Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Will Libertarians Ever Account For Their Fallacies? Doubt It.

Jonathan Painter · 12 subscribers
July 20 at 10:25am ·
It has been the principle of individual freedom that the US is most well known around the world. The right to bear arms is the greatest evidence of freedom. Unfortunately, our society doesn't seem to value individual liberty anymore. Everyone is trying to subvert someone else, without realizing the cost of their own freedom. We have completely lost touch with the principles of John Locke and William Penn. The problem isn't guns, it's a small minority of gun owners. Tougher gun laws (including a ban) will have very little effect on the psychological make-up or capability of people like Timothy McVeigh or James Holmes, at the cost of American liberty. Drug and alcohol bans did little to prevent widespread use by those with disregard for law. Our government will not ever make us safer, but good parents can.
· · ·
  • 9 people like this.
    • Jonathan Painter Over the same time period, conceal and carry has become popular to average citizens all over the united states.
    • Jonathan Painter
      Over the past several decades, rates of crime have increased at the same time as rates of divorce, nonmarital childbearing, and lone parenthood have increased. The relationship between crime and family environment is complicated, especially when the role of poverty is also considered. To say that one has caused the others would be too simplistic. However, many scholars and policy makers who study crime have identified family breakdown as one among a cluster of disadvantages which are associated with criminal activity and with chronic reoffending.93

      An American study found that juvenile offending was affected not just by whether a particular child’s parents were married, but also by the prevalent family structures in his neighbourhood. It has been suggested that this might be the case because two-parent families are better able to monitor anti-social behaviour which often leads to more serious crime.94

      A review of 17 developed nations indicated that nations with higher rates of births outside marriage, teenage parenthood, and divorce also had higher rates of child homicide.95

      Many prisoners lack strong family ties, which makes rehabilitation and re-integration into the community more difficult. For example, prisoners have twice the proportion of divorce as the general population (9% versus 4%). And, although only 9% of all women in the general population are lone mothers, more than twice that proportion of women prisoners were lone mothers when they were imprisoned.96
      Civitas is an independent think tank which seeks to deepen public understanding ...See More
    • Jonathan Painter
      The following are Homicide rates for the years prior to, during, and following ...See More
    • Jonathan Painter We currently have the highest rate of incarceration in the world, greater than that of penal era USSR. What will the impact be in the near future on the generation growing up now with fathers/mothers incarcerated? I maintain that government is not making us "safer," but contributing to an environment that is robbing liberty and fostering criminal activity.
    • Leann Bosquez Do you attribute any of the growth of prison population to private (for-profit) prisons?
      21 hours ago · · 1
    • Soup McGee
      ‎--- The origin of the word ‘family’ comes from the word ‘slaves.’ The concept evolved in pre-capitalist societies so as to recognize authority, not paternal or maternal structure. But the state here in America is presumed under the myth to exist for the purpose of protecting the idyllic, 1950s-era nuclear family structure. Such expectation, absent a comprehensive allowance for reality ( i.e., the fragmentation of our individual rights as regulated by the state), demands failure from the many for the benefit of very few. This occurs while we allow more power to private firms and corporations that are most-often owned by very old money. A long-term trend towards polarization in our politics and policy has long prevented reasonable solutions for forced inequity from being discussed, proposed or accepted.

