200,000 Homeless Vets, How Discussting!

Thanks for your ideas on war and I completely agree. You blame congress for the homeless problem but since the president found out what the word "VETO" means, he is not letting Democrats try to do something in congress and look good in helping this problem. Now spending is a problem but it was not under a Republican congress.

Vetoing makes it harder to pass a bill, but not impossible. Congress can override a veto. The fact that they can't means that there are still a large number of them not willing to deal with this problem.

To make matters worse, Congress continue to grant Bush funding for the war. If they stopped providing funding (and no amount of vetoing by Bush could stop them), the troops would have to come home. And this why I have little trust in Democrats (just like I have little trust in the Republicans).. because they now have a majority in the House and the Senate, and they will not de-fund the war. If they did this, the troops would have to withdraw. And if they cared about ending the war, then it would be simple for them to do since they have majorities.

I really, really tried to have rational conversations with him before. He just wants free stuff and will vote for anyone who gives it to him. He just kept calling me names, ignoring every point and coming up with more free stuff he wanted from the government. I only talk to him now because I like to argue and he has no idea how ignorant he is and it's hilarious. I'm just telling you in case you haven't (and you probably already have) realized no matter how much effort you put into this you're not going to get any content back ever.

see aproximately 80-90% of posts by me since December......

others feel you pain

Kaz and dao jones,

I've read through some of the previous threads and do see the conflicts that you're having with Big Allen. Perhaps I haven't read back far enough (I went back to October), but I have seen a lot more name-calling and belittling than explaining on both sides. As I said, perhaps I haven't gone back far enough, and previous to the message that I read there are many thought-out explanations that didn't make it through.. I don't know.

As a long-time Libertarian, I understand the right to be left alone and make your own decisions (so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others) is paramount to all other concerns, because the individual is fully in control of their own life (see "The Philosophy of Liberty" for an illustrated explanation: http://www.youtube.co....

On the other hand, many people do not yet grasp the principles of libertarianism (usually because of the environment many of us have grown up in), believe that social issues trump freedom. So it's important to explain not only why freedom is the right way, but that it's also the best way to solve problems. For instance, explaining why not only is it "right" for the government to not take my money to give it to others for health care, but to explain how a free-market medical system will actually provide much less expensive and higher quality health care for all, even the poor.

Some people will always believe that the needs of others trump the rights of those to live their lives as they see fit, and that's unfortunate. But explaining how the libertarian philosophy will actually solve the social problems they care about is much more effective than trying to tell someone that the government doesn't have a right to steal; it's certainly true, just not an effective argument.

And if you're right and my arguments fall on deaf ears, then at least I'll be getting in some good practice for my congressional race in 2010 :-).

it's certainly true, just not an effective argument.

Now see I was with you until this part. You think your long winded political answers are "effective?" I agree with most of what you say, but I'm not seeing changing anyone's mind with your approach. As for me, I've given up on changing minds. This country WANTS socialism. Big Allen may the most shallow money grubbing kind, but my "Republican" mother is terrified social security will be ended and she won't get money back she paid even though she didn't pay it to the next generation who are paying her. Also, she doesn't even need it. She has a pension and plenty of savings to live . I manager her money for her, I keep telling her that.

So if you're really running for office your approach is more critical then mine. If you haven't given up like I have, how are you going to get people to understand the prison walls of socialism they are building around themselves? They not only don't get that, they want it.

We have a country that doesn't even question Government telling you:
- You can only buy liquor from them in many parts of the country
- Who can decorate your house
- Who can clip your nails
- Who can cut your hair
- You can't buy a car directly from a car manufacturer (adding 1K+ to the price of every car)
- Who is allowed to represent you in court
- When and how you can die
- What manner consenting adults can have sex
- What prescription or "illegal" drugs you can put in your body
- What days and hours businesses can operate
- You can't "sell" or prostitute your own body
- You can't sell your own organs
- You can't work for an amount of money less then they deem reasonable

And while apparently Americans live in mortal fear they can't call their buddies in Yemen and discuss bombmaking without potentially the government listening in without a warrant, they don't question the constant and incredible abuse of our privacy the government commits every day in the name of the drug war and ensuring everyone pays their "fair share" of taxes.

