I might just be a libertarian

Remember this?

A Great Day for the Massachusetts Republican Party

... well over 2000 Republicans chose delegates to the Republican National Convention. In a long standing process whereby Republicans, usually in much smaller numbers, assemble to send people to the National convention.

This year a local son was going to be the recipient of those delegates, so expectations were high. Couple that with a 3 plus year effort by the libertarian wing of the Republican Party to get delegates to the convention to affect the party platform, and the makings were there for a historic series of events. ...

... Unity Slate, the libertarian wing, won 17 of the 27 delegates selected at the nine caucuses today. By party rules 11 more delegates will be selected by the Republican State Committee. Many of these delegates are long standing liberty minded activists, some are new to this process. All 27 have pledged their support to our next president Mitt Romney.

The establishment is understandable shaken by the turn of these events. With big names like Kerry Healey, and Brad Jones not winning in their home district caucuses. They shouldn't be. They should embrace the energy of these "new" people and not turn them away. This wing of the party, if treated with respect, forms a dedicated grassroots army. Their leader is working to ensure they stay involved. It is imperative that the establishment leadership finds a way to work with that bridge builder.
Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno :: A Great Day for the Massachusetts Republican Party
Who is that bridge-builder? Who is that leader? His name is Brad Wyatt, a school committeeman from Boylston. He is a stalwart activist, and a giver of time and resources. His building, "The Osgood Bradley Building" has become a center for conservative activism in Central Massachusetts. The OBB has been the home of Massachusetts Victory efforts for two cycles now.

Brad is the first person to stress that the home of liberty minded people is the Republican Party. It is by his efforts that hundreds, if not thousands, of people changed their party registration over the past twelve years. He understands that after primary fights, it is time to come together to defeat the enemies of smaller government.

Brad Wyatt, today, moved from out of the shadows and claimed his place as a leader of the Party. He represents a new and growing faction, of liberty minded, small government conservatives. Unlike Carla Howell, Brad is an affable gentle face to the liberty movement, who is dedicated to winning within the framework of a two party system.

The establishment has a choice to make in the coming weeks, be excited about the growth in our party, or circle the wagons. The appropriate choice is to heed Tim Pawlenty's words, and grow the base of this party by embracing, publicly in word and deed the liberty wing of the party.

Onward to November and Victory.
Click to expand...

Even though the Republican party pulled some serious shenanigans to overthrow this overthrow, the effort moved forward. Look at Leah Cole, Susannah Whipps-Lee, Carol Claros, and again; Brad Wyatt.


FYI, Brad is now running for state rep, for Naughton's seat.
 
Coyote33 said:
My only trouble with the libertarians is the environment. I feel like the environment needs some protections, which people alone won't give it.
Click to expand...

economist said:
Government has a role in a free society and classic libertarian principles recognize that. Property rights are a fundamental component of liberty and defense of life and property is a needed governmental function even in a libertarian society. I would limit the environmental role to clear defense of property rights, excluding vague aspirations (e.g., stopping an upstream polluter, but not just generally enforcing wetlands laws that have no direct link to evident harm). Having said that, the cure may be worse than the disease. Giving government power is always going to result in some amount of abuse. No easy answers here.
Click to expand...

I feel the need to point out (like I did to a moonbat on twitter), that not all libertarians are the same. Like Republicans, there are many subsets of libertarians. I believe that the biggest subset are those who just want the government to leave them the hell alone and they do not care what others do so long as they are left the hell alone. Essentially, they see government as needed but only to ensure their rights are not infringed upon by others be it individuals or business.


The anarcho-capitalists and voluntarists are not the majority makeup of those who see themselves as libertarian.
 
I think that this is real:


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/03/23/bill-would-forbid-divorcing-parents-massachusetts-from-having-sex-home/LNdv86n7K86w1ioJ3Jp4FO/story.html

A Massachusetts state senator has filed a bill that could prohibit a divorcing parent from having sex in their own home.

Senator Richard J. Ross, a Wrentham Republican, proposed Bill 787 which would pertain to the divorcing parent still living in the family home. It states:
In divorce, separation, or 209A proceedings involving children and a marital home, the party remaining in the home shall not conduct a dating or sexual relationship within the home until a divorce is final and all financial and custody issues are resolved, unless the express permission is granted by the courts.​

The bill was referred to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, according to theMALegislature.gov website.
 
