Libertarians

[Kathianne]

I'm not sure how anyone can 'prove' their intentions-that's nonsense.

Reagan got credit for Immigration Reform 1986, indeed provided 'legalization' of illegals. The law was gutted on employer sanctions for future hiring of illegals, paving the way for where we are today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=128303672

As for Thatcher, enough of her decisions for increasing government power via the trade unions has already been pointed out as a progressive act. Only Drummond disagrees, but that may seriously be due to differences between 'conservatives' in US and UK. It seems to be, as Drummond has repeatedly made his case of being on the side of increasing government power, as long as he deems it for 'conservative' reasons.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The answer is no unless the GOP employs new tactics. Sticking 20 people out in the field and them debate each other and tear each other down is doing the Democrats' job for them. Focusing on Hillary and NOT the election is doing her job for her. Having no real plan is doing their job for them.

Those tactics didn't work in 2008 nor 2012. If the GOP/right doesn't switch gears, look for a 3-peat.

I think the dem party is behind some of the Republicans that toss their hat in the ring--as its good strategy to weaken all candidates that are cutting each other down.
The huckster is a prime example of one that has no damn business getting in again-yet he has.. At whose urging and maybe even financial backing to some extent.
Obama stole billions and kicked 'em back to the dem party campaign coffers --why not use millions to further divide the opposition?
As you stated in worked last two time around---third time is charm.. -Tyr

[revelarts]

Agreed about the Democrats.

Still, not voting at all is giving up. Better to fight. Don't want to vote Republican? Fine, vote third party. I recommend Libertarian. It's not perfect, but giving it more power may persuade the RNC to pull its head out of its ass and smell fresh air.

While I agree, it's not necessary for a third party to be viable. Not voting means one's vote is non-existent. Just another citizen who is a couch-potato.

OTOH, by voting, even for a losing candidate, means one's vote exists. It's a message of existence, a message that citizens aren't happy with the status quo, a message that citizens are willing to act and NOT give up.

agreed,
I've said similar for some time now.

And i have added, to those on the right who complain bitterly about RINO's and unconstitutional acts, that they should all vote 3rd party just to make the statement that we aren't sticking to any party just "to have a chance" or to "make our vote count" or "not to let the Dem win".

But I get the impression that that's just too radical and outrageous for most. One or 2 election cycles of that will spell DOOM but 30 years of left, big gov't and unconstitutional drift is OK. Have you noticed that the right has drifted with the RINOs on nearly every point?
Reagan could not win on the speeches he gave, Even W couldn't win on his small gov't, "non intervention" "no nation building" speeches of his 1st run. the RINOs big gov't, imperialist, neocon view of "right" politics is the new status quo. Only lip service is due to the constitution and small gov't.. As long as people can hate Ds it doesn't really matter how bad the Rs are, most will vote R no matter what.

[fj1200]

A challenge. One where, if you can meet it, you get to suggest to the readers here that your intention(s) don't necessarily come down to an attempt to insult the memories of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

You say that not everything that Reagan and Thatcher did conformed to Conservatism. Yes ? THEN PROVIDE YOUR PROOF.

A couple of points; First, why are you able to cop out on the many challenges for you to provide actual links to your assertions all the while you ignore the copious links I've provided backing my assertions? Second, how am I supposed to disprove your imagination?

As far as Reagan; amnesty, SS reform, and various "revenue enhancements" don't comport with small government conservatism IMO nor does Thatcher's institution of the "community charge" and increasing the VAT. Those and all your defenses of her instituting big government solutions show not everything was conservative. Nevertheless none of that should discount the great strides that they made in advancing conservatism and changing the course of the West and their own countries. They were great leaders.

[Drummond]

A couple of points; First, why are you able to cop out on the many challenges for you to provide actual links to your assertions all the while you ignore the copious links I've provided backing my assertions?

'Copious' links ... seriously ?

More typically, you spend your time on abusive (and diversionary) rewrites and misrepresentations of my 'quoted' postings ...

If, above, you're referring to my failure to provide a link (a clear statement of evidence) between the Libertarian Movement and Trade Unions, can I point out that you, in turn, have failed to do the same to prove beyond doubt that a pencil is a pencil ?? I actually HAVE asked you to ...

It's highly relevant that you do so. It must be. Because, you see, Libertarians and Trade Unions are THE SAME. Just as a pencil is the same as .. a pencil.

