Bob Livingston: “Believing in the necessity of either force or corruption to govern men is the mantra of the politician and government bureaucrat, and they believe that, by the high and lofty positions they’ve obtained, they and only they are capable of governing the American “great beasts.”
Brandon Smith: Most of my readers are well aware of my position on election 2016 and U.S. elections in general – they are an eternal farce meant to give false hope to the masses. They are designed to make the public feel as if we are participating in our own governance, when in reality, we are only ever allowed to choose from a list of candidates that the elites pre-select. This does not mean that all politicians are corrupted or controlled, but according to the evidence I have seen, the majority of government represents the desires of a select few, and not the majority of the citizenry.
Having been a registered and somewhat active Libertarian for over 40 years now, that has been increasingly disappointing. Gary Johnson sounded better 4 years ago, but garnered only 1% of the vote. Today he’s polling much better, but has obviously lost his way, leaving us with nobody worth voting for… that’s right, NOBODY!
There was a time when the LP was based on Principle, but those days are long gone. Today’s Libertarians are scattered all over the philosophical map. Very recently I read the Arizona’s Libertarian Platform, https://www.azlp.org/platform.php — reading that was a SHOCK! Nothing within that suggests that Mises and Rothbard might survive. That platform seems both obsolete and awful,.
All that leaves me feeling both “homeless” and hopeless. The problems, which run throughout this platform is that, rather than addressing the problem by using the Libertarian ways of free enterprise and free markets, a myriad of solutions are proposed, almost always having GOVERNment do things in different ways, which always demand more “laws” and “better” punishment.
by Ryan McMaken at Mises.org
Contrary to what many Americans seem to think, the document we now call “the Constitution” and the Declaration of independence are not pretty much the same thing or “connected in spirit,” or “two sides of the same coin.” The two documents were written by two different groups of people at two different times to accomplish two totally different goals.
John Whitehead: “If you’ve been caught up in the circus that is the presidential election, you’ve likely missed the latest news about all the ways in which the government continues to erode our freedoms, undermine our sovereignty, abuse our trust, invade our homes, invade our privacy, destroy our property, hijack our bank accounts, and generally render itself above the law.
Then again, this is all par for the course from a militaristic government that is armed to the teeth, wages war against its own people, imprisons its citizens for profit, marches in lockstep with the corporate elite, and treats human beings as little more than cattle to be branded, bought, sold and butchered.’
Murray Rothbard: In our proper condemnation of scientism in the study of man, we should not make the mistake of dismissing science as well. For if we do so, we credit scientism too highly and accept at face value its claim to be the one and only scientific method. If scientism is, as we believe it to be, an improper method, then it cannot be truly scientific. Science, after all, means scientia, correct knowledge; it is older and wiser than the positivist-pragmatist attempt to monopolize the term.