Good luck explaining liberty to a population that 225 years ago got it and is more and more determined to give it back.

it's certainly true, just not an effective argument.

Now see I was with you until this part.

Good.. that means you made it through 90% of my rant before disagreeing :-).

But let me clarify. For someone like you and I, this is an effective argument. However, we need no persuasion, so it's rather irrelevant. For those that you say actually want socialism, it certainly isn't effective at all. They don't like stealing, but they don't like "society" leaving people behind even more, so they side with stealing as what they view as a lesser of two evils.

On a side note, "sound byte" length answers don't often work when you mix politics and internet forums. It leaves too much room for interpretation whereby the person engaged in the debate will assume the worst about what you intended to say. This spirals out of control and then nothing is accomplished.

You think your long winded political answers are "effective?" I agree with most of what you say, but I'm not seeing changing anyone's mind with your approach.

I'm long-winded (or "thorough", as I like to call it) because I provide detail in my answers. Not only do I believe that the free market is the answer to almost all (if not all) of our current problems, but I believe it's important to describe why. Doing so often requires some sort of historical precedent so that the person listening or reading can see the credibility in the claim.

If I tell you that the only monopolies that exist in the free market are good monopolies, then that's a no-brainer. You apparently already understand free markets and know that bad monopolies only exist in the presence of government coercion. There really is no need for me to elaborate because you and I already see eye-to-eye when it comes to libertarianism.

But if I'm making this claim to a proponent of big-government, someone who thinks that government is all-powerful and things simply happen "just so" when the government sets out to regulate it, then my statement is going to be perplexing to them. I need to back it up with evidence, sometimes long-winded so that the claim can be properly understood.

As for me, I've given up on changing minds. This country WANTS socialism.

I don't agree. People don't want socialism, at least not directly. People want answers to their problems, and many of them believe that socialism is that answer. People have been trained to believe that problems on a national level need complex solutions. They've also fallen under the assumption that simply electing the "right" 500+ people to Washington will be able to solve those problems for 300,000,000+ people.

It's certainly a difficult task. But showing someone that the answers to these problems are simple (granted, the transitions can be a bit complex because we're dealing with about a century of built-up problems) and to demonstrate the trend in each solution that "less government is better" is certainly a doable task.

Convincing them away from socialism can be done by showing them that there are answers that will work better than socialism, be both short- and long-term oriented, and not have the negative side-effects of socialism.

Big Allen may the most shallow money grubbing kind, but my "Republican" mother is terrified social security will be ended and she won't get money back she paid even though she didn't pay it to the next generation who are paying her. Also, she doesn't even need it. She has a pension and plenty of savings to live . I manager her money for her, I keep telling her that.

The possibility of Social Security being gone is real when she retires, depending on her age. I believe Ron Paul has an excellent transition plan for this, and I would endorse it.

(Speaking of long-winded, I tried to post this response and was told that I was limited to 7,500 characters, so it's broken into two pieces).

So if you're really running for office your approach is more critical then mine. If you haven't given up like I have, how are you going to get people to understand the prison walls of socialism they are building around themselves?

It depends on the audience. Most people are fairly apathetic, but this isn't a new phenomenon. Even in 1776, only about 3% of the population truly knew what was going on, in a time where you would think that virtually everyone would be completely on-board.

You will always have two general groups:

The first is very small, and they're the activists. They're the ones that keep on top of what's happening, that care about the intricacies of liberty, and they don't care about being in the minority. Even if there's no one around them or no one to side with them, they will speak up. These are the people that will be the first to take up arms if our country gets to that point.

The second group is probably the largest. They are mostly apathetic. They care about what's going on, but only on the surface. As long as they have their necessities and a few basic luxuries, they don't do anything. Sure they complain verbally, but those complaints are never carried out into action. These people know only what the media tells them. They want things to be better, they don't really care how, but they don't want to put a lot of effort into doing it.

Within each of these groups, you have the entire political spectrum. In the activists group, you have libertarians and socialist that are constantly trying to get their agenda accomplished believing that they are right. In the apathetic group, people have these same beliefs but just don't care enough to do anything, or they think what they do won't matter so they don't bother.

Here's the great thing about this. Many people in the second group feel the same way as do the people in the first, but they don't have the courage or the will to do anything. But if someone will lead, they'll jump on the bandwagon. They just don't want to be first.

So, to answer your question.. when I'm speaking to an activist audience, my liberty-based solutions to problems will be thoroughly explained as they are on this message board (it's likely that most of the people that participate here lean more towards the first group than the second by the simple fact that they are here). When I'm speaking to a general group of people who mostly don't care, I will briefly touch on topics that resonate with people.

For instance, it's well known that Congress loads up bills with all sorts of spending that's unrelated to the bill just so they can get it to pass. They pile legislation into a single bill that covers a wide-variety of topics, and either the entire bill passes or none of it passes, so we often end up with very bad legislation that was tagged on to another bill. That's why I support the "One Subject at a Time Act" that would prevent this from happening.

We also know that the Constitution gives the federal government its authority, and without the Constitution the federal government has no authority. Too often, Congress passes bills where it has no such authority. In an attempt to limit this practice, or at least shed light onto it so that people know it's happening, I would support the "Enumerated Powers Act".

The PATRIOT Act was passed in record time, but it was the length of a Harry Potter novel. Very few, if any, people in Congress actually read the bill (because it was physically impossible to do so) and passed it under pressure of "you've gotta do something about terrorists!" That's why I support the "Read The Bills Act", which would, among other things, require that all bills are posted online for public viewing for at least seven days before they come up for a vote, with no exceptions!

The way I convince people is I find out what the hold up is.. in this case, what someone doesn't like about libertarianism, and then I pick it apart with facts, but in such a way that doesn't demean them for not "getting it" beforehand. Perhaps the shortest answer to your question might be, if I can convince Big Allen that this is the proper position to hold, then you'll have your answer.

We have a country that doesn't even question Government telling you:

(snipped list of government atrocities).

And while apparently Americans live in mortal fear they can't call their buddies in Yemen and discuss bombmaking without potentially the government listening in without a warrant, they don't question the constant and incredible abuse of our privacy the government commits every day in the name of the drug war and ensuring everyone pays their "fair share" of taxes.

Good luck explaining liberty to a population that 225 years ago got it and is more and more determined to give it back.

You're right that convincing people, especially a lot of them, is a daunting task. There are over 600,000 people in my district, so these are the people that I would need to concentrate on (which is a lot easier than running for president).

I face an additional challenge in that I'm running as a Libertarian. People see the presidential candidates all over the news during upcoming elections, but there's very little talk about congressional candidates. Only the people that actively research candidates know who stands for what. I would imagine that the majority of voters that go into the booth, when they're voting for a congressional candidate, look for the little "R" or "D" next to the candidate's name and vote accordingly.

But I would also try to use this to my advantage, posing questions such as "Are you tired of only having a choice between Republicans and Democrats?" I can also latch on to great-sounding phrases like "Bring the troops home now!" or "No Income Tax." I'm lucky to live in a suburb of Phoenix, because this is the home of the Ron Paul Revolution. I can tap into a fairly large community of activists that I've worked side-by-side with.

While my goal in Congress will be to increase individual freedoms, I'm hoping that the first Libertarian in Congress will have a symbolic meaning to others. Too many Libertarian candidates just run paper campaigns, such that they don't actually campaign, they just want their name on the ballot to show a presence. It's better than nothing, but I hope to motivate others.

The second group is probably the largest. They are mostly apathetic. They care about what's going on, but only on the surface. As long as they have their necessities and a few basic luxuries, they don't do anything

Unfortunately you are missing one important element in this. They can vote for Democrats to do it for them.

Alexander Tytler:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

As our friend BigAllen shows, they "justify" it by saying they want to help others while it's clearly for themselves. Which is why they are not interested in your arguments of liberty. They are not intellectually in play. They are selfishly rationalizing their greed. Logic won't overcome that. I don't know what will. Hence my pessimism for our future. We're over 200 years now, on borrowed time according to Tytler. All we can do at this point is slow how fast people like BigAllen choke the goose that laid the golden egg.

Unfortunately you are missing one important element in this. They can vote for Democrats to do it for them.

That's certainly true, but...

Alexander Tytler:

(One of my favorite quotes)

As our friend BigAllen shows, they "justify" it by saying they want to help others while it's clearly for themselves. Which is why they are not interested in your arguments of liberty.

But that's my point.. I don't often make arguments of liberty. I said, "But explaining how the libertarian philosophy will actually solve the social problems they care about is much more effective than trying to tell someone that the government doesn't have a right to steal; it's certainly true, just not an effective argument." However, in re-reading that, I see how it might have been misunderstood. So let me clarify:

- Talking about how a libertarian philosophy will better solve the problems that people care about (and showing them how), effective.
- Talking about "I want my freedom and the government doesn't have a right to steal from me," not effective.

So this is the point I tried to make in one of my earlier posts. Instead of talking about liberty (except to the right audience), I focus on how libertarian principles will better solve the problems that people say they care about. For instance, "If you really care about poor people, we need a sound money system, and here's why..."

They are not intellectually in play.

That's certainly a rational explanation for why they agree with a Robin Hood-like government...

They are selfishly rationalizing their greed.

...but this statement is almost contradictory to the previous. Either people are selfish and greedy and are making their arguments for their own benefits, or they are not "intellectually in play" and have therefore come up with incorrect solutions to the world's problems (which implies a degree of selflessness).

Logic won't overcome that. I don't know what will. Hence my pessimism for our future. We're over 200 years now, on borrowed time according to Tytler. All we can do at this point is slow how fast people like BigAllen choke the goose that laid the golden egg.

I would agree that it's certainly bleak.

I think instead of trying to convince people of philosophies, it's easier to convince them of very specific tasks that have the side effect of promoting our philosophies. For instance, the bills I mentioned in one of my previous messages (Enumerated Powers Act, One Subject at a Time Act, etc). I mean, what "regular person" would argue that Congress shouldn't vote on one subject at a time?

So maybe the focus needs to be on fixing the problems that almost everyone agrees on. Go after some of the procedural things in Congress, and as empty as it is, maybe even some "Washington is broken" rhetoric. It seems to work for the Democrats :-).

it seems that you are making a long leap in assuming that Big Allen wants to actually have an intelligent conversation and is interested in doing anything besides attacking peope who don't agree with him.

if that were the case, i imagine peopple might be having long conversations with him, rather than getting annoyed with because he makes personal attacks about people he doesn't know.

i am a relatively new libertarian and i am quite interested in what you guys have to say.

i am a member of the working poor, with a wife, 2 kids, 2 car payments, a mortage. if a large financial event occured right now, my family would be screwed unless family or friends could help us.

some of this can be addressed by my own personal discipline, which my wife and i are working on, but i certainly could stand where allen stands, but i don't because i am interested in doing something differently.

so it's fine if you choose to believe that being really nice and explanatory will change everyone.

for those of us who have tried to begin conversations with allen and have ONLY been attacked personally and politically, we are not mean people, we simply choose not to act as if allen will listen if we bend over backwards to prove our points.

he is a troll and is primarily looking for attention. if you have spent much time on message boards you would know that there are always a few.

when the one guy who starts EVERY freaking thread on the board trolls waiting to attack people, it gets annoying.

he's not libertarian and the only reason for him to be on this board is to argue with and attack people.

i am a member of the working poor, with a wife, 2 kids, 2 car payments, a mortage. if a large financial event occured right now, my family would be screwed unless family or friends could help us.

And a serious congratulations to you for realizing it is in YOUR interest to have opportunity and not dependency. You will go a long way. As I told BigAllen before I had no money given to me, I worked and borrowed my way through undergraduate and two graduate degrees. My debt at the end was $75K and there were times I was working 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week.

After spending almost 10 years paying it off I'm finally starting to live the life I spent 20 years investing in myself getting and wanting nothing from Government. BigAllen's reply is he'd spent 30 years delivering the mail and driving a cab, apparently now since he didn't save it or invest in himself he wants government to give him his.

I'm sure since you'll do fine financially. But in the end regardless you can hold your head up because you will have made what you make of yourself on your own. Not through handouts by criminal politicians stealing through the power of government guns.