Why do libertarians aid, and abet Obama?

[Pheonixops]

Most libertarians don't support abortion, they just don't see it as a place for the government to step in and in my case I just see the uselessness of having it as a political issue. Medical science will end abortion, not 40 more years of posturing.

The FairTax certainly isn't leftist, neither is ending the federal monstrosity known as the war on drugs.

I don't like the idea of the "Prebate" because it would be a check cut from the government and can be used as a "tool" to sucker people into voting for people who want to increase the Prebate.............. In my opinion, it's just a welfare check.

"8: Con: The fair tax increases entitlements. From Wikipedia:

Under the FairTax, family households of lawful U.S. residents would receive a “Family Consumption Allowance” (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services … Opponents of the plan criticize this tax rebate due to its costs. Economists at the Beacon Hill Institute estimated the overall rebate cost to be $489 billion (assuming 100 percent participation). In addition, economist Bruce Bartlett has argued that the rebate would create a large opportunity for fraud, treats children disparately, and would constitute a welfare payment regardless of need."

It certainly isn't a perfect solution but it does insure that poverty spending levels are not taxed. It's a compromise to shift the strategy from one of tax avoidance and playing favorites to one of increased growth and fairness.

I understand your point, but my approach would be to lower the overall percentage rate for the consumption tax and then let the States deal with how they collect taxes so they can contribute their share to the Federal Government.

 

[Pheonixops]

Regarding Paul, you tell me why because I don't know why, all I know is that they are. They are going out of their way to attach Paul to their definition of "Libertarian" and then smearing that definition. It is what it is.

The Tea Party. How soon some people forget. When it first gained prominence it was a non-partisan movement made up of people who felt that Washington DC was out of touch and out of control (which by the way is a pretty good description for about 60% of the electorate) . It is now seen as the whack-job wing of the GOP due mainly to the constant smear-job given to it by the MSM. I don't like the TP but even I can admit that they aren't anything close to what the MSM claims they are.

In fact both Ron and Rand Paul actually endorsed Cuccinelli instead of endorsing Sarvis. That's quite telling that though they both may have Libertarian leanings (the father more than the son in my opinion) , they are still Republicans and not Libertarians when it comes down to it.................... Here's a Libertarian who used to be a republican:
Gary Johnson endorses Sarvis for governor - Richmond Times-Dispatch

Ron Paul actually spoke on this subject, and it wasn't because he was a loyal Republican that he endorsed the Republican over the Libertarian candidate. It's simply that he saw what the rest of us saw in that Sarvis was obviously in no way shape or form a libertarian. Now I'm not convinced that that excuses his endorsement of Cuccinelli, but I certainly don't blame him for not endorsing Sarvis.

How is Sarvis allegedly " obviously in no way shape or form a libertarian"? Have you checked out his view on the "On the Issues"site?


Civil Liberties

I am committed to restoring and protecting civil liberties. As Governor, I will:

Protect freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly.
Reverse the militarization of law-enforcement tactics.
Reform asset-forfeiture laws.
Restore Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Restore voting and gun rights for those convicted of non-violent drug offenses.
Fight against federal overreach and government spying programs.
Restrict law-enforcement use of general surveillance technologies.
Protect internet freedom.

I believe an important part of restoring civil liberties is ending the drug war.

"I object to gun-control advocates who rhetorically and falsely equate "gun culture" with a "culture of violence." This is extremely misleading.

I also object to the Republican Party's attempts to get the information of all concealed-carry permit holders in Virginia. Republicans claim to be in favor of freedom, gun rights, and privacy, but this once again shows that the Republican Party's self-interest comes before the rights of the people.

In contrast, I support Constitutional Carry, which several states already recognize without harm to the safety of their citizens."