Compare what it is that a Trade Unionist claims he'd be fighting for, with what Libertarians say they want. Consider particularly the record British Trade Unions have in taking on Governments, with a view to defying and diminishing their power (even to outright nonexistence, as happened in February 1974), and their insistence upon shrugging off any and all strictures Governments would seek to apply to them ?

Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian (... yet, you seem to be ??). She fought the Unions, she did so effectively, and through by far the most effective means available to her .. THE POWER OF THE STATE.

Second, how am I supposed to disprove your imagination?

A pointless question. Why ask it ? You've never been in the position of trying to.

As far as Reagan; amnesty, SS reform, and various "revenue enhancements" don't comport with small government conservatism IMO nor does Thatcher's institution of the "community charge" and increasing the VAT. Those and all your defenses of her instituting big government solutions show not everything was conservative.

.. See, there's the flaw in your 'reasoning', right there.

You refuse to see that 'big Government' solutions can be, or ever are, Conservative ones. That is your big mistake.

Anyone claiming that I fight for big Government, because I want big Government, is misrepresenting my viewpoint. I, along with other Conservatives, much prefer small Government, with the individual taking as much responsibility for his or her own life and destiny as is possible. THAT SAID .... there are times, in life, when only a big Government solution will do.

Whether or not you like or dislike that is irrelevant. It happens to be the truth. Deal with it.

A true Conservative is not so completely enslaved to dogma that realism cannot be accommodated when necessary. It's one of the things separating us from Lefties .. Lefties are all about only recognising their insisted-upon vision of a worldview as valid. No .. sometimes, the power of the State just has to intervene.

I'm sure this was what drove Reagan during those examples you cite. Equally, in the UK, Trade Union reform via State legislation was .. simply .. NECESSARY. The alternative would've been a wrecked economy and a basket-case of a trading base.

Consider the response necessary to 9/11, by the way. What ELSE but a 'big Government' approach could have possibly served ???

One of the chief things marking you out as a Leftie, FJ, is how completely wedded you are to dogma. You CANNOT move past it. You cannot approach issues with realism guiding you, just as a Leftie can't. Lefties have their worldview, which they insist upon, come-what-may .. didn't Stalin have his five year plans ?

But Conservatives, in power, have to be different. It isn't lacking in Conservatism to apply whatever solutions best fix a problem ! Only a Leftie mind would absolutely insist that narrow dogma must never, ever, be deviated from by even a fraction of an inch.

Nevertheless none of that should discount the great strides that they made in advancing conservatism and changing the course of the West and their own countries. They were great leaders.

Congratulations in recognising that, FJ. Perhaps there's hope for you yet.

BUT WASN'T IT THEIR PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO PROBLEMS, THEIR PRAGMATISM, THAT HELPED MAKE THAT TRUE ??

[Gunny]

I think the dem party is behind some of the Republicans that toss their hat in the ring--as its good strategy to weaken all candidates that are cutting each other down.
The huckster is a prime example of one that has no damn business getting in again-yet he has.. At whose urging and maybe even financial backing to some extent.
Obama stole billions and kicked 'em back to the dem party campaign coffers --why not use millions to further divide the opposition?
As you stated in worked last two time around---third time is charm.. -Tyr

Why should the Dems and the media bail on successful strategy? They don't care that Obama lied his way into office and has been a complete failure as President. Nor do they care Hillary has lied, cheated, stolen, and otherwise ran co-chaired a criminal enterprise with Bill. The Dems are going to do what they have been.

McCain was in 3rd place when the MSM went to work touting him the best GOP nominee when he was actually the worst. An independent running on the GOP ticket who has made his name going against the GOP in the Senate? Methinks NOT.

The BIGGEST problem in 08 and 2012 were all the people on the right who sat home and didn't vote because "their boy" wasn't chosen. I argued my a$$ off all over the place against THAT. Unless or until we fix this broken government, it's the lesser of the evils.

[Drummond]

As for Thatcher, enough of her decisions for increasing government power via the trade unions has already been pointed out as a progressive act.

If by 'progressive', you mean to suggest it was somehow deemable a Left wing act ... I do indeed disagree !! Lady Thatcher had a problem to fix, and it required a practical and effective solution to do so. Since when was it a 'Left wing' act to be practical in fixing problems ??

Perhaps, if you'd been in her shoes, you would've come up with a more 'Conservative' solution to power-crazed Union wreckers ? Can you tell me what that solution - given the absolute need to apply one - would have been ?

