Adam Kokesh: Is Taxation Theft?

Source:Adam Kokesh-

Source:The New Democrat

People who believe taxation if theft, I would have to imagine at least don't believe in notion of government and society, at least the idea of a country. If you believe in having a government and a country then those things have to be funded. And who best to fund them than the people who receive those services. If taxation is theft, than so are dues that you pay at a club, or a union that you're a member of. Because those organizations take your money as well and you don't get to decide generally how much you're going to pay them. They do that for you.

Someone could say that people choose whether or not to join clubs, so they're choosing to pay those dues, because they've made a choice to join that club. But we also choose what country we live in. Or at least what country we want to live in and then the country decides for itself who should and shouldn't live there. If you think taxation is not theft, try finding a free developed country that doesn't have taxation. You might have the same luck finding a club that doesn't have dues. Someone has to pay the bills and again who more qualified than the people who receive the services of the club and government.

In the video several people correctly answered the question what is theft. Taking what doesn't belong to you without your permission. If taxation is then so is club dues. When you choose to live in a country or be a member of a club you're also choosing to follow the rules of the club and the country. Paying your bills are one of those rules. You don't like the rules of the club or country, well in free societies you can work to change the rules. Demand lower taxes and dues. Vote out people who you believe tax you too much. Vote in people you believe will cut or eliminate your taxes. But as long as you're a member of the club or country you play by the rules, or deal with the consequences.

Liberty Me: 'Let's Talk- Left-Libertarianism: Sheldon Richman & Walter Block With Lucy Steigerwald'

Source:Liberty Me- debating left-libertarianism.

Source:The New Democrat 

"What is libertarianism? Why is there a constant dialogue about left versus right? Are these distinctions useful?

Sheldon Richman and Walter Block explore these ideas.

Pour a glass of wine with Lucy as she navigates the intricacies with these two giants.

Sheldon and Walter continue the debate here:Liberty Me." 

From Liberty Me

I believe I covered this last week, but a so-called Left-Libertarian is a Social Liberal. Individual freedom, plus social justice. And they have our own definition of social justice and it’s not about collective results and that everyone should have the same. It just means that you have a social insurance system for people who are truly in need. Not to take care of everyone indefinitely, but to help people who are in need get themselves on their own feet. Rand Paul, Gary Johnson and others, are Left-Libertarians. Right-wing compared with Progressives and Socialists, but left-wing compared with classical Libertarians and Conservatives like Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell.

Non-aggression individual freedom. The ability for people to be free to live their own lives. Not to do whatever the hell they want and live in anarchy. But to manage their own personal and economic affairs, as long as they’re not hurting any innocent person. The right to self-defense, but not the right to attack any innocent person. So a Left-Libertarian believes in a limited government and that governmental power should be limited to only what government should be doing that the individual can’t do for themselves. And should be decentralized as much as possible. That you don’t have a big centralized central government, without much responsibility for anyone else.

So to me anyway, a Left-Libertarian is a Conservative. At least in the sense of how conservatism was defined up until the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives came onto the scene in the 1970s. That government should be limited and keep taxes down and with a large private sector. But an insurance system for people who truly need it. Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater himself, fifty-years later and perhaps even back then would be a Left-Libertarian. To the right of FDR Progressives, but to the Left of Ron Reagan and even Ron Paul. Reagan, on social issues and Paul on economic policy and foreign policy.

Keith Hughes: What is a Libertarian?

Source: Keith Hughes-

Source:The New Democrat

Libertarians, I guess it depends on what you mean by a Libertarian. And if you asked my definition of a Libertarian, it will sound very similar to both my definition of a Conservative, in the classical sense and a Liberal in the classical sense where I am. So I’ll you give you my four examples of a Libertarian including a Liberal Libertarian and if you want to put me in that camp fine. But Gary Johnson would also be in that camp, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2012, who certainly leans in that direction, but isn’t what I at least would call a Classical Libertarian.