      To continue living within these “traditions” without questioning them , one must ignore and avoid consequence of willful ignorance, be willing to hold inconsistent and even contradictory positions, and remain outright acceptant of the consequences (infanticide, abandonment, illegitimacy, etc.) we face as a whole for not dealing with these inequities. ----
      21 hours ago ·
    • Jonathan Painter ‎@ Leann : The statistics will support my claim even if you consider a large margin of error for wrongful imprisonment. If the charge is false, the conviction itself is a crime. :D
      17 hours ago ·
    • Leann Bosquez I am responding to and agreeing with your statement, "we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world..."
      Do we agree that for-profit businesses focus on both marketing and increasing profits?
      17 hours ago · · 1
    • Jonathan Painter ‎@ Soup : Your characterization of the 1950's nuclear family may ring true in some cultures, but as far as colonial america philosophy and the charter of federal government goes; freedom of religion and family structure are quite interdependent.
      17 hours ago ·
    • Soup McGee
      ‎-- thanks for clearing that up...point is, only white Christians were capable of seeking redress, and only men at that...non-kin familial networks are equally responsible for America's Prosperity as are the diverse family structures "allowed." Some would have homosexuality be a Federal Offense, or punishable under states rights. That would be how this is relevant to the prison discussion-- from Coontz, "The Way We Never Were.": "Colonial Families
      American families always have been
      diverse, and the male breadwinnerfemale
      homemaker, nuclear ideal that
      most people associate with “the” traditional
      family has predominated for
      only a small portion of our history. In
      colonial America, several types of
      families coexisted or competed. Native
      American kinship systems subordinated
      the nuclear family to a much
      larger network of marital alliances
      and kin obligations, ensuring that no
      single family was forced to go it
      alone. Wealthy settler families from
      Europe, by contrast, formed independent
      households that pulled in labor
      from poorer neighbors and relatives,
      building their extended family
      solidarities on the backs of truncated
      families among indentured servants,
      slaves, and the poor. Even wealthy
      families, though, often were disrupted
      by death; a majority of colonial
      Americans probably spent some time
      in a step-family. Meanwhile, African
      Americans, denied the legal protection
      of marriage and parenthood, built extensive
      kinship networks and obligations
      through fictive kin ties, ritual
      co-parenting or godparenting, adoption
      of orphans, and complex naming
      patterns designed to preserve family
      links across space and time.
      The dominant family values of colonial
      days left no room for sentimentalizing
      childhood. Colonial mothers,
      for example, spent far less time doing
      child care than do modern working
      women, typically delegating this task
      to servants or older siblings. Among
      white families, patriarchal authority
      was so absolute that disobedience by
      wife or child was seen as a small
      form of treason, theoretically punishable
      by death, and family relations
      were based on power, not love."
      16 hours ago · · 1
    • Soup McGee
      ‎-- "My experience was as a child saved by state intervention - literally, by being adopted away as an infant from an abusive mother - but I’m not allowed as a parent to lean on what was for me a righteously “paternalistic” state without ...See More
      While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there wil...See More
      16 hours ago · · 1 ·
    • Jonathan Painter I can respect your opinion, and I would only support a community that wished to live that way. My point about freedom is that I feel I am entitled to live in a community that believes biological parents are responsible for their young. I do not believe that government should interfere other than in rare cases of abuse and children should only be removed by order of a jury of the parent(s) community.
      16 hours ago ·
    • Soup McGee I'm a bastard kid...that state is responsible for me because no church can be forced to care for me and I cannot be forced into a church...therefore, pay taxes or defund the state. Defund the state? Starve Bastard Kids.
      16 hours ago ·
    • Soup McGee ‎-- a jury system too, functions on tax dollars...--
      16 hours ago ·
    • Jonathan Painter I would not try to force a community of hippies to live like mennonites, native americans to assimulate welsh or scandinavian culture. Neither will I welcome a society ruled by majority, except it be bound by law to respect the individual freedom of its' citizens to organize in communities in a manner like that of the Pennsylvania colony created by William Penn.
      16 hours ago ·
    • Jonathan Painter I am not opposed to funding a government. I am opposed to my government giving private banks the authority to print and borrow currency that I am forced to use.
      15 hours ago · · 1
    • Jonathan Painter The issue of creating a fair medium by which we trade is the responsibility of government.
      15 hours ago ·
    • Soup McGee
      In a featured column on, Grover Norquist clarifies and defends the default conservative position, making clear that any vote to send tax increases to the ballot is a violation of the taxpayer protection pledge. Further he publicly admonishes any Republican pledge signer who has any doubt about the consequence of wavering: “There is nothing subjective about the determination that voting to refer higher taxes to the ballot is a violation of the taxpayer protection pledge. A vote for tax hikes on the ballot is clearly and indisputably a failure to ‘oppose and vote against any and all efforts to raise taxes’” (“Featured Column”). The endgame of this hollow philosophy is quite obviously to bankrupt and collapse the government, first at the state level, and then at the federal level.

