This is a terrible piece. I don’t believe you fully understand what Libertarianism is. I am not a Libertarian myself, but I do see the value in such an ideology. You see Libertarianism in the same light as all other “conservative” ideologies, when it is in fact the most liberal ideology conceivable.

Also, in one of your responses you said “He’s employing the oldest demagogic ploy in politics. He’s simply appealing to your emotions to circumvent your common sense in order to get your support. What’s truly sad is that so many Americans are so undereducated and gullible.” That is exactly what Obama did in ’08. Obama is the demon child of Wall Street and Madison Avenue in my opinion. There is nothing genuine about Obama, it is all a hoax.

I read the post, the comments, followed the links, and read the entire page about your family and the loss of your wife (my deepest condolences; As a person deeply in love myself I felt great empathy the moment I read about that), and I just feel like you’re a great example of a human, like myself, who has a lot of reason to think the way they do as a result of a subjective thought pattern.

You’ve said some things, the libertarian people who left comments have said some things, and I get the sense that you aren’t taking heed to the advice being offered about not only finding proper information but presenting your arguments in a convincing manner. I think if I brought an argument to you about libertarianism the way you’ve indirectly supplied this argument for statism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism) it would get about the same disrespect from people commenting. Aside from the misconceptions about the true nature of libertarianism, you often would make a claim and then either leave it dangling or defend it crudely with your emotional opinion. You are very good at kinda putting off a sassy attitude as you bite back at a straw man version of what libertarianism means. It doesn’t help you…

This link is much more unbiased and clearly stated, and I hope that you will, in your wisdom, gravitate toward a much cleaner approach to arguing your points.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1101a.asp

The irony of you flaunting your family credentials and marketable talents after defending welfare, promoting the voluntary exile of a free individual (Ron Paul forced to live in the wilderness so entitled people dont have to hear his ~crazy~ ideas), and suggesting that you are so defenseless that if the government didnt protect you or I from racism/terrorism nobody would, expresses how detached you are from causality and history (all of it, not just the parts on which you’ve focused). I’m sorry if the following is disappointing, but for all of your defense of statism, you are not an example of a person who had nothing, was provided welfare, and because of that picked yourself up to be a profitable individual. You did this on your own by the virtue of that liberty we still have intact to make our decisions as free agents in a positive sum game of commerce and pursuit of happiness. Take proper credit for your actions; you are a smart man.

Ron Paul has admonished the idea which so many neocons espouse that if you want to fix the debt you cut welfare and the host of domestic entitlements. He knows that the true failure in our economy is not in our good will, but in our corrupt fiat currency and out of control spending on countries that are not the USA. Do you disagree with that?

For the record, this Cuban/Sioux/Spanish/Jewish/French-canadian likes ThyBlackMan for its range of opinions, but this particular author may be a bit too fueled with vitriol over the current political climate and the possibility of an apocalyptic change to the shell game of politics into which we were all born to back up his ~infinitely apparent truths~.

I might believe you about your education if you could spell steak.

Part of what libertarians are arguing is just what the common good consists of. As libertarian Tom Palmer puts it, the common good is a “system of justice that allows all to live together in harmony and peace; a common good more extensive than that tends to be, not a common good for ‘all of us,’ but a common good for some of us at the expense of others of us.”

In any case, I appreciate the author bringing attention to ideas of libertarianism, if for no other reason to allow myself and others to correct some misunderstandings.

Jeff Daiell

While Rep. Paul said he didn’t see how “we can do a whole lot about it,” he did noted that he believed the Drug War was a source of much of the tension. “This is a major thing going on and it unfairly hits minorities,” he suggested, adding “I’m quite sure Martin Luther King would be in agreement with this,” and, later “Martin Luther King would be in agreement with me on the wars,” because of his stance on Vietnam.