Slashdot Mirror

Bear in mind that the Campaign for Liberty is about a lot more than opposing the TSA, some of which some people may not find all that palatable (e.g. free market fundamentalism, scrapping the Federal Reserve, dismantling most of the federal government, withdrawing from most international organizations).

Google for Robert Kahre legal saga.

First attempt to prosecute him resulted in testifying high-level IRS representative saying that he does not know if gold eagles should be reported at face value or market value for IRS purposes, would have to consult -- of course if he did not know, how defendant was supposed to know? ;-)

They finally got him ( http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=23766 ) -- on reporting his income selectively depending on what he wanted to achieve!

Paul B.

All reasonable people do. The vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations support the theory that humans are doing irreversible damage to the climate through the uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

Well that's a considerable broader position that I can completely agree with, but it's not excessively off the mark, and not really anything I was disputing.

You seem to think there is some grand global conspiracy between unrelated groups of scientists world-wide.

Oh here's your straw man again. This whole fucking "groups of scientists" bullshit over again. There's no "scientists" (unless your definition is WAY off from any accepted definition) claiming to have all the answers to the warming and increasing CO2. Why would I even respond to this kind of crap. These guys aren't scientists, they are politicians and looters posing as diplomats. They are the elite monied interests disseminating the perils scientists warn about, and using it to promote their own controlling agenda as the only solution, with the actual benefits to the environment (and the vast majority of mankind) only used as rhetoric to support their ideas.

Don't try and weasel out it. Please explain how these "experts" get the entire scientific community to go along with this nefarious plan for world domination?

Oh like your own ideologies don't have any impact on the institutional directions you will support... right. And nobody is focused on some significantly important specialization of research without having total understading of how the authorities many layers up might eventually (mis)use their work? Huh? Is that your contention? That everybody has the big picture of everything and nobody's work can could be used for nefarious purposes without full disclosure? Do you understand how large and insidious the plans and processes are laid out and how the debate over science is just scratching the surface (as well as a useful distraction)?

I suggest you do a little research. You are obviously grossly uninformed. Here's a short primer:

Donna Holt, Virginia

ICLEI

What ICLEI does

What do you call this then ?
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=39468
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwsdq69AHnw&feature=player_embedded

for all the issues i care about he's as bad or worse than Bush. Guantanamo. Civil liberties. Rule of law. Economic policy. Government spending. He even did the opposite of what he claimed on both healthcare and financial regulation. For the former, he blamed the insurance companies, then signed legislation that gives them a giant gift of perpetually increased funding from all of us. How do you fix something you claim is the problem by incentivizing it? For the latter, Goldman Sachs, one of the key culprits in the mess, is unworried about any impact from the financial regulation bill that's supposed to prevent the next crisis. It has no teeth. It certainly doesn't bring back Glass Stegal, which would have actually helped.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0830/outfront-goldman-sachs-volcker-obama-catch-me-if-can.html
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=34842
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/188551
yes the same taibbi who wrote
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom/

... but my fellow Tea Partiers complain pretty loudly, e.g., here: here.

Paul B.

Dude, the mods are constantly on the lookout for C4L folks posting on here. If you keep that signature (

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

), be prepared for quick "Troll" or "Offtopic" mods, regardless of what you may have to say.

... but my fellow Tea Partiers complain pretty loudly, e.g., here:
here.

Paul B.

The Movie "The Blob" Supports the Case Against Government Healthcare

Okay, this isn't exactly the most serious piece I've ever written, but I think it's interesting and may make a good point. This past Spring, I was sifting through Comcast OnDemand, and found two versions of the movie "The Blob"- the original 1958 version, and the 1988 remake. The 1958 version is an old favorite of mine, so I decided to check out the 1988 version for comparitive purposes. I didn't get very far into the movie- I thought it was awful compared to the original -but I did get far enough into it to notice one crucial difference between the remake and the original.

In both movies, an old man in the woods is attacked by the Blob, which sticks to his arm, and is then taken to get help by teenagers that find him. In the orignal film, they bring him to the town doctor, who is about to leave town on business. The doctor immediately forgets his previous plans and brings the old man into his office for treatment. The doctor sifts through books, and calls friends to attempt to diagnose the problem with the man's arm. He is clearly dedicated to helping the old man and the idea of payment is never even mentioned.

In the remake, the teenagers bring the old man to the town hospital, but when they rush him to the front desk, they are greeted by an indifferent secretary who simply asks if the man has health insurance. The two teenagers become very upset and irritated at this point. The old man is eventually led into a room, and apparently forgotten. The doctor is uncaringly sitting at his desk doing paperwork.

If each movie can be considered a reflection of the time it was produced in, a case may be made against government interference in healthcare. In the 1958 version, the doctor is apparently providing healthcare because he feels that it is his duty to do so, not because he is looking to make lots of money. In the 1988 version, the hospital is clearly only giving healthcare to make money, and it does not deem human well-being important. If one remembers Ron Paul's discussion on healthcare in "The Revolution: A Manifesto," this difference makes perfect sense. Ron Paul writes that when he became a doctor (in the fifties), it was standard for doctors to give free healthcare to those who needed it, but couldn't afford it. He then goes on to say that this benevolence ended when the government increased regulation on the healthcare industry (in the sixties), making free healthcare too expensive to give.

So there you have it- the same story, with two different scenes (which doesn't really matter to the story, because the Blob does what it does best in both cases). Now, I don't really like it when people make art into things that it's not. But I really do think that each movie is accurately reflecting its own time period, and I think that government interference may be resonating even through the movies we watch. Really though, I just wrote this article for a little fun. Beware of the Blob! [And government :)]

people think we need a central government to ensure there is no slavery? i don't get it. is it more effective to have a central government to protect freedom? then does it go the other way, that a central government is more effective to rob you of freedom? let's see what people that are not statists have to say about this. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=610

many works these days aren't the work of individuals, but corporations, and cost a LOT of money to make (i.e., movies).

That's true of movies but not other art work, and it is not necessary for movies to cost a lot to make, even in recent history. Made in 1999 The Blair Witch Project the "final budget was somewhere between $500,000 and $750,000." Yet it's world wide gross was almost $250 Million. The cost to write a book or write and compose music is even cheaper. It's not expensive to paint either. People with pocket cameras costing only a few hundred dollars make hundreds of dollars a week, well maybe not now but before the recession. With the recession now, pro photographers complain those amateurs taking away their clients. Microstock agencies like iStockphoto as well as photo sharing websites like Flickr are even taking sales away from venerable stock agencies.

They're not going to make as many blockbuster movies if their distribution rights disappear after only 5 years.

One, if they want money to keep coming in they'll make even more. But two, even if so so what? People can go back to how it used to be, and still is in some local scenes, producing art for local consumption. Almost every hit artist now started small. I recall years ago going to parties where people would bring their own instruments, get together, and play music. Others may stage a skit. Though it was too long ago for me, I used to dance on stage as well as work behind the scenes on plays. I have a flute from David Nighteagle I want to learn to play. I used to play the clarinet but that was more than 30 years ago.

Many companies would gladly pay a few million to secure distribution rights for another decade, and then this money would finance the system, so that the government doesn't need to tax anyone.

If government were small it wouldn't need much taxes.

You're no liberal if you believe in small government (if you're in the USA). That's a libertarian viewpoint.

Again you're wrong, you didn't even read the wiki article I linked to: "Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets." Notice "and the Americas". In the USA two of those liberals were Thomas Jefferson and his friend James Madison. Today's libertarian is yesteryear's liberal.

I don't care how small the government is, it still needs money to administer the copyright office (not to mention the patent and trademark office). Why not fund it from companies wanting longer copyright terms on their works?

As I hinted at in the post above I'd abolish the patent office. It already costs money to register trademarks and it's the responsibility of the holder to defend it not the government. The same with copyrights. All the copyright and trademark offices need do is put them in the registery, for what's copyrighted in the Library of Congress (LoC) and for trademarks I don't know where those go, perhaps they can be put in the LoC too.

Falcon

Who is going to pay for this?
The people is going to pay for it.

Okay, but isn't the US in a recession? Is it wise to raise the taxes in a recession?

And is it at all constitutional ?
Ron Paul clearly think it's not.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Say "family".

That doesn't in the slightest improve the validity of your argument. You still need to be able to break free of your family and form different associations. What if your family is full of assholes? In the case of my wife and I, there has been issues related to child molestation in both sides of our extended family. There is no possibility that we would submit to having them help make our decisions on anything, particularly the welfare of our children.

Ironically the United States ideology opposes public welfare but does not oppose excessive military spending.

There are plenty of people in the US that oppose excessive military spending. See http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ or for when the current video gets moved from the front page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBQWhA4ZaD8 It will, however, be a shock to those countries that despise the US for their military spending if it gets scaled down, because they'll have to defend themselves. The "socialist west" has been dependent on US military spending for their well being for decades, as all socialism depends on capitalism to pay its way.

The important thing to keep in mind is the notion of "unity". It is not "the state" or "the government" but "us" to define the rules.

