressive. Military culture is extremely homophobic, from what people in the military I know (mostly homophobes themselves) tell me, and DADT validates that. I still cannot wrap my head around the idea of fighting for equal “rights” for gays to join the taxpayer funded Arab baby killing machine.

  48. You are welcome Steve…

    My basic point is that DADT, as currently implemented at least, doesn’t work… I don’t realistically think it can be made to work.

    DADT doesn’t work because of it’s basic assumption that heterosexual activity is OK, and that homosexual activity isn’t, (but we’ll let you get away with it if we don’t catch you…)

    While I don’t think of most of our activities as overtly rubbing peoples nose in your orientation, or wearing it on your sleeve, a very large part of our daily chat and so forth does say something about it… (assume the following examples are from a guy’s viewpoint – swap genders as needed for a woman…)

    How often do you mention your GF / Spouse / kids?
    Do you talk about going out on a date? With who?
    If married, do you wear a ring?
    Do you have a picture of your spouse / GF / kids in your workspace?
    Does your car contain items that belong to your spouse / GF / kids?
    Do you occasionally mention relationships in casual talk at work? Do you know if your colleagues are married / single / gay? – Do your colleagues know your status?

    I’d be willing to bet that you’ve answered at least one of those questions in a way that says you let the cat out of the bag – and probably did so while working a standard 40 hr/week job where you go home when the works done…

    The effect is that while nobody is asking, everybody knows… Now put the above scenario in a military context, especially in the lower ranks where everyone gets to share living space so you are with the same group essentially 24/7…

    If you are straight, no problems… Talk about your relationship, show pictures, etc… If single, go out on leave w/ your buddies and attempt to pick up chicks… Anything that isn’t blatantly non-consensual will most likely be ignored, or at most get a slap on the wrist punishment.

    If you are gay, well nobody is asking, but you still have to keep it a secret – no photos of your partner, don’t share your letters from home, don’t invite your buddies to go drinking with you at the bars you prefer, etc… And remember that any slip amounts to “telling” and is grounds to throw you out…

    I’m straight as it gets, but I know what discrimination looks like…

    ART

  49. Everything Art says is true, but the fact still remains: People join the military for one of three reasons

    1) They want to kill brown people

    2) They want a free ride through college and are willing to kill brown people if it comes to that

    3) They can’t find a job in the private sector and are willing to kill brown people if the boss says so

    Would you guys be upset if you found out that Al Qaeda or the Manson Family discriminated against gays? Or how about if a special assassination squad, funded by the government, for the purpose of murdering gay-rights leaders… If they discriminated against gays, would you demand they allow gays to receive taxpayer-funded checks for killing gays, or would you demand that the gay-death squad disbanded?

  50. “If you are gay, well nobody is asking, but you still have to keep it a secret – no photos of your partner, don’t share your letters from home, don’t invite your buddies to go drinking with you at the bars you prefer, etc… And remember that any slip amounts to “telling” and is grounds to throw you out…”

    That’s pretty much the size of it when your trying to keep it a secret. The thing is there, straight people always ask about past experiences with girls, which you think are hot, or they just joke about it. The Closeted fellow either has to nod his head, or make up something.
    So in the respect of DADT, the government is asking people to be complacent, or just plain lie. Now I’ve done that before by choice, before I came out and with some particular people now. But what they are saying is either you do that, or don’t join at all.

  51. “1) They want to kill brown people

    2) They want a free ride through college and are willing to kill brown people if it comes to that

    3) They can’t find a job in the private sector and are willing to kill brown people if the boss says so”

    Really?

    You think EVERYONE wants to do this?
    I think a good majority think what they are doing is best for their country. It’s not our job as Libertarians to write them off as pure evil, it’s our job to convince them that they are hurting the country.

    Back when I was an idiot Republican, I wanted to join the Air Force.
    1) Always wanted to fly those C-130’s (still a dream)
    2) At the time, I thought all these actions were good for the country.

    Now being with the Greens before, I can understand you seeing everyone who isn’t anti-war as pure evil. But I’m evidence that you can come back from that state of thinking without dripping in liquid hate. I’m not prepared to write off the entire nation.

  52. How old were you then, Mike, 14? Okay, maybe a larger than I’m willing to acknowledge percentage of them still have the adolescent mentality you had as a young boy, and are actually dumb enough to think what they’re doing is “for the good of the country.” That doesn’t negate the fact that they’re part of a killing machine.

    The Greens are way too pro-war. They’re pro-war on the American citizenry!

  53. Scary! Very.
    I’ve met some extreme, pro-war crazies in my time.
    But I’ve met reluctant, pro-war crazies in my time, as well.
    When your sitting there saying all these things, you know there are flaws in them. You just sweep those under the rug. It was horrible.
    Most people do that. They attach themselves to what they were taught, and ignore the flaws. But people can wake up and analyze weaknesses.

    Very slim example: I never got to ask the GOP congressional candidate about the Iran blockade on that phone town hall meeting. But I saw him at a fair and asked him about it. At first he blurted out the usual GOP response. It was straight from the 14 year old Mike Theodore playbook. After I prodded with a few questions displaying the negatives, he kept that up. But then he hesitated for a second, then said that because of Russia, China, and Iraq being Iranian trade partners, the whole thing could create World War Three.
    That was weird. He seemed to realize something in front of my face. Then he said he’d have to think about it and walked away.

    Sensibility lies in everyone, even someone as lost as that GOP candidate. It’s the party’s job to find it in them, not yell at them for it.
    Being in the position of the one being yelled at, all you can do is yell back louder.

  54. Andy the Anarchist yelled at me until I saw the light. So both strategies, and a mix of the two, can work. It’s called division of labor — you do the gentle reasoning, I’ll do the yellin!

  55. I’d love to. Problem is, I have to gently reason with people that are pissed that you yell at them at every chance!

  56. My approach is much more gentle and loving in real life. I blow off steam online. But I think people need to be confronted with the ugliness of their positions. Hit them and hit them and they might be pissed off, but later, they’ll think about it. This was my experience.

  57. Ya, but I was never pissed off. I was always “thinking about it”, but I was never really mad at anything. Same to this day.
    I always took someone getting angry about their position as a sign of failure. Take Bill O’Reilly and Michael Savege, who yell and shut off mics.
    I always took the strategy of talking to someone, other than telling them stuff. Because they’ll still see what I say to them as wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: