Miles White

Personally, I agree with this strategy. I've always felt it would be strategically intelligent for "libertarian minded", or conservative politicians, to lay off criticism of certain key welfare programs (in regards to social insurance, vouchers ect.). The sad thing is most of them are just too popular for citizens to give up at this moment in time. There are plenty of other interventions that can be attacked instead, while they're still popular to do so like deregulating businesses, privatizing inefficient services, cutting waste, fraud, and duplicative bureaucracies and the works. Campaigning on those core fiscal issues combined with a platform of common sense civil libertarianism, would by far sound attractive to the vast silent majority in this country. As far as a winning political agenda is concerned, you have to respond to the times.

How does any of this validate the existence of God? You could believe a purple flying monkey with a golden spatula created the universe in a boiling cauldron, but that still doesn't make your belief any more palpable toward the realist, rational minded, individual. You have to go with what your senses tell you about your surrounding environment when trying to understand reality, or else you'll dwindle away into another stupid, sooth saying, barbaric, mystical fool, no matter how original your ideas are. "Intelligent" religious people are still boobs, just to a smaller degree, depending upon how far they lean toward the side of reason/science and away from mysticism/dogmatism.

I've always been fond of the Bourbons, and would've gladly considered myself among them had I of been alive then. It's a shame their ideology has rescinded into such a minority in this current political climate. As for Cleveland, the man was much better than 50% of the politicians back then and a HELL of allot better than 99% of the politicians today.

I would recommend John Derbyshire's weekly podcast. He's a writer for the national review who lacks the religiosity of most conservatives. I find him very entertaining and witty, with a very dry British approach to his humor.

I have reading allot about bureaucratic theory lately (Max Weber and what not) and I was just curious as to what the specific structure of an Objectivist government would be or wether there is even an objective answer to the question. For example I see some Objectivists support government institutions like the CIA and others oppose it. I'm trying to paint a concrete picture as to exactly what the government in a free society would look like.

Why should you care about someone who is your intellectual opposite? What do you have to gain from continuing a conversation with him? How are you not an altruist by making yourself care? Or in other words why should Howard Roark care about Toohey? The title of the post is what should someone feel when they are talking to collectivists, not "someone" in general.

I don't feel for them. I'm not an altruist. I don't care about what other people beleive in, as long as they don't infringe upon my liberty... or have political pull.

Are you saying that my congressman are in charge of literally building the tanks, ships, artillery needed ect. to "produce" a defense for us? Government is not a productive engine. Only the market can build unless the government nationalizes which still requires the worker to work and the innovator to innovate under the condition of coercion. Here's an idea, how about we allow citizens to purchase stock within their own government? You could literally be a shareholder to your own congressional seat. As far as governments obtaining revenue from investments goes I think that would be a much more beneficial idea.

I think George Reisman gets it right at how the structure of our government would look in a fully free society. Oddly enough, if you look back in history, it really wouldn't be much different from the 19th century United States, given the exception of coercive taxes and a national post office.

I would say the FBI is alright if they stick to doing what's proper, which is enforcing the law, but all those other alphabet soup agencies or products of the New Deal is in complete contradiction with the concept of an open government.

Also, a representative government isn't just some bizarre institution that obscurely governs and makes decisions upon it's citizens behave like an involuntary organ that exists for the sole purpose of carrying whatever duty it was created to do. A representative government is the manifestation of the general ethics of the populace, for they are the ones truly in power in a Republic. Even if their only options for politicians were horrible, they could demand better ones if they cared enough to take to the streets and protest for their convictions but they don't. The sad truth is just simply that most citizens don't care about ideas. True intellectuals only encompass a small minority of the general population, the rest are to concern for direct material needs to even care. Our government composed of bipartisan anti-ideological morons could just be a representation of that attitude.

My suggestion? The men of the mind can all become self sufficient farmers, so that they won't even have to participate within the economy and the government would be forced to look else where to commit plunder.

Peter Schiff's rebuttal. If anyones interested.

Frank Lengella? Anybody?