The important thing to keep in mind is the notion of "individuality". It is not "the state" or "the government" but "us" to decide for our lives. Why should others be able to impose by force (through the government) rules for your life in cases which do not involve you harming another? Would you let your "family" plunder your wage and give it to your lazy cousin to enable him to live a lifestyle he isn't willing to work for himself? If so, by what right do you consider that you can plunder MY wage to give it to your lazy cousin? Or your hardworking but unlucky cousin, for that matter? The ONLY justification is "because we can, we have the numbers to force the product of you labour from you and give it to others", in which there can be no ethical condemnation on any who successfully evade that property confiscation. I do not apply that to all government spending as not all government spending is socialist in nature. Law enforcement, for example, is commonly used to stop people helping themselves to your property, the exact opposite of socialism.

People help each other but it is more fair if individuals don't rely on "charity".

You're saying that taking from people by force in order to help others is "more fair" than people giving voluntarily? Why do you only consider fairness to those in need and not fairness to the producer? That's a view of fairness that I don't acknowledge as valid. It is inherently unfair.

how can there be an employee without health care, a civilized nation without universal health care?

Why do you think that someone having an illness imposes an obligation on me to pay for their care? I didn't cause their problem. Here is my issue - paying for something with tax money carries the assumption that either (a) everyone is willing to pay for it or (b) the use of force against those unwilling is justified. I just don't agree that having an illness or injury is a justification for the use of force. Maybe in your country everyone is willing to have government run health care. Clearly that is not the case in the US. I don't think such a choice deserves the criticism of being "uncivilised".

On the other hand, many countries that have government health care routinely forbid citizens the basic tools of self-defence, even when not convicted of any crime. If your citizens are predominantly latent murderers, with only their lack of guns preventing mass slaughter, you have no grounds to call other countries uncivilised.

Does anybody even know what the alleged terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda wants? Maybe once we understand that, we can find a solution. But instead what is told to us is that they're just a bunch of lunatics that commit enormous amounts of resources blowing things up because they're lunatics or extremists or new_political_buzzword_to_label_undesirables. Yeah right.

Here are a few good pieces from The Southern Avenger:

Our Stupid Foreign Policy
Do Terrorists Hate Freedom?

Also, here's Congressman Ron Paul on Larry King Live.

And here's the way it'll happen:

Support Ron Paul's bill http://www.auditthefed.com/ and http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Why audit smalltime thieves when we could be coming after the GREATEST financial criminals this far into human history!!!

They stole trillions from us and wont tell us what they did with the money.

Read for an explanation of why that number is so overly inflated it's ridiculous. Also, I'm 22, if I wanted insurance I could get it, same with a shitton of young people. It costs ~100-120 a month to get yourself covered, less than car insurance for most young people 18-30, yet they refuse to get it out of their own free will.

That guy's name is Steve Bierfeldt, and he is suing TSA with the help of the ACLU. A synopsis from CNN (posted by Steve himself) can be found here.

Steve is in a much better position because he has the recording of the incident. This guy probably won't be able to get very far, if indeed this is more than a publicity stunt.

Legitimate estimates put the number between 8 & 10 million being uninsured legitimately.

I'm suggesting some higher level of civic engagement among people who want to live in a sane society, rather than the yell loudly about possibly scary things society that we have today

Despite being so often called a wacky fringe revolution, this is half of the purpose of the Campaign for Liberty, the other half being civic education. You might not agree with everything they're pushing for, but their effectiveness is undeniable. On the Real ID front, C4L members have been fighting hard at the state level to get blocking legislation passed, and in my home state there is even a class-action lawsuit being filed against the Department of Transportation for trying to sneak in Real ID requirements without citizens' knowledge or consent.

There is a bill that was introduced in the House, H.R. 1207, to audit the Federal Reserve, which fiscal conservatives believe is undermining the soundness of our currency through massive inflation. Through the effort of C4L members as well as other organizations like DownsizeDC, over half of the House has been pressed to sign on as co-sponsors, including more than 50 Democrats.

That level of engagement exists and is proving to be an active force in America. It's true that GP will never have his America back, because it's impossible to rewind the clock. It is entirely possible to get enough people excited about the good bits found in historical America to make sure they re-emerge in the future America, and even easier to get people fired up enough about bad legislation to do something about it. The message will win people over if it's a good one, but it requires organization to make people aware of it.