      An interview with Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein offered a revealing look into the tax cut “theology” behind the pledge and the man who wrote it. Pressed for his opinion on what a fair tax rate would be, his honest answer is that “at the state level zero is a reasonable goal.” In response to a question about why government spending is always bad, Norquist digs, stating “all government spending requires the government to first take by force money from the people who earned it.” Probed for data to prove Republican style ‘supply-side’ economics works, his reply is only that “conservatives and Reagan Republicans argue that history demonstrates that liberty is not only the best politics, it is the best economic strategy. People should be secure in their persons and property, have the rule of law and low taxes” (“Grover”).---It is apparent that David Barton holds an extremely radical view of the Constitution. He believes that the post-Civil War amendments have all been used to negatively and fundamentally alter the relationship between states and the national government. He holds a peculiar position in believing that the Constitution only applies to Congress and the federal government (Daily Show). Reconstructionist writers strive to apply biblical principles to civil government and “emphasize the importance of private property and free market capitalism for ensuring the freedom and responsibility of the individual before God [while at the same time rejecting] government price controls, welfare and other entitlement programs, and any kind of wealth redistribution. [In their view] taxation should only be as high as necessary for the maintenance of a libertarian state that allows individuals act freely, although in accordance with God's moral law” (“Tax Revolt”). This is eerily reminiscent of Norquist and his claim that government can only tax by force, and an illegitimate force at that.

      Obviously, Barton and Norquist share a philosophy, motive, agenda, and itinerary in attempting to privatize government or at least eliminate state control and then replace it with a much more local and surely less expensive government that does not provide “services.” “Services” in particular have clearly rankled Norquist and his ilk.

      There is damning evidence that David Barton and Grover Norquist have succeeded in influencing the same targeted pool of voters to make a morally justified ideologically driven political decision. This idea put forth by Barton, and by default, Norquist, is of a God-ordained biblical government in place of the current system. The current system is only able to operate because it taxes. People must only pay taxes willingly, because taxation is not biblical. In other words, taxation is thievery. David Barton spent more than 20 years helping to establish the standards of California social studies and history textbooks setting in motion what is a creeping revision of history; this has led to a new generation of taxpaying citizen believing that taxes are by nature evil, and so government by its taxation power is an illegitimate and unjust authority. Barton makes it clear that in his view the Constitution would allow either Christian or sharia law being instituted within a specific locality “as long as it wasn't coercive” (Daily Show). The Courts currently may not agree, says Barton, but it would be within the original intent.

      Socialist Sara Diamond showed in Spiritual Warfare that dominionism is an ideological tendency of the Christian Right that is most significantly influenced by Christian Reconstructionism. “[It] engages in a more muscular and activist form of political participation [as the] core theme of Dominion theology is that the Bible mandates Christian to take cover and occupy secular institutions. [Reading this, Christian right leaders] adopted the idea of taking dominion over the secular institutions of the United States as the ‘central’ unifying ideology of their social movement. They decided to gain political power through the Republican Party” (Berlet).

      Theirs is a seductive argument. Taxes are an inconvenience and can never be fair; religion is a personal matter; government at its worst is a threat to liberty. Just one example would be the ex post facto laws that allow the punitive treatment as adults of juveniles adjudicated as minors. Taxpayer money putting children in jail for playing “show-me” games is wrong, clearly. Essentially, if Jesus truly is against taxes and Democrats are the party who will always raise taxes because they are the party of big government, then Jesus hates Democrats and Democrats hate Jesus and since America is a Christian nation, Democrats hate America. Don’t vote for a Democrat or any liberal, lest you be ostracized in the church and the community.