I just gave you two types of Libertarians. The Liberal Libertarian, Gary Johnson. The Classical Libertarian, Ron Paul, I agree with Keith Hughes on that one. The Conservative Libertarian, Rand Paul who is a little to the Right of his father on national security and foreign policy and to his father’s left on economic policy. Senator Paul is more of a Federalist as it relates to social insurance the safety net. As opposed to his father who simply wants to eliminate the public safety net all together. And then there Anarcho Libertarians. People who are essentially anti-government all together. But don’t officially at least support eliminating all government.

So what do all these labels mean? Lets start with the Classical Libertarian, libertarianism in its realist sense and go from there. The Classical Libertarian is not just anti-big government all together where I am as a Classical Liberal lets say. But they are pro-small government and would essentially cut the Federal Government down to the size it was in the 1920s or so. And tell Americans to live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone with what they are doing. And if they get into any economic trouble and need assistance, go to their friends, family and private charity for assistance.

Now the Libertarian I actually respect and can talk to and learn from and are interested in and if I was in government I could probably work and personal know and like some of these people, are the Conservative Libertarians. Go back to the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s and you’ll find Barry Goldwater leading that camp. Go to whatever this current decade is called now and you’ll see Rand Paul leading this wing on the Right. People who are again anti-big government and believe in both personal and economic freedom, but aren’t looking to eliminate governmental functions they see as useful and constructive. The safety net comes to mind. But more interested in getting those programs out of the Federal Government and down to the states, locals and even privatization.

Now the Liberal Libertarian, Classical Liberal or even real Liberal, I just go by Liberal for myself. But we are in sync with the Conservative Libertarian and Classical Libertarian on freedom of choice and personal freedom issues. Don’t like big government running our economic or personal affairs for us. Don’t like the welfare state or nanny state. But we aren’t so much anti-government and look to put it down, as much as we are anti-big government. We believe in government, but we want it limited to so it works. And when it comes to helping the less-fortunate, we wants those programs to empower people as much if not more than taking care of them in the short-term so they can live in freedom as well.

The Anarcho Libertarian, think Anarchist and not much of a difference. Lew Rockwell, if you are familiar with his politics who on his blog it days pro-market, anti-state. Unless you are an Anarcho Libertarian, you get into a political discussion with them and you may think you are at a Star Trek convention, ( no offense to Trekies ) But when it comes to Libertarians, they go from the center-right where Conservative Libertarians and even Conservatives are, all the way over to people who are essentially anti-government all together. So it depends on what you mean by Libertarian.
Source:Keith Hughes

Christopher Cantwell: Top Ten Reasons Libertarians Aren't Nice to You

Source:The New Democrat

Contrary to popular belief (and yes I feel like a geek for saying that) I'm not a Libertarian.  Anyone who doesn't believe that will have all the evidence they need after they read this post.  I know this is shocking and for anyone who is feeling completely overwhelmed feel free to get loaded on their favorite alcoholic beverage or perhaps something illegal to help calm them down. I hear marijuana has now been decriminalized in Maryland. I'm not interested in eliminating the Federal Government, except for perhaps three departments.  Just don't ask Rick Perry which three those are.

There are several reasons that I'm not a Libertarian.

One:  Unlike Alex Jones  I'm sane, don't live in a mental hospital and am not an escaped mental patient.

Two:  I'm not a big enough asshole to be a Libertarian and view everyone who doesn't agree with me  one-hundred percent of the time as a statist or big government lover, as we saw in Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign.

Three:  Referring to number one, I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the United States Government.  We were actually attacked by foreign terrorists, as all of the hard evidence indicates.

Four:  Referring again to one, I don't believe Barack Obama is a foreigner, born in another country. I not only know where Hawaii is but I can find it on a map.  Like ninety-percent or more of the rest of the country I believe Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. His Hawaiian birth certificate is a hell of a big clue, the smoking gun, if you will.

The stereotype of Libertarians is that they are pot addicts who may have done time in prison for non-pot related activities.  They are like from another planet where government doesn't exist and have the idea that because they didn't vote for the administration in power they don't have to follow their laws or rules.

