“Republicans want you to have freedom in business and they mess with your personal life – Democrats want you to have freedom in your personal life and they mess with your business. I’m for freedom in both.” Dale Ogden – Libertarian
by Jack Lee
The Whitman – Brown debate was contentious, uninspired with little new coming to the table. If only the other candidate, Dale Ogden-L, were allowed to debate with them, then we would have had some really new ideas. But, you’ve probably never heard of Ogden have you? No, of course not, Libertarians are way under funded and unless they recruit a billionaire to run they have little chance of getting their message out.
Unfortunately if you don’t have 10% of the vote you don’t get on stage. If you don’t get on stage you can’t get anywhere, it’s a self fulfilling prophecy. The 3rd party candidate had a lot to say and wish we could have heard Whitman and Brown try to respond to it.
Ogden wants to cut licensensing agencies from 172 down to around 40 something. He points out California has the most licensensing (control and regulation) of any state. He would eliminate some of the 900 commissions and committees too. Ogden points out that we have 17% of the USA living here, but we have 33% of the entire welfare numbers. He calls it like he sees it, “We have too many deadbeats in the system and we’re too generous.”
We should change the debate rules and allow the highest polling 3rd party candidate a shot at least with one debate. Instead of having a Spanish language debate we should have it with a 3rd party candidate instead. Don’t we want the spirit of competition and democracy to have a real chance? I think a 3rd party candidate could bring up some original ideas and that would be refreshing. Perhaps a few of those idea would take root, even if he or she doesn’t get elected.
For more on Ogden please use this link
I have a small problem with this reasoning. Most Republicans are willing to live and let live and supporting the golden rule. We are loyal to the notion that a;; men are created equal. Under this standard we teach our children to treat others with dignity and respect and discourage inappropriate behaviors based on our shared humanity. We support the laws that cover descrimination and abuse based on our common humanity rather than any special group.
Contentions and division have arisen because special groups continue to demand special laws to cover their perceived special needs and often efforts have amounted to an attack. Republicans have not initiated these contentions. Accusing them of “messing with” anyone’s personal life is erroneous.
I agree the Libertarian candidate (or other party that can show the greatest support) should be allowed to participate in debates. The time used for these debates is the people’s time; it does not belong to Democrats and Republicans.
Without getting into Mr Ogden’s views of what he would do as the Governor of California, I will point out that he has no chance to ever get elected as a Libertarian, and thus he should step aside so that Jerry Brown does not get elected. Like her or not, Christine Whitman is the best chance this state has of getting fixed.
Besides, as a Libertarian Governor, Ogden would undermine many of the moral standards we still have in California, and there lies my problem with the Libertarian view of politics.
Libertarian are constantly complaining about laws that curtail the rights of a citizen to be immoral, that’s why many of them will often times support laws that liberal Democrats want passed. Sorry, but without moral laws to make humans think twice about their behavior, America would soon become like SF during Gay Pride days.
As for the claim that Republicans are just flip side of the coin when compared to Democrats? I would say that when it comes to morals, the Libertarians are the flip side of Republicans also. At least with Republicans we have a chance to gain the power we need to try and change things. The Libertarians just continually allow the most fascists leftist around get elected by taking votes away from a Republican.
As for the charge that we never give them a good candidate to vote for in the general and that’s why a libertarian needs to run is a nothing more than a cop out. Look around the country, when helped by the Libertarians, RINO’s have been getting knocked off in the primaries. Same could have happened in California.
That is why I challenge the Libertarians to join us by helping to elect a strong conservative during the Republican primaries. Unfortunately, that will never happen, because Libertarians are more afraid of God then liberals are. That nasty little thing called morality is always getting in their way of supporting true conservatives. See when men do not wish to do what is morally right, they usually try and change the meaning of what morality is. That way they can continue in their debased way of living without feeling they are immoral.
For the good of our future, Libertarians should never get control of government because of their weak stance on morals. I can live with higher taxes and regulations, because those can be fixed with enough votes, but the morality of a society takes generations to change. This is a fundamental understanding of morality that Libertarians fail to understand, but liberals totally understand. Once a society accepts low moral standards, anything will eventually go because the envelope is always pushed as the next generation will be worse than the last. A prime example is how far we as a society have allowed the rights to abort a child has gone. Forty million innocent babies a year are murdered around the world because society has said the woman can decide if an unborn child can or cannot live.
Gambling is another vice Libertarians support that has been very detrimental to society. Need I mention their support to legalize drugs and prostitution? Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, there are too many things that Libertarians say are a matter of ones personal life which when allowed will ultimately destroy the very fabric of a society.
If anything, we need to get back to the days when Americans looked at the lifestyle of “Leave It To Beaver” as a model of what they wanted for their children’s world. True, life in the fifties was not nearly as perfect as it was portrayed in the Beavers home and community, but what is wrong with wanting it to be? I would much rather our children be raised with an understanding that society can be better then it is, then the way they see America portrayed today.
Even though they were flawed like all men are, our founding Fathers understood what God wanted us to strive for. However, the Libertarians would have us believe that the founding Fathers would be more in line with their thinking today. Allow me to the Libertarians view to it’s logical conclusion in society if their view became that of the majority.
I was told by a Libertarian friend of mine, his reasoning for being Libertarian, He said,
So now I will take my friends reasoning to it’s logical conclusion should a majority of our society agree with him. After all, what does murder, rape and abortion have in common? They are all moral matters as is the stuff of all legitimate laws. So I could just as well say that
Libertarians have this confused understanding that there is some sort of mythical separation of morality and state. They want a world where you can accept the laws you agree with because each individual may thing certain laws are necessary while others to them are not. They want a society where humans will oppose laws they disagree with, not on the basis that the values they reflect are wrong or are not the governments domain, but simply because they are imposing another person’s morality upon them. Libertarians are by their belief system moral relativists.
What they fail to understand is that the moral principles we live by and take for granted like murder, rape, theft, are part of the Judeo-Christian ethic that has guided western societies for almost 1700 years. In fact, before abortion was legalized by the Supreme Court, Libertarians were against it and actually considered it to be murder. So if today abortion was still illegal, the typical Libertarian would have been raised in a culture where abortion was universally equated with murder.
So why does the Libertarian now fail to equate abortion with murder? Instead the Libertarian makes the argument that it is a matter for the mother to choose instead of the law. Taken a step further, let us consider what would be happening if the year was 350, and we were all living in Rome before the dominance of Judeo-Christian ethic really took hold on society as a whole. The Libertarian very well could be telling the Christians who wish to end the barbaric practice of Gladiator fights to the death by saying,
Remember, when the Christians tried to end the games, the Libertarian of the time would be aghast at the way these so-called conservatives wanted to infringe upon their Libertarian view of what a good Roman society should be. After all, how dare they impose their moral values upon others. As it was, it took 92 years after Constantine legalized Christianity for the Gladiator fights to be outlawed as barbaric. Then it was only after Christian monk named Telemachus jumped into an arena in Rome and tried to separate two combatants. The crowd went berserk, climbed over the walls into the arena and tore the monk limb from limb. In response to this ugly incident, the Emperor Honorius permanently banned all gladiator contests. It is wise to remember that is was the Christian creed that slowly changed the hearts of men to accept a moral that eventually became law. Can anyone now imagine killing each other in a ring not being wrong, legally and morally?
Don’t like the Rome scenario? Then just use any of a number of societies like that of the Vikings, the Huns, etc. etc. etc. where pillaging, murder, rape and theft were simply part of doing business. I mean, sure, perhaps you didnt thus abuse a fellow tribesman, but foreigners were fair game.
Finally, unlike the Libertarians would like all to believe, our founding Fathers believed that America would become a place where men are free, but with guidelines of what is right or wrong, and what is moral and immoral. In declaring their freedom from King George they wrote him a letter. This letter contained one of the most powerful statements man has ever made to those who would be our rulers.