      Norquist’s singular call of “never raise taxes” unifies the Evangelical Conservatives with the mainstream Fiscal Conservatives. This is evident in the realm of corporate America. Tim Phillips is president of Americans for Prosperity, which is the activist side of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Americans for Prosperity was founded in 2004 by David Koch. Phillips is also cofounder of Century Strategies, a lobbying firm also held by Ralph Reed. Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed have been working together since the date days they were college Republicans recruiting voters in Ronald Reagan's first presidential run (Moyers).

      The Koch brothers are rabidly anti-government. David Koch ran as a far right alternative to Reagan; he received less than one per cent of the total vote. His campaign platform included the elimination of Social Security and other perennial targets of the libertarian movement. Research into their tax records show shows “that Koch-controlled foundations gave out $196 million from 1998 to 2008, much of it to conservative causes and institutions” (Mayer). That doesn't even include the $50 million in Koch Industries lobbying in nearly $5 million more in campaign contributions by its PAC’s. Tax law allows for personal anonymous donations to nonprofit political groups so these numbers may not even be scratching the surface. Together , Charles and David Koch are owners of Koch Industries, and are each valued at $21.5 billion (Rich).

      Joel C. Anderson, a Republican assemblyman who is both a signatory of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge and a member of the Taxpayers Caucus in California, was the state chairman of ALEC in 2009. Mike Morgan of Koch Industries Incorporated sat on the ALEC private sector board in 2010. This draws a clear line from the ATR pledge to the Tea Party and ALEC and the Koch brothers in political activity as well political ideals. The people following and supporting this philosophy with their votes are either hoping for or are unaware of the stated goals of the Coalition Grover leads."
      “After 1985, the Republican Party adopted the idea that tax cuts can solve the ...See More
      15 hours ago · ·
    • Soup McGee ‎-- you aren't saying Fund the Govt, either---
      15 hours ago ·
    • Soup McGee ‎-- The people following and supporting this philosophy with their votes are either hoping for or are unaware of the stated goals of the Coalition Grover leads." --
      15 hours ago ·
    • Soup McGee
      ‎-- ps: + = think about it. Who says vote, and who says God will have His dominion? 'Cos that's where we ar...See More
        Mitt Romney Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge Massachusetts Governor makes written promise to eschew tax hikes WASHINGTON, D.C. – Massachusetts
      14 hours ago · ·
    • Jonathan Painter
      It was the Democratic party that shutdown the First Bank of the United States. I would have voted for the founder of the Democratic Party, Andrew "Jackass" Jackson. But the country, I believe in, is bound to a well written document that I will support as best I can. The federal government we have now is operating outside of the authority given by the charter. I don't feel either major party is properly holding our country accountable, but I will spport any candidate that promotes individual liberty, good stewardship of natural resources, and the free market. I cannot vote to increase the size of federal government or force me to buy a private product of a bank or insurance co.
      13 hours ago ·
    • Soup McGee ‎^^^Starve the Beastie^^^
      13 hours ago · Edited ·
    • Jonathan Painter
      The more government intervenes in an industry, the more unfair, innefficient, and expensive the industry gets. Those who try to eschew free trade are quick to forget that the greatest examples of corporate misdeeds in american history were enabled by special favors and government corruption. I'm not sure why I should believe a guy like Paul Krugman who thinks that private banks should be able to manipulate the dollar in secret.
      13 hours ago · · 1
    • Soup McGee Methinks you miss major points... The problem for All groups, as the Revolting Randian Calvinist Class sees it, is government. You have the right...See More
      Vision America’s Rick Scarborough explained today that the movie theatre massacr...See More
      13 hours ago · ·
    • Soup McGee ‎-- no-one is against free-trade; I stand firmly against repealing say, the 1964 CRA...which expanded access to previously ignored minorities...
      13 hours ago ·
    • Jonathan Painter
      I like the idea of local communities excersizing religous freedom, whether they be luciferan, christian, muslim, hindu, buhdist, mennonite, agnostic, catholic or atheist. We all have a belief system, the lack of a belief is a belief. I love to see local communities and schools integrate with their belief systems. As far as affirmative action or the CRA, when race or gender is a non-issue these laws will be racist and sexist. Personally, I feel the only change the US constitution needed was the language "indians and other peoples" stricken.
      11 hours ago · Edited ·
    • Jonathan Painter Well the Bank of England is practically the parent company of our banking system, so Mitt is just promising to continue expanding the financial control of the British Empire via the dollar. Nothing new here.
      8 hours ago ·
    • Leann Bosquez ‎"“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”."