Rep. Richard Ross has been kind enough to visit with my sons scout troop on more than one occasion to speak. He's really gone out of his way to accommodate us, and for that, I am thankful.

Regardless, I'm inclined not to ask him back.
 
I think my gay married friends should be able to defend their pot farm with full auto weapons. ... and not need a license for the marriage , guns or drugs.

( btw ) I like girls , dont smoke pot , and cant feed a full auto gun, )
 
Babo said:
I think that this is real:


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/03/23/bill-would-forbid-divorcing-parents-massachusetts-from-having-sex-home/LNdv86n7K86w1ioJ3Jp4FO/story.html

A Massachusetts state senator has filed a bill that could prohibit a divorcing parent from having sex in their own home.

Senator Richard J. Ross, a Wrentham Republican, proposed Bill 787 which would pertain to the divorcing parent still living in the family home. It states:
In divorce, separation, or 209A proceedings involving children and a marital home, the party remaining in the home shall not conduct a dating or sexual relationship within the home until a divorce is final and all financial and custody issues are resolved, unless the express permission is granted by the courts.​

The bill was referred to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, according to theMALegislature.gov website.
Click to expand...

It would probably be easier if he would just move out.
 
CrackPot said:
So you think you are a libertarian. Try answering the following questions:

1. Do we focus on the dealers or the users to combat illegal drug use?
Depends on the drugs, but for the sake of argument legalize drugs. Let people grow their own weed.
If weed, cocaine, heroin are being sold, tax and regulate. I don't know what to say about bath salts, meth etc.

2. After how many drunk driving convictions should you lose your license?
One, and when you get it back, you have one of those Interlock devices. Circumvent the device and get caught, lose it for life.

3. To combat prostitution should we focus on the prostitutes or the Johns?
Legalize, tax and regulate.

4. How do we handle the problem of illegal immigrants?
No more ten year waiting for a Green Card appointment. Within one year from date of application, you will have an answer on your status. Now you will have tax paying legal immigrants.

5. Civil Unions or Gay Marriage?
I don't believe in gay marriage, so I won't be marrying any gay guys. They want to get married, let'um suffer like the rest of us.

By the way, they are ALL trick questions...
Click to expand...

What's my Libertarian grade?
 
Without looking at any other posts...

CrackPot said:
So you think you are a libertarian. Try answering the following questions:

1. Do we focus on the dealers or the users to combat illegal drug use?
Neither. We legalize drugs.

2. After how many drunk driving convictions should you lose your license?
Two. Driving is a privilege, not a right, but you get one pass.

3. To combat prostitution should we focus on the prostitutes or the Johns?
See #1. Legalize it.

4. How do we handle the problem of illegal immigrants?
Secure the border, first and foremost.

5. Civil Unions or Gay Marriage?
Whatever the couple wants it to be.


By the way, they are ALL trick questions...
Click to expand...
How'd I do?
 
kalash said:
Without looking at any other posts...


How'd I do?
Click to expand...
3/5
2. drunk driving is precrime. punish the results, not the intermediate state. until actual harm or damage is done to someone else, who the f*ck cares
4. bzzt. get rid of welfare state and the strong survive. I dont care if they were born in mexico, india or indiana. contribute = good. dead beat, die under your own weight...
 
CrackPot said:
3/5
2. drunk driving is precrime. punish the results, not the intermediate state. until actual harm or damage is done to someone else, who the f*ck cares
4. bzzt. get rid of welfare state and the strong survive. I dont care if they were born in mexico, india or indiana. contribute = good. dead beat, die under your own weight...
Click to expand...
I know it might go against the "pure" libertarian school of thought, but to me this is like someone putting a gun to your head - until they actually pull the trigger, no crime committed and no harm done, right? That said, I suppose with drunk driving it depends on the situation... Drunk driving in Manhattan is different from drunk driving across a Kansas field, no?

My rationale with #4 was simply so we can tell who and what is coming over the border. Pedophiles and rapists stay the f out.
 
kalash said:
I know it might go against the "pure" libertarian school of thought, but to me this is like someone putting a gun to your head - until they actually pull the trigger, no crime committed and no harm done, right? That said, I suppose with drunk driving it depends on the situation... Drunk driving in Manhattan is different from drunk driving across a Kansas field, no?