As long as Libertarians are viewed through this stereotype as people who want to destroy government, at least where they live, they'll always be viewed as anarchists or escaped mental patients who don't deserve the keys to a big wheel let alone the keys to the car that governs the nation. But Libertarians aren't interested in political power, right. Just the power to be left alone. So I guess they have no real incentive to change their ways.

Laurence M. Vance: Libertarianism vs. Liberalism vs. Conservatism

Source:The New Democrat

This is an interesting discussion to have because as a Liberal myself who actually understands liberalism it burns me when I hear people who aren’t Liberals get called Liberals. And I’m think of the MSNBC talk lineup or Far-Left publications like The Nation and many others, Salon and AlterNet would be others. And when I hear liberalism being talked about like it is some big statist ideology that is socialist or communist in nature and even has things in common with what is called Islamism a big government ideology supported by radical Islamists and I’m know that is not liberalism at all.

I’m sure Libertarians get tired with being lumped in with people who are supposed to be Conservatives. Even though they really aren’t that conservative at all and I’m thinking of the Religious-Right and other rightists on the Far-Right. Libertarianism is very different from conservatism even, but similar. And it is sure as hell different from fundamentalist Christianity or the Bible Belters who claim to be real Conservatives. Even though aren’t interested in conserving freedom, but taking the country back to a certain way of life from the 1940s and 50s.

If you are talking about real Conservatives like Barry Goldwater and today Rand Paul they have a lot in common with Libertarians, but not everything. They are not so much interested in eliminating the safety net or welfare state as they are decentralizing it. And getting it out of Washington even though they wouldn’t of created it. Where of course the Classical Libertarian wants to eliminate it all together, Ron Paul comes to mind. And the Conservative Libertarian tends to have things in common with Classical Libertarians on social issues. That this is not the business of the Federal Government.

What separates libertarianism from liberalism and I mean real liberalism not what MSNBC puts up, which is supposed to be liberalism, but actual liberalism, is Liberals do have a role for government in the economy. But a limited role to protect workers and consumers from predators and to help people who can’t for whatever reasons take care of themselves. But also help them get on their two feet so they can take care of themselves instead. And we are much different on foreign policy, but we are very similar on personal issues. Civil liberties and other personal freedom issues.

The main differences between Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals and even Socialists has to do with the role of government in people’s lives. Libertarians would give you the smallest government and Socialists the biggest government. With Conservatives and Liberals somewhere in the middle. But with different roles for government. And if even these governing philosophies are similar, they are different enough where that should be acknowledged as well.
Source:The Film Archives

Emma Goldman: 'The Individual, Society and The State'

Source:Libertarianism.Org- talking about Anarchist Emma Goldman.

Source:FreeState Now

"Emma Goldman discusses the nature of the state as an institution and how it is fundamentally at odds with the dignity of the individual.

The minds of men are in confusion, for the very foundations of our civilization seem to be tottering. People are losing faith in the existing institutions, and the more intelligent realize that capitalist industrialism is defeating the very purpose it is supposed to serve.

The world is at a loss for a way out. Parliamentarism and democracy are on the decline. Salvation is being sought in Fascism and other forms of “strong” government.

The struggle of opposing ideas now going on in the world involves social problems urgently demanding a solution. The welfare of the individual and the fate of human society depend on the right answer to those questions The crisis, unemployment, war, disarmament, international relations, etc., are among those problems.

The State, government with its functions and powers, is now the subject of vital interest to every thinking man. Political developments in all civilized countries have brought the questions home. Shall we have a strong government? Are democracy and parliamentary government to be preferred, or is Fascism of one kind or another, dictatorship—monarchical, bourgeois or proletarian—the solution of the ills and difficulties that beset society today?

In other words, shall we cure the evils of democracy by more democracy, or shall we cut the Gordian knot of popular government with the sword of dictatorship?" 

