« Save Us Scott Walker, You're Our Only Hope? | Main | Virginia Democrat Calls For Forcing Doctors To Accept Medicare And Medicaid Patients »

October 23, 2013


D. Bowman

This seems to be a theme for the Libertarian party. Wasn't Bob Barr really a Democrat in Libertarian clothing when he ran for president?

Dave Hollist

After contacting our hundreds of federal candidates, I am now corresponding with our thousand or so other candidates—hoping some will move to fill our national ranks. We have told our politicians that they cannot take our books, guns nor liquors . . . now we just need an amendment saying they cannot take our money. Thanks for your efforts to defend my freedom,

1. How can a government operate without taxation?

Before people unite to form something, such as a marriage or corporation, they usually create an image of what their relationship will be like. If this image differs greatly from what they experience, they usually separate.

Problems may arise if any property was created during their union, such as a house or factory. Whatever caused their separation also may cause disagreements in dividing their united property. Ingeniously, many people solve this problem by writing a contract before they get together, stating how any property should be divided.

Problems may still exist if people do not honor their contracts. To solve this, governments step in and divide any disputed property. If governments would charge for this valuable service, they could make the money to operate—without taxation.

When people draw up a contract, they could purchase a contract insurance policy from their government. This would insure that all the partners would get what they deserve from their relationship. If someone did not follow the terms of the agreement, the government would have permission to distribute any common property according to the contract.

Of course, no one would have to buy this insurance. People should be free to resolve any disagreements by talking with their partners. But if partners began taking from each other, this would be robbery, and the government should stop them. All uninsured partners would lose the use of their common property if they could not agree with each other.

Today, most people buy fire and medical insurance to protect them against a major loss. Most people would buy contract insurance for the same reason. With all the contracts that are signed each day, our government could earn the money to maintain the best military, police, court and prison system in the world. This would protect all the people in our nation—without robbing us to do it.

With this system, for the first time in history, people could live in peace. Our government would continue to defend each person's home and business against criminals. The big improvement would be that the no-tax restriction added to our constitution would defend each person's property against our government.

With the elimination of robbery in our nation, we would find that we could satisfy all our other needs with much less effort. When people can keep what they earn, it does not take long for them to trade with each other and acquire what they need to live well. Peace and prosperity are possible for those who are willing to think about how to achieve them. www.LP4.org

Bruce Majors

The constant lies and smears by Cuccinelli supporters, including the Paulistas, just make his loss even more well deserved.

Calvin T. Jenner

@EJerikjay, you don't need to reach far to see why Libertarian candidates will pull more votes from the more conservative candidates.

There are two major planks in the Libertarian platform, both of which follow from their "less government" ideals. One is conservative fiscal restraint. The other is social liberalism.

Libertarians offer Liberals the same social liberalism that Democrats already give them, at the cost of small-government fiscal restraint that tax-and-spend Democrats don't want. Why, then, would a liberal prefer a Libertarian to a Democrat? The Libertarian would take away the liberal's free stuff. To a liberal, Libertarian candidates are clearly worse than Democrats.

Conservatives want the fiscal restraint. Republican and Libertarians both promise that, but Republicans seldom deliver. They don't want the Libertarian social liberalism, but they're already getting it from the "centrist" RINOs. Conservatives have nothing to lose that isn't already lost, and at least the chance of fiscal conservatism to gain.

So a conservative has a reason to vote Libertarian; a liberal has none.

The comments to this entry are closed.