My rationale with #4 was simply so we can tell who and what is coming over the border. Pedophiles and rapists stay the f out.
Click to expand...
Not a valid comparison. No malice or intent to harm.

Putting a gun to your head demonstrates malice, at a minimum, they have assaulted you and intended to intimidate or coerce...
 
Last edited:
CrackPot said:
So you think you are a libertarian. Try answering the following questions:

1. Do we focus on the dealers or the users to combat illegal drug use?

2. After how many drunk driving convictions should you lose your license?

3. To combat prostitution should we focus on the prostitutes or the Johns?

4. How do we handle the problem of illegal immigrants?

5. Civil Unions or Gay Marriage?



By the way, they are ALL trick questions...
Click to expand...

I'll play.
1. Neither. Legalize all drugs
2. Licenses are irrelevant, licensing is asking permission to do something.
3. Neither. What 2 adults do behind closed doors is none of anyone's business.
4. Simple. Eliminate the complicated and expensive path to citizenship. Most countries make citizenship easy if you have a job and a place to live, we should be no different.
5. Government has no business in this, see above on licences, and what consenting adults do.
 
Want to hear a great argument between a libertarian and a liberal:

BIL posts on FB about how Republican REP Hickey penned an article about anal sex being unhealthy and unnatural (REP Hickey is against gay marriage obviously) and my BIL is a democrat and for "sensible gun reform". BIL states he hopes Hickey does not get re-elected.

My response on FB (I too hope Hickey truly does not get reelected but wanted to make a jab): "Wow that was truly awful to read. Another elected official that finds in necessary to judge people that and try to decide for them what they should and shouldn't do as a consenting adult and free American. Kind of reminds me of Bloomburg!

BIL: Bloomburg has nothing to do with this discussion about gay rights as I believe Bloomburg supports gay rights:

My response: I take a dislike to elected officials on both sides of the aisle that push legislation that take a persons right to make their own decisions no matter what the subject matter is. Both Bloomburg and this whack job like to decide what is right for others IMO and are both equally against true freedom.

STILL waiting for response! More evidence in my "tool kit" that liberal loon bats are the most hypocritical mother ****ers that ever thought about politics!
 
whacko said:
Want to hear a great argument between a libertarian and a liberal:

BIL posts on FB about how Republican REP Hickey penned an article about anal sex being unhealthy and unnatural (REP Hickey is against gay marriage obviously) and my BIL is a democrat and for "sensible gun reform". BIL states he hopes Hickey does not get re-elected.

My response on FB (I too hope Hickey truly does not get reelected but wanted to make a jab): "Wow that was truly awful to read. Another elected official that finds in necessary to judge people that and try to decide for them what they should and shouldn't do as a consenting adult and free American. Kind of reminds me of Bloomburg!

BIL: Bloomburg has nothing to do with this discussion about gay rights as I believe Bloomburg supports gay rights:

My response: I take a dislike to elected officials on both sides of the aisle that push legislation that take a persons right to make their own decisions no matter what the subject matter is. Both Bloomburg and this whack job like to decide what is right for others IMO and are both equally against true freedom.

STILL waiting for response! More evidence in my "tool kit" that liberal loon bats are the most hypocritical mother ****ers that ever thought about politics!
Click to expand...

Great job man. Well done.
 
Driving is not a right. If you want to drive, these are the rules: No driving while intoxicated, blah blah, etc etc etc.

Public intoxication on the other hand... Nothing should be wrong with that.
 
CrackPot said:
So you think you are a libertarian. Try answering the following questions:

1. Do we focus on the dealers or the users to combat illegal drug use?
No.

2. After how many drunk driving convictions should you lose your license?
I have nothing but disdain for those that drink and drive. We all have hot buttons and this is one of mine. Hang 'em high if they hurt someone. They won't re-offend.

3. To combat prostitution should we focus on the prostitutes or the Johns?
No.

4. How do we handle the problem of illegal immigrants?
Secure the borders, deport those that come to the attention of LE

5. Civil Unions or Gay Marriage?
I don't see how marriage is a concern of the government


By the way, they are ALL trick questions...
Click to expand...

Although curious, I don't know (nor care) if those answers make me a libertarian, conservative or something new under the sun, though the latter seems unlikely.

