Monthly Archives: November 2012

How I Stopped Spanking My Kids: A Fathers #39; Roundtable
Stefan Molyneux, Host of Freedomain Radio, Joins with the Host and Cohost of 2 Beers with Steve, to discuss various parenting challenges, such as getting your children to eat with the family, public school versus libertarianism, and what discipline means in a noncoercive environment. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com httpFrom:Stefan MolyneuxViews:2621 136ratingsTime:56:15More inNews Politics

Follow this link:
How I Stopped Spanking My Kids: A Fathers' Roundtable - Video

National Liberation
Murray Rothbard on national liberation movements and libertarianism.From:Khadija UmayyadViews:4 1ratingsTime:05:45More inNews Politics

View original post here:
National Liberation - Video

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) delivered his farewell address on Wednesday, setting the stage for the upcoming conclusion to his 36-year career in Congress.

A strong and at times solitary voice for libertarianism in the House, Paul promoted many of the traditional themes that have motivated his fervent fan base throughout his lengthy congressional career and presidential campaigns.

In his speech, Paul passionately delivered his archetypal arguments for unrestricted personal liberty, unregulated free markets, uncomplicated monetary policy, minimal taxation, personal responsibility over welfare and, more broadly, a limited or perhaps entirely non-existent federal government.

But Paul also spoke about many of the views that have made him a thorn in the side of his Republican colleagues, as well as a fascinating and influential figure for many others across the political spectrum. His strong defense of civil liberties, opposition to the war on drugs, disapproval of foreign intervention, frustration with the status quo and skepticism of expanding executive power all made appearances in his nearly 50-minute address.

Below is a sampling of quotes from Paul's speech that exhibit some of the congressman's most compelling tenets and policy ideas. Whatever your personal political leanings, did the controversial yet principled congressman get some things right over the course of his career?

(Watch the entire speech above, or watch Paul's conclusion below the slideshow)

"One side doesn't give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn't give up one penny on welfare spending. While both sides support the bailouts and the subsidies for the banking and corporate elite, and the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues."

"Some decide what and whose freedoms to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests. We don't need more isms. The great news is the answer is not to be found in more isms. The answers are to be found in more liberty, which costs so much less."

"The insidous nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurances our great abundance gave us evolved into a dangerous period in which we now live. Dependency on government largess. Today we face a dependence on government largess for almost every need, our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into saving their demands."

"The PATRIOT Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate, resulted in a steady erosion of our fourth amendment rights. tragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression with no complaints were the american people. The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost."

Here is the original post:
Ron Paul Farewell Speech: What Did He Get Right Over The Course Of His Career?

The hallmark of any what should our party do next debate is, as Ross Douthat notes, that all participants insist the answer is to do more of whatever they always wanted the party to be doing. Jonah Goldberg offers up a rare and intellectually honest exception, conceding that, though he may despise compassionate conservatism as a governing philosophy, its actually a much better way to win elections than openly advocating for the kinds of small-government policies Goldberg prefers.

By contrast, the more traditional spirit of the recrimination enterprise is reflected by Reasons Nick Gillespie, who argues in the traditional spirit of assuming that the great and good American people obviously share all his own beliefs. Gillespie, arguing in response to David Frum and other critics of the partys doctrinaire economic agenda, asserts that its impossible the GOP may have taken an excessively libertarian position on economics:

Romneydidn't just fail to articulate a plausible economic program that would rekindle growth in America; he failed to really hammer home just how bad Obama's handling of the economy has been - and how the president's mindless interventions actually exacerbated the problems they were supposed to address.

Yes, thats it if only Romney had thought to really hammer home that the economy was bad and Barack Obamas big-gummint policies were the cause. Did Romney even mention that the economy was bad? Where did he stand on the whole taxes and spending versus freedom debate? I cant even remember.

Its certainly true that libertarianism is a broad and varied enough ideology that there are some ways in which more of it may have helped Romney win. (Say, supporting more humane immigration policies.) But it seems obvious that, as even Goldberg concedes against ideological interest, Romneys economic libertarianism was a millstone around his neck. His 47 percent comments reflected the Ayn Randian sentiment that has swept through the GOP, a phenomenon Gillespie has celebrated.

Whatever the intellectual merits of Randian thought, it is a miserable blueprint for winning elections. Rand viewed vast swaths of the public with utter contempt. Her protagonist John Galt summarized the view like so:

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains.

Calling most Americans worthless parasites who owe everything they have to the genius of the handful of entrepreneurial geniuses is a fine worldview for building a cult, but an awful one for building a political majority. The whole Randian philosophy is built around a terror of the masses. Her vision may or may not be incompatible with democracy, but it's not well suited to win elections.

At a more practical level, Romneys anti-government dogma left him unable to propose any concrete solutions for things most people regard as problems. Its fine to believe that market outcomes are inherently just, and redistributing resources from rich to poor is inherently wrong. Over the last 30 years, though, a vastly disproportionate share of economic growth has accrued to the richest one or two percent of the population. And so a political ideology dead set against redistribution is going to have to force the vast majority of the electorate to accept meager rises in living standards while the most fortunate enjoy spectacular increases. Its not an easy sales pitch.

See the original post:
The GOP’s Libertarian Problem