Only Drummond disagrees, but that may seriously be due to differences between 'conservatives' in US and UK. It seems to be, as Drummond has repeatedly made his case of being on the side of increasing government power, as long as he deems it for 'conservative' reasons.

Government power has its uses, and its place. If it didn't, it could be dispensed with entirely.

I say that a proper Conservative approach has to be one tempered by realism. Reagan and Thatcher both gave us examples of this in action. For which ... they get attacked ?!?

You surely have to wonder WHY their very successful approaches to issues they faced earns them criticism, when that criticism comes from a source purporting to NOT be in outright opposition to them ....

[Gunny]

While I agree, it's not necessary for a third party to be viable. Not voting means one's vote is non-existent. Just another citizen who is a couch-potato.

OTOH, by voting, even for a losing candidate, means one's vote exists. It's a message of existence, a message that citizens aren't happy with the status quo, a message that citizens are willing to act and NOT give up.

I agree on the not voting part. Disagree on the 3rd party part. I want the Dems OUT. I'll hold my nose and vote GOP.

I AM all for a viable 3rd party. One that makes sense. And has some. But good luck with THAT. Anytime anyone has tried, that's when you see Dem and GOP bipartisanship. They close ranks and run them out, and use the media to do it.

And voting for Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton. Putting McLame as a candidate gave us our current Disaster-in-Chief.

[DragonStryk72]

'Copious' links ... seriously ?

More typically, you spend your time on abusive (and diversionary) rewrites and misrepresentations of my 'quoted' postings ...

If, above, you're referring to my failure to provide a link (a clear statement of evidence) between the Libertarian Movement and Trade Unions, can I point out that you, in turn, have failed to do the same to prove beyond doubt that a pencil is a pencil ?? I actually HAVE asked you to ...

It's highly relevant that you do so. It must be. Because, you see, Libertarians and Trade Unions are THE SAME. Just as a pencil is the same as .. a pencil.

Compare what it is that a Trade Unionist claims he'd be fighting for, with what Libertarians say they want. Consider particularly the record British Trade Unions have in taking on Governments, with a view to defying and diminishing their power (even to outright nonexistence, as happened in February 1974), and their insistence upon shrugging off any and all strictures Governments would seek to apply to them ?

Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian (... yet, you seem to be ??). She fought the Unions, she did so effectively, and through by far the most effective means available to her .. THE POWER OF THE STATE.



A pointless question. Why ask it ? You've never been in the position of trying to.



.. See, there's the flaw in your 'reasoning', right there.

You refuse to see that 'big Government' solutions can be, or ever are, Conservative ones. That is your big mistake.

Anyone claiming that I fight for big Government, because I want big Government, is misrepresenting my viewpoint. I, along with other Conservatives, much prefer small Government, with the individual taking as much responsibility for his or her own life and destiny as is possible. THAT SAID .... there are times, in life, when only a big Government solution will do.

Whether or not you like or dislike that is irrelevant. It happens to be the truth. Deal with it.

A true Conservative is not so completely enslaved to dogma that realism cannot be accommodated when necessary. It's one of the things separating us from Lefties .. Lefties are all about only recognising their insisted-upon worldview as valid. No .. sometimes, the power of the State just has to intervene.

I'm sure this was what drove Reagan during those examples you cite. Equally, in the UK, Trade Union reform via State legislation was .. simply .. NECESSARY. The alternative would've been a wrecked economy and a basket-case of a trading base.

Consider the response necessary to 9/11, by the way. What ELSE but a 'big Government' approach could have possibly served ???

One of the chief things marking you out as a Leftie, FJ, is how completely wedded you are to dogma. You CANNOT move past it. You cannot approach issues with realism guiding you, just as a Leftie can't. Lefties have their worldview, which they insist upon, come-what-may .. didn't Stalin have his five year plans ?

But Conservatives, in power, have to be different. It isn't lacking in Conservatism to apply whatever solutions best fix a problem ! Only a Leftie mind would absolutely insist that narrow dogma must never, ever, be deviated from by even a fraction of an inch.



Congratulations in recognising that, FJ. Perhaps there's hope for you yet.

BUT WASN'T IT THEIR PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO PROBLEMS, THEIR PRAGMATISM, THAT HELPED MAKE THAT TRUE ??