I hate to say it, but that's possibly the reason that originally only white male landowners had the right to vote. I'm not saying that we should ever even consider bringing something like that back, just that at the time those people were more likely to be involved in the community and educated (not necessarily academically educated, but real-world educated). These days there are so many ignorant people who will go down to the polls and vote because some multi-million dollar ad told them they HAD to, without knowing a damned thing about any of the real politics, is a shame.

I think that the world we live in today is possibly Franklin's/Jefferson's/etc... worst nightmare. The only way we're going to improve anything, regardless of what side of the aisle we're on, is to somehow educate the voters.

I'm personally involved with the Campaign for Liberty which is trying to do just that -- while I have no illusions about any of you agreeing with my points of view, I hope we can all agree that if we do not educate the voters we're just going to continue getting raped by the people we put into office.

You just aren't reading the right places:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
http://www.libertyforest.com/

Why is it that nowadays any significantly high profile criminal activity has been reclassified as terrorism? I thought that terrorist acts were supposed to invoke terror in the pursuit of some political end by blowing up/killing buildings/planes/hostages, the idea being that a population would be in so much fear (terror) that they would pressure their government to give in to the demands of the terrorists.

The answer is that there are probably too few of the above classification of terrorists to actually have a war against (as in the war on terror) here in the United States. Those in control need to expand the definition of terror so as to actually have something to have war against. Why have a war on terror at all? Many people are willing to cede their liberty and freedom to catch terrorists of the ilk that perpetrated 9/11 (a la the war on terror) and the government is using that sentiment with regards to the newly reclassified definition of terrorist (pretty much anyone they don't like that they are willing to label as terrorist...protesters, constitutionalists, libertarians etc etc etc. See Missouri's MIAC report which associated supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr, three presidential candidates all espousing constitutional government)being associated with terrorists. The Bush administration (and now Obama administration) has taken full advantage of the flexibility of the term "terrorist" to assault personal freedoms on an unprecedented scale.

If you see the scales of freedom tipping in the wrong direction, get involved. There are left and right leaning organizations that are trying to restore our freedom:
American Freedom Campaign
The Pen
DownsizeDc.org
The Campaign for Liberty
Restore the Republic
Young Americans for Liberty

Ron Paul - http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

And they admit that because of the way the government is funded through the Fed they can never pay off the debt. What makes that a good thing?

I have no idea what this refers to, but I strongly suspect that the source is nonsense.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2991.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north532.html

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=14757

It is easy to critize... So what should he have done? And by this I don't mean cut taxes as a general concept. I want details...

I want details of what he should have done, and how it would have helped the economy...

You want details?

Here's your details!

I hope you learn great things...

All it takes is a vocal and committed minority. Democrats and Republicans have done a good job of distracting the public from the real issues, at least until now, when they are biting us directly in the ass. If a third party were to gain enough support under these circumstances, Democrats and Republicans would probably try to shut them down, and might even agree to suspend elections. Hell, people who support third parties are already labeled as terrorists by state police. It's not a stretch that they would try to ban them or take other actions as necessary to prevent them from upsetting the balance of power.

That said, assuming there is a 2012 election, you will probably see a damn strong showing of some third party (or a radical reformation of the Republican Party). They might even win.

Regarding your statement that Ron Paul's views are uninformed, can you provide any examples? He was just on CNN last night utterly refuting high-school graduate turned C-list actor Stephen Baldwin's spewing of the same tired and weak apologies for the (failed) War on Drugs and flawed logic behind the Fed's continuing criminalization of the use of marijuana, sometimes in bold defiance of State law already in place. Uninformed you say? Please inform us then! For those of you who are actually sick enough of TFA's example of yet another D.C. clusterfuckery, why not direct your sights on one of the biggest shenanigans in history by auditing the federal reserve?

Libertarian NOT EQUAL TO Republican

Just because I disagree with the Liberals, as the position has come to be understood in the American and British political discourse NOT Classical Liberalism as it was and is understood in Europe, does not mean that I automatically agree with the Republicans. If you an American and you still believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom then why not join us and do something about it?

Campaign for Liberty.com

That much is obvious. Perhaps the words "Financial Crisis" didn't make it to Fox News yet?

Fox News covers it. Neil Cavuto, for example, has had Dr. Paul on several times to talk about it. Peter Schiff gets interviewed on various Fox News programs as well (one thing I miss about Glenn Beck on CNN was his frequent Peter Schiff and and Stephen Moore interviews).

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/

"Unfortunately, my candidate does not exist"

Your candidate exists, he's just not on the ballot this year.

Incidentally, he's my candidate as well. I also did not vote in this election.