From Libertarianism.Org

What I at least see from this piece at Libertarianism.Org, is a lot of analysis, but what the writer views as problems with American government and other western government's, specifically parliamentary forms of government, social democratic forms of government that are common Europe and in the rest of the developed world. But you don't see any alternative here to the American, federal, liberal democratic, form of government. 

In the 1940s and 50s, left-wing Americans were terrified about being outed as Communists and even Socialists. You are now thanks to Senator Bernie Sanders and other left-wing members of Congress, seeing more American leftists come out as Democratic Socialists, if not Socialists all together. But today it's right-wing Anarchists on the Right, who at least publicly seem to having a hard time admitting to their anarchism, coming out of their political closet. 

If you are not an Anarchist, (right or left) then what you want government to do?

What are you willing to pay for the government that you think your country needs and how would those fees or taxes be set up, what levels, etc? 

These are my questions for anyone who calls themself a Libertarian, but doesn't seem to have any role for government whatsoever. At least no role that they're willing ti pay for themself.

Austin Peterson: 'Anarchism, Socialism & Libertarianism Summit'

Source:Austin Peterson- talking to Russia Today, about libertarianism.

"Russia Today hosted libertarian Austin Petersen, anarchist Scott Crow and socialist Eugene Puryear for a discussion featuring alternative viewpoints. Discussed were civil liberties, economics, ideal societies and transition plans to ideal societies, as well as law and police actions in free societies."

From Austin Peterson

I going to focus on libertarianism and socialism in this blog two philosophies that I'm familiar with.

They are both very diverse political philosophies and take libertarianism to use as an example: where the basic idea of libertarianism is that you combine personal with economic freedom as long as individuals aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing. But that government is there to protect us from invaders, terrorists and criminals. Thats the basic idea of libertarianism. But then there's also anarcho-libertarianism, which is borderline anarchism if not anarchism all together. Where Anarcho-Libertarians basically have no role for government in society. And are even interested in privatizing things like prisons, fire departments and law enforcement to use as examples.

Socialism, another diverse political philosophy where you have Socialist-Libertarians like Noam Chomsk and Ralph Nader and people with this philosophy believe in personal freedom like Libertarians, but that government needs to be there to sure that economic wealth is distributed equally in society and where no one is rich, or poor. But then there are Socialists who are statist across the board and not only want to prevent people from becoming what they would call too wealthy and not poor at all, but believe that people need to be protected from themselves and don't like personal freedom ether.

People who I at least call Neo-Communists, believe that government also has a role to protect people from getting hurt and even protecting us from ourselves. And making bad decisions with their own lives. Like prohibition, which is definitely a statist idea. The whole junk food and soft drinks ban, the War on Drugs to use as examples, are all statist ideas. And people like this I would call Neo-Communists. People who are socialist on economic policy, but also Statist on some key personal choice issues.

Neo-Communists, want to use government to control what people can eat, drink and smoke to use as examples. You also have Marxists-Socialists, people who believe in eliminating capitalism and the private sector all together. Where the government would own the economy all around on behalf of the people. And then you have Socialists who believe in both capitalism, but that is highly regulated and taxed to finance a large welfare state. So with Libertarians we would get a lot less government in society. And with Socialists a lot more government especially as it relates to the economy.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Peter Ferarra: 'Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction'

Source:Libertarianism Dot Org- with a video featuring Peter Ferrara.

"Peter Ferrara is Director of the International Center for Law and Economics and President of the Virginia Club for Growth. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and has practiced law with firms on Wall Street and in Washington, DC.

In this video, Ferrara lectures at a Libertarian Party of New York conference on his first book, Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction (1980). He describes in detail the problems built into the way the U.S. Social Security system was designed and offers a method of transitioning to a fully privatized retirement-savings model." 

From Libertarianism Dot Org

Social Security is simply a retirement insurance system, that it is its basically there for people who don't have enough of a pension fund. So once Americans become too unhealthy to work, meaning they are no longer physically and mentally able to work long enough to support themselves, or aren't able to work at all and they don't have enough of a pension fund to pay their bills for the rest of their lives, at least they'll have Social Security. And hopefully not have to live off of their children who have their own bills to pay, as well as raising their own kids, their parents grandchildren.

