posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:07 PM
First the basics. I'm very much a libertarian in that you leave me alone, I leave you alone. At the same time it seems many of the libertarian
persuasion are either against all concepts of cooperative government, think there should be no social "safety net", or resemble 1930's American
isolationist's. Wether we like it or not (actually I do) the world is now interconnected, for better or worse. We can no longer raise the barricades
and hide behind oceans and hope "all the bad people" will just leave us alone, if we don't bother them. The one major issue I would take up with
Ron Paul if I had the chance was his apparent view, and that of many libertarians is the idea of divorcing ourselves from the world will solve so many
problems. Granted I may be reading to much into this, but I don't think so. I would argue if nothing else history has taught us just the opposite. I
am not a militarist but believe having an ass kicking military and solid intelligence about whats going on out there is the best way to protect
ourselves. We can't do that hiding under our beds.
In Minnesota there has existed since the late 1980's the "Independence Party". Jesse Ventura was a member and shocked the hell out of everyone
(including me, I never heard of him before he became governor) when he was elected. I think the problem, sadly is people need clear simple "sound
bites" to get an idea what a party or candidate stands for. But as a middle-of-the-road libertarian, I certainly don't fit into the Democrat or GOP
mold. The GOP as far as I'm concerned has been hijacked by religious fanatics and social fascist's. At the moment, the Democrats are a little less
insane, but thats not a good enough reason to call my self one.
It seems there is room for an Individualist party. Some of us are social liberals, as in libertarian. Some think the government exists to solve all
our problems (believe that and I advise you stop smoking whatever your smoking) I believe government has to exist to do what even the richest or
poorest of us can't do individually. I have really been freaked out at the extent government (usually their minions, the corporate contractors) can
spy on the average American, and deprive them of civil rights since 9/11. Having had two computers hacked into in a very nasty way, complete with
threats I should not report it or file a complaint with law enforcement. I didn't. Which really pissed me off. I'm so f****** loyal I practically
flap in the breeze...But it didn't matter. I know part of this is moved by momentum by advances in technology. Today those who deal in advanced
technology or other interesting areas have to "negotiate" a degree of privacy. Frankly, I know the technology can't be uninvented. It will require
us to elect a government that can recognize individual rights better then now, and knows who it's friends are.The latter should be, or could be
obvious.
I am a passionate supporter of free enterprise, hell I've done well in that area. But I do not believe it's OK to cheat people blind and have no
consequences. Or dump poisons and s*** into the air and water, or have food that is not fit to feed an animal. Thats were government HAS to work. So
far the guys who stole trillions are getting away scott free, and were stuck with the bill. Wrong, wrong, wrong. So government in my view on a
domestic level should be as understated as possible, and yet still be effective were it has to be. The Republicans would have the rich rule and get
away with anything, the Democrats want to take care of everything and everybody. I know there can be a rational middle of the road position. Any
thoughts?