Linky linky.
For those who don't feel like clicking: Obama is moderately statist, just left (liberal) of center. McCain is a pinch more statist than Obama and just right (conservative) of center. On an image ~9cm wide they are separated by no more than 1cm.

There is no information posted on how whoever created the image filled out the survey for placement on the chart, so I suppose it's possible that it's entirely fabricated. However, it was presumably done by a Libertarian (since they're the only ones who tend to use the Nolan chart in the first place) who has no vested interest in either candidate.

It provides a decent metric of just how mountainous the molehill separating the Democratic and Republican nominees is.

I think that statement is very much open to debate after the last few months. A better statement would be people believe in regulated free markets. Completely free markets would just be handing all the worlds money to a bunch of wolves who are already using the global economy as a giant casino with all the tables rigged in their favor. The challenge is in figuring out the fine line between enough regulation, not enough and to much.

Do you realize the Fed was created in 1913, the big crash happened in the late 1920s. And now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities - that with various acts starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Carter and getting amendments over time, encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?

Please spout off on more regulation. Greenspan hasn't been for free markets since he headed the Fed, the exact opposite of a free market entity.

This financial downturn has been predicted by free marketeers since 2002 by the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html

http://www.amazon.com/Crash-Proof-Economic-Collapse-Sonberg/dp/0470043601

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

I couldn't be happier that members of Congress are finally allowed to check third parties out. We have all kinds of fresh ideas they could appropriate.

I know one Congressman who does

I'm optimistic about the future. The trick is to get Americans to wake up and realize that an alternative exists. The Campaign for Liberty has just gotten off the ground, but they're already fielding liberty-minded candidates at all levels of government. They have a pretty good vetting process to make sure that these people are genuine, too.

This $700bn bailout has an exceptionally low approval rating from the public (I heard 7% on NPR yesterday). If it passes, it will be a monumental example of how divorced from the public our leaders really are. In this case America will be ripe for change IF and ONLY IF Americans know that (real) change is available.

If you're fed up with the two-party system or even just the career politicians who have been running the place, check out the Campaign for Liberty. Tell your friends. Run for office. Educate people. Do something in addition to preaching to the choir. We are at a point in history where we can make a difference, but only if we get off of our asses and do it.

(This is not directed at you, Trifthen, but is a general call to action.)

I'm looking the Democratic National Convention and its soon-to-come Republican counterpart, and I can't help but thinking that they are indeed fiddling while Rome burns.

You should check out the Rally for the Republic.

It should be noted that Ron Paul and Eliot Engel sponsored legislation on July 31 to

ensure that a traveler entering the United States would be subject to searches of their data and digital equipment only if a border agent has a reasonable suspicion to believe the traveler is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.

Oh that Ron Paul, what a whack job! It's a shame he doesn't realize that the system is already fucked beyond our control and that he's simply giving those Americans foolish enough to listen to him a false glimmer of hope.

An individual's best bet for political change these days remains to pick the party that most closely aligns with them and attempt to change it from the inside (a difficult and time-consuming task to be sure). Simply voting for the Loony Toon Party, knowing that it will never get more than 3% of the vote, is just not a practical solution.

This is exactly what Ron Paul's presidential bid was all about, and it seems like it's working. The Campaign for Liberty grew out of the movement that began inside the Republican party. It hasn't really ramped up yet, but the idea is to promote candidates who favor freedom at all levels of government. It's unclear if this is a Republican-party-only thing or not, but it certainly started out as one and picked up a lot of steam.

Actually, we're kind of at a tipping point right now. We are educating a lot of folks with what's going on with the government and the plans they have. Sites like True World History and organizations like The Campaign For Liberty are getting the word out at the grass roots and people are starting to recognize the propaganda for what it is.

Any politician that thinks they can control the population through propaganda and force of arms have made some crucial mistakes, as there still doesn't seem to be any impediment to the flow of information on the Internet (at least in the US), and people already know that journalists have major biases, and don't trust what they say without question.

Yea, that McVeigh patsy idea of theirs worked out pretty well to sway public opinion away from the private militias. But it only worked for a while, and the militias ranks are swelling again now. I wonder what the next staged event will be, and if people will buy the government line again.

No, Ron doesn't want the job of President. Ron wanted face time at the debates so that he could reel in the outlandish dialog and reduce the BS factor and pandering by the candidates. He didn't expect to have any success at all although his presence has started an entire movement. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

June 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Danielek, Dr. Paul missed the vote today because he had a longstanding commitment to speak at the Montana GOP Convention today.

Jesse Benton Says:

June 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Danielek, Dr. Paul missed the vote today because he had a longstanding commitment to speak at the Montana GOP Convention today.