Social Security was never meant to be a retirement system, whether it's a public retirement system run by the government, to go along with private pension plans or a single payer retirement system where it's the only retirement system in the country. Nor should it be, because we should all be worried about centralize power, one organization or another private or public that has so much power over us that we have no where else to go other than whoever holds this power for us or over us. But Social Security is simply there for people who otherwise wouldn't be able to pay their bills.

Robert Wenzel: 'How to Fight The Neocons'

Source:Economic Policy Journal- Robert Wenzel.

"I receive a surprising number of emails asking me about specific "libertarian" organizations and whether it makes sense to donate to them. I also receive requests from various organizations asking for an endorsement. I am in general reluctant to do endorse most of these organizations. The success of  Ron Paul spreading the freedom message has resulted in many groups attempting to ride on his coattails, some, over time, will prove to be important allies in the fight for freedom, others will prove otherwise. They can all talk a good game on launch, but only the test of time will prove how consistent they are and how capable they are. Thus, I have decided to limit my endorsements at this time to three organizations: The Mises Institute,  LewRockwell.com and AntiWar.com. I may add to this list in the future, I am monitoring a few. But for now, these are the only three that I am comfortable endorsing. All three have stood the test of time and maintained a hardcore libertarian stance across a spectrum of issues and are capably managed. Below Lew Rockwell reports on the recent attack against one of them, LRC,  by the statist, neocon Southern Poverty Law Center.-RW"

Source:Economic Policy Journal

Reason Magazine: Auburn U. Professor Roderick Long- On Race, Gender, Equality and Libertarianism

Source: Reason Magazine-

Source: Reason Magazine: Auburn Professor Roderick Long- On Gender, Equality & Libertarianism

I tend to have a lot of respect for libertarianism especially when it comes to individual freedom and non-aggression. Where I differ with Libertarians as a Liberal when it comes to non-aggression, like take discrimination, a big part of this video. Is when people are discriminated against for something that has nothing to do with what they are being denied for.

Like race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality what have you, is that as a Liberal I believe that people have the right to legal recourse that there should be a sufficient consequence for Joe discriminating against Susan or vice versa based on gender or whatever reason that has nothing to do with whether Joe or Susan or whoever it may be. And Libertarians say so Joe and Susan or whoever it may be shouldn't have that right. Because that would violate Joe or Susan's property rights to decide who can and can't work for them or whatever reason they are being denied to do, serving them in a cafe or whatever it may be. Libertarians believe that Joe and Susan or whoever have the constitutional right to not serve or hire people based on race or gender, because its their property.

Civil rights are just one example of where Liberals and Libertarians disagree. Classical Liberals believe that and again I just consider myself a Liberal but for this purpose I say Classical Liberal because I don't want to be mistaken for a Social Democrat who puts equality over everything else, including freedom. But Classical Liberals and Libertarians also believe in individual freedom, that individuals have the right to live their own lives as they see fit. As long we aren't hurting innocent people with what we are doing. But guess what so do Libertarians. They believe in the same thing, so they should believe in civil rights as well but they don't, when they believe it infringes on property rights, something they value more.

Libertarianism: Bill Evers- 'How to Convince a Socialist to Become a Libertarian'

Source:Libertarianism- Bill Evers, talking about Socialists and Libertarians.

"Bill Evers was a resident scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution (and is currently a research fellow there) and also served as Assistant Secretary for the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development in the U.S. Department of Education from 2007-09.

In this lecture from 1985, Evers speaks at a Libertarian Party of California event about convincing socialists to become libertarians. He talks about dismantling some of the preconceptions socialists have about their own beliefs by using framing devices such as the socialist calculation debate to show adherents how the political dimension in central planning eventually takes over the entire system."