So... you agree with his point that Thatcher and Reagan were not pure conservatives, period. Either they were completely ruled by dogma, which would make them lefties as you've labeled it, or alternatively, they at some point had thinking that wasn't conservative, which proves FJ's assertion correct. Either way, you're pretty much done, and you've proven FJ right.

He never did insist that it must be followed 100%, you did. This entire months-long whinging run of yours was started because you insisted he was a leftist because he did not 100% follow Thatcher's dogma, which you hypocritically stated that you follow her dogma 100%(Which again, by your statement above, makes you a leftist, since you are bound by dogma). Now you say a thing that completely lampoons every accusation you've dropped at his feet. Look, either just cede the argument, or just walk away, because man, it is just getting embarrassing for you, Drummond.

You still also haven't disproven anything he posted (Those would be those links and quotes he provided that you continue to run away from earlier in this thread. Feel free to go look, I'm not doing your homework for you, but stop lying that he didn't post them.), and continue, at the same time, to pat yourself on the back, despite not answering the points he posted, with links. Still trying to avoid the debate, and still digging your hole deeper, Drummond.

Trade Unionist would find little common ground with american Libertarians, and much to fight with us about. Unions have become bullies in many industries (my mother's union for bus drivers works with the company to make sure the wages are good, and won't cost jobs/hours), and while good unions ensure fair treatment of their workers, many have become something else entirely. They try to ratchet up wages as high as possible, sometimes to the point of destroying the business their people are working for (See Hostess for example of this one, where every union but one, the bakers union, agreed to terms, and the bakers held things at a dead stop until the company was forced to shutter.)

Now, the Dems will jump in with the union, in a kneejerk run of backing up the workers. The Reps would jump in on the side of Hostess, backing the company against the dems, and generally automatically backing corporations. Libertarians would, yes, have sided with Hostess in this instance, but done so due to the knowledge that the Bakers union had basically just held everyone's jobs hostage with a gun to their own head, and Hostess unfairly leveraged into insolvency. For both the workers, and the company at large, the stalemate was unworkable, and the rights of the majority of the workers and company that wanted to be back to work should have been maintained.

In this instance, the right of the Union to strike is superceded by the rights of the other employees, not of their union, to continue to be employed, and to work for a living, and the owners of the business to not be driven into the ground by untenable demands made by a group that is clearly exploiting the system.

[Gunny]

Y'all have made a train wreck out of this thread. You're so busy labeling each other and not reading what each has to say with an open mind it's ridiculous. There's a WHOLE lot of ignoring the English language here in favor of personally attacking those that disagree. The first one of you that thinks you're Jesus Christ, step up to the plate. I got a few things I need fixed. In the meantime, you CAN be wrong. It happens. Even to me. About once a decade, but ...

[Drummond]

So... you agree with his point that Thatcher and Reagan were not pure conservatives, period. Either they were completely ruled by dogma, which would make them lefties as you've labeled it, or alternatively, they at some point had thinking that wasn't conservative, which proves FJ's assertion correct. Either way, you're pretty much done, and you've proven FJ right.

What a load of rubbish ! What ARE you talking about ??

Conservatives are REALISTS ! When have I ever said they weren't ? And since that's so, they deal with issues according to what's required to remedy them.

He never did insist that it must be followed 100%, you did. This entire months-long whinging run of yours was started because you insisted he was a leftist because he did not 100% follow Thatcher's dogma, which you hypocritically stated that you follow her dogma 100%(Which again, by your statement above, makes you a leftist, since you are bound by dogma).

FJ fails to be the 'One True', or 'Ultimate' Thatcherite because he reserves for himself latitude to disagree with her. You tell me .. how does it make the smallest sense for anyone declaring that incredible extent of devotion to all she stood for, to then willingly, apparently by unilateral preference, embark on any measure of disagreement ??

The level of that commitment to 'Thatcherism' professed by FJ is HIS invention. I had no hand in the wording he's used, which makes him 100% culpable for where it places him ... that's to say, in a logically irreconcilable position.

Ask yourself how FJ professes to be something which he then proves, by example, that he CANNOT be.

Now you say a thing that completely lampoons every accusation you've dropped at his feet. Look, either just cede the argument, or just walk away, because man, it is just getting embarrassing for you, Drummond.

Refuted. See above. Your argument defies proper scrutiny.