Along with that statement comes the truth that they also believed our moral laws are handed down by God. They knew that should we ever change the Moral laws of God, that we would be destroying the union this Country and has with Him. It is that union we have with God that both the liberals and Libertarians would have us destroy, and thus the country with it.
The argument that he should step aside is valid OV, we have a good example of what can happen over in the Silver State. Harry Reid was elected because the Libertarian vote took just enough away from the Republican that he lost…and we got stuck with Reid.
As for the moral standards in California…hmmm, you really think we have them?
My thinking is the 3rd party candidates should have some kind of representation and having the 3rd most popular candidate participate in one crummy debate should be worth the risk. There’s some good ideas out there in the L-Party that should get some consideration.
Probably what will happen is Libertarians will cease to exist in California. So will most other 3rd parties due to the last two standing rule we past recently. Then some may become independents but the majority will enter the republlican party because its the only way they can get their issues addressed or run and have half a chance. We’ll have Libertarians running as reps soon…wait and see.
OV we’re in 95% agreement overall – thanks for your comments!
Tina, we’re on the same page. I think one debate, just one, should include the 3rd party candidate just to inject some new thinking and shake things up a bit. Thats not so horrible is it? The dems have all but destroyed the 3rd parties with their last two standing rule.
Thanks Jack,
I did forget to add, that while I may disagree with the Libertarian, I do think he should have been allowed to be a part of the debate, but only if the party from which said candidates for has garnered at least 5% of the vote in the last election.
However, when we allow too many candidates to participate in a debate, it just helps to cloud the issues which always helps the Democrats who refuse to be honest about who they are anyway.
OV, as usual you are right on the money. We absolutely agree on this. Thanks and it’s nice to see you back. I understand your blog has done some serious reader numbers…way too go!
I understand your blog has done some serious reader numbers…way too go!
Thanks, but it’s difficult for me to know what they are since I have not received a report of my numbers in 2 months. So you are obviously privy to information I am not.
It is in God’s hands however, and we will all be as successful as He wants us to be. When we walk closer to Thee, then He will be tho one who brings success.
I also would be remiss if I failed to give credit to both Hawk and Nancy D for stepping up to help me during times when I am unable to do the simplest of tasks due to a bothersome thorn the good Lord has saw fit to inflict me with.
Either way, between Post Scripts, Mark’s Editorial Bored, and Gate we are getting the conservative message out in an area that it sorely needs to be spread to. If Mark gets elected, then it will be up to us to give him all the support we can in the face of attacks he will get from the left. So let us go into the future as an unstoppable force in our continued battle against the lies and obfuscation of the left.
I’ll be glad to second that motion! And again, very good to hear from you, your presence has been missed! Feel free to drop in anytime and give your opinion will you? (Jack)
Jack: “I think one debate, just one, should include the 3rd party candidate just to inject some new thinking and shake things up a bit. Thats not so horrible is it?”
Not horrible at all. I have a libertartian streak in me and think one debate at least should include the strongest third candidate of a differing party. If the format is carefully chosen it could be very valuable.
I have a lot of libertarian beliefs. Ultimately, I feel like the government’s job is to protect Americans’ natural rights…the right to life, liberty, and property. To that end, I simply do not understand how a libertarian can be anything other than pro-life. The most basic right government needs to protect is life. I oppose abortion, in that it violates the right to life of the unborn child. When, one’s “rights” infringe on the rights of others, it is the duty of government to intervene (which is why the comment above regarding murder and rape is an invalid argument…one cannot have the right to commit murder, in that it infringes on the right of the one being murdered). Pro-life legislation MUST be championed by true libertarians, as the rights of the unborn–the most vulnerable and helpless among us–are at stake.
But, if people want to smoke marijuana, engage in prostitution, or “marry” somebody of the same sex, what business is it of the government’s? While I strongly oppose these lifestyle choices on moral grounds, the power of my God to overcome them is far greater than any legislation passed by a bunch of politicians ever could be. I think the business of morality regulation belongs to the Holy Spirit alone…not Sacramento or Washington.
Very well said Pro-Life Libertarian. I wish you would come back more often and share some of your beliefs and ideas how we can keep this country together.