William Lawson wins GOP primary in North Carolina

[AJ Dual]

Micro, what I THINK we're all saying is Libertarians have a LOT of GREAT ideas most all of us here at APS support, but even the most prominent ones don't have the political good sense to keep their mouths shut about the more fringe ideas, whether they have merit and are just "too much too soon" for the mainstream, or are actual kookery. Or... are simply announcing themselves as taking on the large entrenched and powerful status quo.

By analogy, a successful filth column/guerrilla movement does not engage in a head-to-head battle with a large established force on an open field with massed formations. That's what stuff like "We're gonna audit the Fed Bank" is. You get your power base, and a majority, THEN you start handing out the death blows against powerful entrenched institutions you feel are against what you stand for.

Let's just sit tight, build a basic Conservative/Libertarian consensus, such as:

- Government as small as practical.
- Taxes as low as possible.
- Full civil rights for everyone.
- Full RKBA...
etc. etc. etc.

And once a particular country, either ours or yours, has relegated Faustian Socialism to the dustbin of history, THEN we can debate the finer points of regional currency, gold standard vs. fiat, if America bears significant culpability for 9/11, eliminating the age of consent, open borders, full drug legalization etc...

As it's been said, "Politics is the art of the possible." if someone insists that it's all about being up front about demanding everything and anything all at once you'll always be relegated to being a minor player. Living in a Parliamentary country where often ruling is done by a coalition of minority parties, IMO, you have a better understanding of political realities, and accomplishing what's possible NOW, than pouting and having tantrums for what's not possible.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i sometimes feel that the libertarians really don't want to win they just want to rail about how much better it would be if we let them

[AJ Dual]

i sometimes feel that the libertarians really don't want to win they just want to rail about how much better it would be if we let them

Leave it to C&S Daddy to explain in one sentence what it took me 5 paragraphs to explain. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Unelected officials, entirely unaccountable to the public - to the point of refusing to publish key economic data or even tell people who got trillion-dollar loans (which is what the audit bill is about), is an entirely undemocratic, and unrepubilcan process.

We've seen what happens when monetary policy is set by the political process.  I don't want monetary policy anywhere near politics.  I want monetary policy in hands who have a strong vested interested in fostering monetary stability as best they can.  Who better than the bankers for that?  Certainly not Congress.

If you find the concept unpalatable, ask yourself why the Founders favored federalism.  They knew that the best way to tame power was to divide it up and decentralize it as best you can.  I like the fact that the people making laws (i.e. pandering to the voters) are not the same people who are deciding how much money exists.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Leave it to C&S Daddy to explain in one sentence what it took me 5 paragraphs to explain. 

Don't you hate that?  He doesn't even bother with grammar or spelling and he can still make the rest of us look inarticulate sometimes.

 

[MicroBalrog]

AJ, I don't think the Audit the Fed bill is a pie-in-the-sky project of the same grade as the other stuff you listed. I'm not exactly sure of the inner workings of Congress, but as far as I understand, when something has 310+ co-sponsors on the House  version and 32 co-sponsors on the senate version, it's something that could actually pass.

But here's the problem I'm having, here.

When the Republican candidate is somewhat less conservative then people'd like, the cries goes out to vote for him anyway, and for the 'extreme' guys to compromise a bit about their extremism.

Here the Republican guy is a bit too far gone to some people's tastes. Now, I don't know about the 'general public', but I'd expect the 'moderates' among us to compromise on an inch of their 'moderateness', just like they expect me to (or rather, 'guys-just-like-me-who-happen-to-be-citizens-and-residents-of-the-appropriate-distric'). After all, Lawson is the only alternative to the Democrat. After all, we wouldn't want the Democrats to keep their Congressional majority. We wouldn't want to lose 2010, wouldn't we?

These are the rules by which moderates expect libertarians and radical conservatives to play, after all.

P.S. There are avenues in which libertarians can work even now to advance all that pie-in-the-sky stuff. Ask me how. :)

[MicroBalrog]

Amusingly, Lawson's site has none of this so-called 'wacky' stuff:

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

AJ, I don't think the Audit the Fed bill is a pie-in-the-sky project of the same grade as the other stuff you listed. I'm not exactly sure of the inner workings of Congress, but as far as I understand, when something has 310+ co-sponsors on the House  version and 32 co-sponsors on the senate version, it's something that could actually pass.

But here's the problem I'm having, here.

When the Republican candidate is somewhat less conservative then people'd like, the cries goes out to vote for him anyway, and for the 'extreme' guys to compromise a bit about their extremism.

Here the Republican guy is a bit too far gone to some people's tastes. Now, I don't know about the 'general public', but I'd expect the 'moderates' among us to compromise on an inch of their 'moderateness', just like they expect me to (or rather, 'guys-just-like-me-who-happen-to-be-citizens-and-residents-of-the-appropriate-distric'). After all, Lawson is the only alternative to the Democrat. After all, we wouldn't want the Democrats to keep their Congressional majority. We wouldn't want to lose 2010, wouldn't we?

These are the rules by which moderates expect libertarians and radical conservatives to play, after all.

P.S. There are avenues in which libertarians can work even now to advance all that pie-in-the-sky stuff. Ask me how. :)

This problem is entirely in your head.  Nobody is suggesting that we not support guys like Lawson in the general elections. 

My remorse is over choosing Lawson in the primary.  I shoulda known better, but I didn't, so now I'm stuck with having to support him even though I disagree with a lot of his positions.

[MicroBalrog]

In this case I apologize. I got ahead of myself.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Amusingly, Lawson's site has none of this so-called 'wacky' stuff:

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues

You could start here:
http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/posts/whats-the-problem-with-banks

[AJ Dual]

AJ, I don't think the Audit the Fed bill is a pie-in-the-sky project of the same grade as the other stuff you listed. I'm not exactly sure of the inner workings of Congress, but as far as I understand, when something has 310+ co-sponsors on the House  version and 32 co-sponsors on the senate version, it's something that could actually pass.

Well, there's major problems with it. If there are that many sponsors, I can guarantee you that many of them want the Fed audit for all the wrong reasons. Socialistic reasons, or designs on

And as others have said, having Congress in direct control of monetary policy would be disastrous. There may be problems with the Fed, serious problems, but I can not on my life think of a better example of "The cure being worse than the disease" than that. The idea of Congress having control of monetary policy is one that shakes me to the core. We'd have Wiemar/Zimbabwe style inflation and banknotes in exponential notation with three day expiration dates printed on them within a year.

[MicroBalrog]

designs on?

[AJ Dual]

designs on?

Should have been "Designs on getting congressional control of the Fed, and politicizing American monetary policy even further".

I think I got distracted by a call or what not at that point.