From Libertarianism

How to convince a Socialist to be Libertarian: first of all good luck. You might as well try to convince Palestinians and other Arabs that Israel has been right from all along and there is no need for an independent Palestinian state. Or try to convince Jews that the State of Israel should've never been created in the first place.

Socialists believe in what the state can do for the people with their money. And Libertarians believe in what people can do for themselves with their own money. And Libertarians also believe in maximize freedom across the board. That individuals have the right to live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they are not hurting innocent people with what they are doing, they should be free as long as they aren't hurting innocent people's freedom,

Socialists do believe in the state as far as improving people's lives and making society as equal as possible, but Socialists are pretty diverse on social issues. And depending on what type of Socialists you are talking about, people who I would call leftist statists, people who not only believe that the state has the responsibility to make sure that all people are living as quality of a life as possible economically. But that the State also has the responsibility to make sure that people are living as safe as possible, even if that means protecting people from themselves.

And there are Socialist Liberals who are socialist on economic policy, but more liberal-libertarian on social issues. That government shouldn't try to protect people from themselves. Because they can't and it's Undemocratic and statist.

If you really are a Libertarian and you're not against government all together, you just don't want government running people's lives for them and you want government to do just the basics and be as decentralized as possible and you believe you have snowballs chance on a hot, sunny day in Arizona of finding common ground with a Socialist, talk to the liberal wing of the socialist movement. People who don't want government interfering into people's personal affairs. The non-nanny statist wing of the socialist movement. As well as the Communists who don't believe in freedom at all. 

Murray Boochkin & Karl Hess: Anarchism in America (1983)

Source:IMDB- Anarchists and Libertarians: what's the modern difference?

Source:Real Life Journal

"A colorful and provocative survey of anarchism in America, the film attempts to dispel popular misconceptions and trace the historical development of the movement. The film explores the movement both as a native American philosophy stemming from 19th century American traditions of individualism, and as a foreign ideology brought to America by immigrants. The film features rare archival footage and interviews with significant personalities in anarchist history including Murray Boochkin and Karl Hess, and also live performance footage of the Dead Kennedys."   

From IMDB 

"In 1979 Clark won the Libertarian Party presidential nomination at the party's convention in Los Angeles, California. He published a book on his programs, A New Beginning, with an introduction by Eugene McCarthy. During the campaign, Clark positioned himself as a peace candidate and emphasized both large budget and tax cuts, as well as outreach to liberals and progressives unhappy with the resumption of Selective Service registration and the arms race with the Soviet Union.[6] Clark was endorsed by the Peoria Journal Star of Peoria, Illinois.[7]

When asked in a television interview to summarize libertarianism, Clark used the phrase "low-tax liberalism," causing some consternation among traditional libertarian theorists, most notably Murray Rothbard.[8][9] Clark's running to the center marked the start of a split within the Libertarian Party between a moderate faction led by Ed Crane and a radical faction led by Rothbard[10] that eventually came to a head in 1983, with the moderate faction walking out of the party convention after the nomination for the 1984 presidential race went to David Bergland.[11]

Ed Clark's running mate in 1980 was David H. Koch of Koch Industries, who pledged part of his personal fortune to the campaign for the vice-presidential nomination, enabling the Clark/Koch ticket to largely self-fund and run national television advertising.

Clark received 921,128 votes (1.1% of the total nationwide);[12] the highest number and percentage of popular votes a Libertarian Party candidate had ever received in a presidential race up to that point. His strongest support was in Alaska, where he came in third place with 11.7% of the vote, finishing ahead of independent candidate John Anderson and receiving almost half as many votes as Jimmy Carter.[13] Clark's record for most votes won by a Libertarian presidential candidate stood for 32 years until it was broken by Gary Johnson in 2012. His Libertarian vote percentage of 1.1% ranks 3rd behind Johnson's 3.3% showing in 2016 and Jo Jorgensen's 1.2% performance in 2020."  

From Wikipedia 

This photo is from the 1980 Libertarian Party Convention with a feature about Ed Clark who was their nominee for President. But that video is not currently available anywhere.