I self identify as a fiscally conservative, small .gov, don't really care what you personally do so long as it doesn't negatively impact me, kind of a person.
 
Supermoto said:
Driving is a right. You have all been brainwashed by the government to think otherwise
Click to expand...

Yup. Freedom of movement was taken for granted to the extent that while it was in the Articles of Confederation, it was left out of the Constitution (because who wouldn't acknowledge that as a right?). People forget that all of these "privileges" that we are given are rights that are given to us by the Constitution - because the Constitution leaves all non enumerated rights in the hands of the people! We didn't even need passports to enter and leave the country in peacetime until 1972! It is our right to come and go as we please in what manner we please, and we have allowed this right to be abrogated.
 
Supermoto said:
Driving is a right. You have all been brainwashed by the government to think otherwise
Click to expand...

I agree.

But in the same way you should not go around shooting people for sport just because bearing arms is a right, you shouldn't run down bystanders and other cars. If your negligence (driving drunk) causes someone harm then I have zero sympathy for you. Jail is too good. My thoughts absent actual harm are a bit muddled.
 
namedpipes said:
I agree.

But in the same way you should not go around shooting people for sport just because bearing arms is a right, you shouldn't run down bystanders and other cars. If your negligence (driving drunk) causes someone harm then I have zero sympathy for you. Jail is too good. My thoughts absent actual harm are a bit muddled.
Click to expand...

If you cause harm or violated someones rights, then you should be punished. If you don't, then you shouldn't. You should not be punished for increasing the potential of harm
 
rudiewhitebwoy said:
What's my Libertarian grade?
Click to expand...

CrackPot said:
Maybe 2.5/5
1. legalize all
2. drunk driving alone is precrime
3. legalize was right, tax and regulate made you a statist
4. anyone/everyone can be a citizen. once you get rid of the welfare state it self corrects
5. keep the state out of it
Click to expand...

I don't consider myself a statist, but hey, maybe I am. I don't want to live in a world WROL.

Drugs & alcohol are mind altering substances and sometimes people do dumb and or violent things when they're under the influence that they might not otherwise do. You need some type of authority ( elected by the people ) to enforce the law and they need to be paid well. I've seen underpaid third world law enforcement that can be bought very easily.

As I said, if people want to grow, brew or distill their own, no tax or regulation. If someone is doing it as a means of income there should be some regulation. Do we want to go back to the days of bathtub gin/furniture polish, Weed laced with PCP etc. Regulators gotta be paid, so tax it.

If I'm headed to the whorehouse, I'd like to know that my "server" has had some type of check up on a regular basis.

I Believe in the "Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" but the "wretched refuse of your teeming shore" not so much. We can't just throw open the gates for every terrorist, criminal & con-man. There's got to be some protection. Like I said, no more than one year evaluation time for every applicant, would tremendously improve the mess we have now. Would you wait a decade to get in legally, or would you come on a visa and never leave; sending home more money a year to your family, than you could make back home in a decade.

I wasn't suggesting the state or fed be involved. If a guy want's to marry another guy or a goat, who cares. Although, I don't think the government should be able to force a church to marry them. I also don't think that the government should be able to force a Private Catholic or Christian Hospital to perform abortions. You want to marry a big ole billy goat, start the gay guy that loves billy goats church, it none of the governments business.

I think that we could slash 80% of the Federal Govt and still be secure, but some Govt is needed or we'll all be like the Bedouins wandering the Sahara. I think we're going to wind up like that anyway, but I'd rather not.

Most of my life I considered myself a right wing Republican, but about 20 years ago I started to question the GOP. I don't think the party changed as much as I did, and I'm still changing. I became un-enrolled about 15 years ago. I identify with the Libertarians more than the dems or repubs.

I signed my SOI ( solemn intent to move ) Feb 24th of this year with the Free State Project. I think I deserve at least a 3, if I don't get my grade up, they might not let me in to NH
 

Similar threads

These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
578
Zappa
Zappa
I think I might pick up a high point carbine....
Replies
25
Views
781
Agnotology
Agnotology
A conservative judge cant be that stupid.
Replies
27
Views
681
BigTimber
BigTimber
Overreacted just a tad?
Replies
3
Views
398
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
MA Law: carrying a gun where animals may be present
2
Replies
56
Views
2K
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Back
Top Bottom