      This blatancy is new to me.
      about an hour ago · · 1
    • Jonathan Painter One hundred years ago a very different 13th ammendment was ratified, but hidden during the civil war that would have pulled the citizenship of anyone with an english title.
    • Soup McGee
      While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there wil...See More
      19 minutes ago · · 1 ·
    • Jonathan Painter The timing of the thirteenth "article", the refusal to extend the charter of the First Bank of the United States, and the war of 1812 is no coincidence.
    • Soup McGee feels like I'm discussing Physics w/ a Homeschooled Fundie----
    • Soup McGee when we could to be discussing problems/solutions---but yeah, blame england, avoid the Racist Campaign to DE-legitimize a sitting American President (ON FOREIGN SOIL), keep developing your 'expanded government is inherently evil' theory=== have a nice day.
    • Soup McGee ‎-- again, government HAS no choice but to work to keep me safe, I had no family to, how did you put it, "...biological parents are responsible for their young." Unless the biological parents are absent, non-existent, or daily abusive. Ah, fuckem, says Conservative!
    • Soup McGee ‎"as a libertarian, you believe in non-action. Would you have watched my mother being raped and not acted? Should I as a Bastard rape child, have no state-sponsored welfare? Or the church alone should carry such responsibility...what about atheist bastards?Do you as my neighbor,bear no responsibility for my well being, or me for yours? IN OUR UNION, numbnuts?
      9 minutes ago ·
    • Jonathan Painter Calling names should elevate the conversation to a more mature level. [sic] Because human nature is inherently selfish, human organizations tend towards having more say. Our federal government is operating outside of the authority designated in its charter and I refuse to take part in supporting disregard for the checks and balances designed to keep it subject to the people.
      3 minutes ago ·
    • Soup McGee Our federal government is operating outside of the authority designated in its charter--- "as a libertarian, you believe in non-action. Would you have watched my mother being raped and not acted? Should I as a Bastard rape child, have no state-sponsored welfare? Or the church alone should carry such responsibility...what about atheist bastards?Do you as my neighbor,bear no responsibility for my well being, or me for yours?
    • Soup McGee ‎---minus the name calling, fair question? am I outside the Charter, then?


  1. 7 minutes ago · Like ·
    Soup McGee take care!
    Soup's Auntie OxyMoron: Will Libertarians Ever Account For Their Fallacies? Doubt It.
    While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there wil...See More
    6 minutes ago · Like ·
    Jonathan Painter Are you saying atheists have no compassion for their own? The fact is that I am inclined to help those in need does not mean I think it is the place of a largess government that is very disconnected from the needs of the people in the first place. If it is necessary to care for vulnerable people let it be doneo
    4 minutes ago · Like
    Soup McGee again, you are avoiding VERY direct questions. I'm done. If you start a new conversation, mebbe we can move forward. But this thread demands an answer: "as a libertarian, you believe in non-action. Would you have watched my mother being raped and not acted? Should I as a Bastard rape child, have no state-sponsored welfare? Or the church alone should carry such responsibility...what about atheist bastards?Do you as my neighbor,bear no responsibility for my well being, or me for yours? Also, when Grover finishes defunding America by 2050 where will Atheist Bastards seek redress? How will Power be Peaceably Transferred....?
    Americans for Tax Reform - SourceWatch
    This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 200...See More
    a few seconds ago · Like ·

  2. Jonathan Painter You might as well say that the power to take care of the sick, poor, and elderly should be vested in the UN. I have addressed your questions, I regret you are not satisfied with my thoughtful response.
    59 seconds ago · Like