Source:Libertarian Party- 1980 Libertarian Party nominee for President, Ed Clark (Libertarian, California)

I find it interesting that a self-described leftist who has both socialist and anarchist leanings would be at a Libertarian Party conference. But that is exactly what you have in this video with Murray Bookchin speaking at a 1980 Libertarian Party conference. But I guess if you’re a true Libertarian you believe in free thought, free expression and free ideas. Even if they don’t completely agree with your own ideas and views. 

Murray Bookchin, sounds to me like Noam Chomsky ideologically. Professor Chomsky is a self-described Libertarian Socialist. Which almost sounds like an Oxymoron, but Chomsky takes the libertarian ideas when it comes to social issues and social policy. And is a Democratic Socialist when it comes to economic policy and foreign policy.

The New-Left in America might be a lot further along had they went the Noam Chomsky route when it came to their ideas. Instead of being about big government all the time and everywhere. And today even now questioning whether free speech is a good thing, because it also allows for the opposition to speak freely. With their whole political correctness movement. 

What American Socialists could say instead said is: “That capitalism and private enterprise are risky things. So you need to limit for-profit enterprises and tightly regulate them. While having a big government there to take care of people when they fall through the cracks of the capitalist private enterprise system. But that personal freedom should be vast and for everyone.” Instead of using a big government to try to protect people from themselves.

Had the New-Left in America taken the Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky and even Bernie Sanders route when it came to both economic and social policy, as well as foreign policy, instead of always being about a big state and that individual freedom is always dangerous whether its economic, or personal and that freedom of choice gives people the freedom to make mistakes that government has to pay for, then they would find that they have a lot in common with the Libertarian Party, libertarian movement as a whole, classical Conservatives and even Center-Right Liberals who are the real Liberals. And they would have a lot more support politically in America. Because they wouldn’t sound like Marxist Communists fascist statists.  

CNBC: Maria Bartiromo- Peter Schiff & Diana Carew: Debate Student Loans Bailout

Source:CNBC- Peter Schiff debating Diana Carew on CNBC. If you want to call it a debate. It's more like who can get more words in about 5 minutes.

"Barclays warns student loan defaults are underestimated by at least $225 billion. Peter Schiff, Euro Pacific Capital, and Diana Carew, Progressive Policy Institute, debate whether the government should have gotten involved in the first place." 

From The Leak Source 

If you want to ask me who won this debate on CNBC (if you want to call it that) next question, because it really wasn't a debate. And Maria Bartiromo the supposed moderator, apparently was just there mostly as a spectator I guess enjoying the action. But what they were supposed to be talking about here is obviously an important subject which is college affordability in America. 

I guess it depends on what side you some down on here: if you think that the government, especially the Federal Government has any role in the economy, then you think they have a role in education as well. Probably not to run education or to try to Federalize education, including higher education. But a role (whatever that role is) in seeing that as many people as possible have access to a quality education, including a quality higher education in America. 

Now, if you think that government has no role in the economy, like a Libertarian (classical or Anarcho) you think that of course government has no role here. And you'll use the familiar talking points: it's unconstitutional or corrupt, incompetent or all those things. Which is basically what Libertarian economist Peter Schiff was doing here. 

What I think we need in this country is a system where all qualified students whether they're just about to graduate high school or are looking to go back to school and get additional skills, like people who are now working part-time to some job that they're way overqualified for, because they can no longer find a good job in their field, can go to college, or just go to a junior college or vocational skills to get those skills. But you don't get there by putting the Federal Government completely in charge of the student loan industry. Which is what we have now.

Pacific Street Films: 'Anarchism and the Libertarian Party'

Source:Pacific Street Films- so-called Anarcho-Libertarians wouldn't approve of this activity.

"How the political philosophy of anarchism relates to the Libertarian party (US). From the documentary "Anarchism in America" (1983) by Pacific Street Films." 