You still also haven't disproven anything he posted (Those would be those links and quotes he provided that you continue to run away from earlier in this thread. Feel free to go look, I'm not doing your homework for you, but stop lying that he didn't post them.), and continue, at the same time, to pat yourself on the back, despite not answering the points he posted, with links. Still trying to avoid the debate, and still digging your hole deeper, Drummond.

Dream on.

I could waste time by regurgitating lengthy descriptions of what a Libertarian is, and what Trade Unionists say they fight for ... and the result for each would add up to exactly the same thing. Since that's true, I now require, AS SHOULD YOU, to have FJ prove that a pencil is indeed a pencil !

Where's FJ's proof of THAT, along with supportive links ?

If something is the same as something else, THEN IT IS THE SAME. Why is that so very difficult to understand ??

Trade Unionist would find little common ground with american Libertarians, and much to fight with us about.

... Seriously ?

Unions have become bullies in many industries (my mother's union for bus drivers works with the company to make sure the wages are good, and won't cost jobs/hours), and while good unions ensure fair treatment of their workers, many have become something else entirely. They try to ratchet up wages as high as possible, sometimes to the point of destroying the business their people are working for (See Hostess for example of this one, where every union but one, the bakers union, agreed to terms, and the bakers held things at a dead stop until the company was forced to shutter.)

Now, the Dems will jump in with the union, in a kneejerk run of backing up the workers. The Reps would jump in on the side of Hostess, backing the company against the dems, and generally automatically backing corporations. Libertarians would, yes, have sided with Hostess in this instance, but done so due to the knowledge that the Bakers union had basically just held everyone's jobs hostage with a gun to their own head, and Hostess unfairly leveraged into insolvency. For both the workers, and the company at large, the stalemate was unworkable, and the rights of the majority of the workers and company that wanted to be back to work should have been maintained.

In this instance, the right of the Union to strike is superceded by the rights of the other employees, not of their union, to continue to be employed, and to work for a living, and the owners of the business to not be driven into the ground by untenable demands made by a group that is clearly exploiting the system.

Are you sure the Libertarians would've sided with Hostess, in your example ? You said 'Libertarians would, yes, have sided with Hostess in this instance' .... so that's not an established fact, just something you're choosing to believe ?

Let's be clear. Did they actually do so, in any shape or form, or are you just choosing to assume it, because it's helpful to your argument ?

Surely ... Libertarians would've argued that Hostess exercised an authority over the ordinary worker designed to rob them of their right to what THEY considered fair payment ? And therefore sided with the Unions, in order to diminish the power of the 'big, bad authority' Hostess would've represented, and see to it that the individual worker triumphed .. REGARDLESS of any other consequences ?

In my experience, Libertarians are Leftist. The link between them and Trade Unions (.. and yes, I recognise your description of Unions all too well, from how they've behaved in the UK) is indivisible. Each claims to be fighting for the rights of the individual, which each considers to be divorced from considerations of any measure (or context) of any greater good. And each will bitterly and ruthlessly fight any perceived authority figures at all likely to have cause to offer opposition.

[Max R.]

I agree on the not voting part. Disagree on the 3rd party part. I want the Dems OUT. I'll hold my nose and vote GOP.

I AM all for a viable 3rd party. One that makes sense. And has some. But good luck with THAT. Anytime anyone has tried, that's when you see Dem and GOP bipartisanship. They close ranks and run them out, and use the media to do it.

And voting for Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton. Putting McLame as a candidate gave us our current Disaster-in-Chief.

...and voting for Nader gave us Bush.

Still, I don't like rewarding incompetence. Voting for Republican simply because they aren't Democrats isn't sufficient in my book. The amount of hubris and authoritarian asshattery running around Washington DC is very disappointing. We can't change it simply by voting in the same asshats because they wear red ties instead of blue ones.

[Max R.]

Oh I'll vote. To me, if you don't vote, you ain't got the right to bitch. And I'm a freakin' Gunny -- I LOVE to bitch.

Agreed!

[Gunny]

...and voting for Nader gave us Bush.

Still, I don't like rewarding incompetence. Voting for Republican simply because they aren't Democrats isn't sufficient in my book. The amount of hubris and authoritarian asshattery running around Washington DC is very disappointing. We can't change it simply by voting in the same asshats because they wear red ties instead of blue ones.

My "rewad" for a successful tour as a hat was a trip to HQMC when it was still in Arlington at the Navy Annex. I got the asshattery down pat.

