The most fascinating part to me about Nate Silver’s article on Rand Paul is that the Christian/social conservatives are on the opposite side as the Liberty Movement. While it is true from a policy standpoint that the social Conservatives are for social engineering and government control of people while the Liberty movement is not, we did form a coalition in the last primary and in many counties much more.  The Christian right intertwined with the hijacked Tea Party is coming more and more to the realization that being conservative, believing in limited government, family values and the Constitution lead not to controlling people, but letting people be free. Tolerance is a late stage development for many of these people and for some, they still have a long way to go.  That said we should not give up hope on entire groups, that is collectivism. I can however understand giving up on certain individuals, individuals who are the flag bearer of opposition. Don’t waste ...

By Matthew Hayward With respect to the integrity of the purists in the Liberty Movement, we have to pick our battles if we are going to move the ball down the field. After watching Freedom to Fascism, I spoke to my father, who was 30 years senior counsel to the House Republicans in WA State. I asked him about the constitutional legitimacy of the income tax. His response was simple yet powerful, “you may be right, but you can be right all the way to jail. You have to pick your battles; this is a losing battle, and, if pursued, should be rethought tactically.” He suggested that a cost-benefit should be considered and applied to what issues and battles are taken up. That does not mean avoiding fighting battles that cannot be won but weakening the opposition, building public support to provide a distraction, etc.  If Sen. Rand Paul is endorsing Sen. Mitch McConnell for re-election in 2014, will you be able to work with Rand?  I will work with almost anyone who will sta...

A lot of my political views have been held since long before getting involved and educated about philosophy and government. For example, growing up Catholic and going to a private school I always thought it was dumb that the government had any say on what we did in the church e.g. marriage. Why would we want to allow the sanctity of marriage to be corrupted by government? Why would we want to take a matter that has to do with Love and God and include and allow Atheists to both conduct and participate in the act of marriage for the reasons of money, power and control? We can either be treated equally under law, not involve the government at all, or be treated unequally under the law. Any attempt at making people or groups of people equal by treating them differently is nothing more than well intended legal discrimination. The problem is government is power and control, it naturally finds its way into everything. Once the government gets involved it claims to be the solution to al...

Is it wrong to charge exurbanite prices for food, fuel and other necessities during a disaster? If your answer is yes, please consider the following:  A man works hard 60 hours a week for minimum wage for seven years. During this time he never eats out, goes to the movies or does anything fun, instead he invests every penny he can into resources he imagines will be in high demand at some future point. For years everyone calls this man crazy, a conspiracy theorist and a quack. None the less the man stock piles waiting for the day that money loses value and the demand for goods sky rockets. He is sure that sooner or later there will be war, famine, the collapse of the dollar, or some kind of natural disaster.  He knows that when that day comes he will have gambled several years of his life to hit the jack pot. And then it happens, a massive hurricane, an earthquake, a drought, you name it; the man’s gamble is about to pay off.  Then the government shows up a...

This is funny. But on a more serious note, we should recognize as Ann Coulter pointed out last week on John Stossel, idealism is nice to talk about, but we live in a system that is a mess of codependency interwoven with bureaucracy. We cannot just do the right ideal thing; we must restructure the system and slowly wean people off. Even hardcore alcoholics don't quit cold turkey; it could kill them. Instead, they cut back and learn skills to be sufficient and functional without the crutch. Like drug addicts and alcoholics, government addicts need help. Perhaps a 12 step program will come along, but until then we should all work as individuals to help those who want help and are willing to work to better themselves. This is the solution and as we get more people on their feet and they become less dependent the need for the government should shrink proportionally. Until we move away from a heavy-handed governmental approach that seconds as a parental figure and a wealthy aunt, we...