From Pacific Street Films

The Libertarian Party and the broader movement came about (as I understand it) as a reaction to the New Deal in the 1940s and the Great Society in the 1960s, as a reaction against what they would call big government socialism. They believed a welfare state in America was not needed, bad policy, and unconstitutional. 

The Libertarian Party and Libertarian movement is about defending the U.S. Constitution and fighting against what they would call big government socialism and authoritarianism and promoting limited government and individual liberty. And trying to prevent it from going outside the U.S. Constitution, a big believer in the entire U.S. Constitution. 

People who are called Libertarians use the 10th Amendment (as they see it) to fight against big government. And to keep the Federal Government from getting outside the 10th Amendment and big believers in individual liberty. And that people should be able to live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their liberty. 

And if Libertarians were to stick to the core principles of being pro-individual liberty and limited government, they could have a great future and recruit more members to their party. Because I believe a consensus of Americans share these same beliefs. It's when they take it farther than that and sound like anti-government, not anti-big Government, but anti-government, period, that they tend to sound like they just flown down from the Planet Zoltar (or some far out planet) and scare the hell out of taxpayers who don't like high taxes, but don't want government to go away either.

Fox Mulder: 'Libertarian Fascist Coup Against FDR'

Source:Fox Mulder- President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) addressing The United Nations?

"Birth of Libertarians: Libertarian Fascist Coup Against FDR, 1934 - Yesterday's Ron Paulite "Hitler" Youth. The "American Liberty League" (proto-Libertarianism) coup. 

(Yesterday's Libertarian Party... 

From Fox Mulder

Was FDR's New Deal the birth of libertarianism in America? Probably not because the U.S. Constitution was written by Conservative-Libertarians and Liberals in the 1770's. But what the New Deal did for the libertarian Movement, did was help to organize it along with LBJ Great Society in the 1960s. Plus, the rise of the Christian-Right in the Republican Party in the late 1970s, as well as neoconservatism. 

Had the Christian-Right and neoconservatism, not risen in the Republican Party, you could make a pretty good case that the Libertarian Party doesn't come about in the early 1970s. And the Republican Party would be made up of Libertarians and Conservative-Libertarians, as well as Progressive Republicans (Not your idea of Progressives) today. And the Republican Party might be an overwhelmingly majority party in the Federal Government today. With the White House and large majority's in both chambers of Congress as well.

Its the birth of safety net in America that didn't give libertarianism its birth in America but rose it up. And Americans started to say what's going on here, the Federal Government all the sudden has gotten real big. Their taxes no matter the income level, have gone way up from what they used to be. 

Thanks to FDR, LBJ, and even President Eisenhower, Libertarians started to get the idea that now that America has this safety net. Where in it in the U.S. Constitution is the authority for the Federal Government to be doing all of these things. The libertarian movement should thank Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, as well as the Religious- Right, for the fact that they even have a movement today.

I'm not just talking about the Libertarian Party which unfortunately for Libertarians, represents a small part of the libertarian movement. Libertarians in America don't have a major party that they can call their own. The one's who are still in the Republican Party, are there mostly for political convenience so they have a say in a major political party. Rather than being Republicans because they believe they fit well in that party ideologically.

I don't say this as a Libertarian because I'm not. (Perhaps contrary to popular belief) I'm a Liberal and a Democrat, not a Democratic Socialist, which are two different things. I support the goals of the New Deal and Great Society, I just would've designed it better and not put all this power with the Federal Government to deal with these issues. But one the things that New Deal and Great Society accomplished ironically, was it gave voice to the libertarian movement in America and put them on the map.

The Libertarian Party was born partially in response to the New Deal and Great Society, to sort of fight back against progressivism in America and give people the freedom to handle these issues on their own. Instead of empowering the Federal Government to deal with all of these issues on their own for the most part. 

Libertarians want the Federal Government to get back to what they believe is laid out for them in the U.S. Constitution. So in a way the New Deal and the Great Society has been good for the libertarian movement in America as well as the Religious-Right, because it gave them something to fight back against and a reason for them to have their own political party as small as it still is forty years later.