Barbara Boxer LOVED me. In fact, I was invited to never come back.

[DragonStryk72]

What a load of rubbish ! What ARE you talking about ??

Conservatives are REALISTS ! When have I ever said they weren't ? And since that's so, they deal with issues according to what's required to remedy them.



FJ fails to be the 'One True', or 'Ultimate' Thatcherite because he reserves for himself latitude to disagree with her. You tell me .. how does it make the smallest sense for anyone declaring that incredible extent of devotion to all she stood for, to then willingly, apparently by unilateral preference, embark on any measure of disagreement ??

The level of that commitment to 'Thatcherism' professed by FJ is HIS invention. I had no hand in the wording he's used, which makes him 100% culpable for where it places him ... that's to say, in a logically irreconcilable position.

Ask yourself how FJ professes to be something which he then proves, by example, that he CANNOT be.



Refuted. See above. Your argument defies proper scrutiny.



Dream on.

I could waste time by regurgitating lengthy descriptions of what a Libertarian is, and what Trade Unionists say they fight for ... and the result for each would add up to exactly the same thing. Since that's true, I now require, AS SHOULD YOU, to have FJ prove that a pencil is indeed a pencil !

Where's FJ's proof of THAT, along with supportive links ?

If something is the same as something else, THEN IT IS THE SAME. Why is that so very difficult to understand ??



... Seriously ?



Are you sure the Libertarians would've sided with Hostess, in your example ? You said 'Libertarians would, yes, have sided with Hostess in this instance' .... so that's not an established fact, just something you're choosing to believe ?

Let's be clear. Did they actually do so, in any shape or form, or are you just choosing to assume it, because it's helpful to your argument ?

Surely ... Libertarians would've argued that Hostess exercised an authority over the ordinary worker designed to rob them of their right to what THEY considered fair payment ? And therefore sided with the Unions, in order to diminish the power of the 'big, bad authority' Hostess would've represented, and see to it that the individual worker triumphed .. REGARDLESS of any other consequences ?

In my experience, Libertarians are Leftist. The link between them and Trade Unions (.. and yes, I recognise your description of Unions all too well, from how they've behaved in the UK) is indivisible. Each claims to be fighting for the rights of the individual, which each considers to be divorced from considerations of any measure (or context) of any greater good. And each will bitterly and ruthlessly fight any perceived authority figures at all likely to have cause to offer opposition.

Um, nope, they paid them a clear wage, one that was agreed upon by the workers up to that point. Negotiating for higher pay is one thing, but what the Bakers union did was put a gun to Hostess's head and demand higher pay. At that point, it is no longer a negotiation between equal parties, it's a terrorist trying to extort someone for money. Per constitutional guidelines, that is just flat wrong.

The thing that Libertarians bear in mind is that BOTH the individual employees, and the individual business owners, have the same rights. An employee's rights should never come up to the level of, "I can put you on your knees, and kill your livelihood", period. That's no point at which that is okay behavior.

As well, both Unions and Corporations are authoritarian groups, capable of influence, and thus also capable of abusing that influence. Both need to be reined in, or else people's rights are just flatly going to get trampled. They should be equal in power, but because Unions started out at the low level of power, in answer to abuses by the companies of the time, they continued to receive more power to be able to balance out against the companies they worked for. As is the case with most social pushes, that level of power was not reduced when the unions became powerful enough to stand against the corporations, and thus the power swung unfairly in favor of Unions.

That is neither fair, nor just. It does nothing to enhance liberty, and only ensures a form of back and forth tyranny.

A total lack of government is just anarchy, which is asinine. Anarchy will always lead to tyranny, just the way that one shakes down. The libertarian ideal is to always make sure we are handling things at the lowest level possible (Increased states rights vs federal rights), and to restrict government from exceeding its authority.

The unfortunate problem is there is always an excuse for increasing power to the government when it shouldn't be, whether it's "For the children" or "Otherwise, the terrorist's win" or any of the whole slew of other runs of it.

For instance, when Bush threatened to put us into war using the War Powers Act, that was a direct abuse of the authority given in that Act. The idea of the bill was to make it so that the Commander-in-Chief could respond quickly to an attack, so that we wouldn't be bogged down in Congress while the enemy went on the offensive. It wasn't put in so that the President could get around Congress.

The Patriot Act is another example of this, wherein politicians used fear to get people to go along with a bill that hugely tilted the government's power and authority.