Robert Sarvis' Issue Positions (Political Courage Test) - Project Vote Smart


Gun Issues:
No a) Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?
No b) Should background checks be required on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows?
Yes c) Should citizens be allowed to carry concealed guns?
No d) Should a license be required for gun possession?
e) Other or expanded principles:

Robert Sarvis' Issue Positions (Political Courage Test) - Project Vote Smart

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In fact both Ron and Rand Paul actually endorsed Cuccinelli instead of endorsing Sarvis. That's quite telling that though they both may have Libertarian leanings (the father more than the son in my opinion) , they are still Republicans and not Libertarians when it comes down to it.................... Here's a Libertarian who used to be a republican:
Gary Johnson endorses Sarvis for governor - Richmond Times-Dispatch

Ron Paul actually spoke on this subject, and it wasn't because he was a loyal Republican that he endorsed the Republican over the Libertarian candidate. It's simply that he saw what the rest of us saw in that Sarvis was obviously in no way shape or form a libertarian. Now I'm not convinced that that excuses his endorsement of Cuccinelli, but I certainly don't blame him for not endorsing Sarvis.

How is Sarvis allegedly " obviously in no way shape or form a libertarian"? Have you checked out his view on the "On the Issues"site?


Civil Liberties

I am committed to restoring and protecting civil liberties. As Governor, I will:

Protect freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly.
Reverse the militarization of law-enforcement tactics.
Reform asset-forfeiture laws.
Restore Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Restore voting and gun rights for those convicted of non-violent drug offenses.
Fight against federal overreach and government spying programs.
Restrict law-enforcement use of general surveillance technologies.
Protect internet freedom.

I believe an important part of restoring civil liberties is ending the drug war.

"I object to gun-control advocates who rhetorically and falsely equate "gun culture" with a "culture of violence." This is extremely misleading.

I also object to the Republican Party's attempts to get the information of all concealed-carry permit holders in Virginia. Republicans claim to be in favor of freedom, gun rights, and privacy, but this once again shows that the Republican Party's self-interest comes before the rights of the people.

In contrast, I support Constitutional Carry, which several states already recognize without harm to the safety of their citizens."


Robert Sarvis' Issue Positions (Political Courage Test) - Project Vote Smart


Gun Issues:
No a) Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?
No b) Should background checks be required on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows?
Yes c) Should citizens be allowed to carry concealed guns?
No d) Should a license be required for gun possession?
e) Other or expanded principles:

Robert Sarvis' Issue Positions (Political Courage Test) - Project Vote Smart

I'll refer you to this thread. I highly recommend the linked article.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/322780-sarvis-a-libertarian-nope.html

 

[asterism]

I don't like the idea of the "Prebate" because it would be a check cut from the government and can be used as a "tool" to sucker people into voting for people who want to increase the Prebate.............. In my opinion, it's just a welfare check.

"8: Con: The fair tax increases entitlements. From Wikipedia:

Under the FairTax, family households of lawful U.S. residents would receive a “Family Consumption Allowance” (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services … Opponents of the plan criticize this tax rebate due to its costs. Economists at the Beacon Hill Institute estimated the overall rebate cost to be $489 billion (assuming 100 percent participation). In addition, economist Bruce Bartlett has argued that the rebate would create a large opportunity for fraud, treats children disparately, and would constitute a welfare payment regardless of need."

It certainly isn't a perfect solution but it does insure that poverty spending levels are not taxed. It's a compromise to shift the strategy from one of tax avoidance and playing favorites to one of increased growth and fairness.

I understand your point, but my approach would be to lower the overall percentage rate for the consumption tax and then let the States deal with how they collect taxes so they can contribute their share to the Federal Government.

Also a very good option.

 

[Pheonixops]

Ron Paul actually spoke on this subject, and it wasn't because he was a loyal Republican that he endorsed the Republican over the Libertarian candidate. It's simply that he saw what the rest of us saw in that Sarvis was obviously in no way shape or form a libertarian. Now I'm not convinced that that excuses his endorsement of Cuccinelli, but I certainly don't blame him for not endorsing Sarvis.

How is Sarvis allegedly " obviously in no way shape or form a libertarian"? Have you checked out his view on the "On the Issues"site?


Civil Liberties

I am committed to restoring and protecting civil liberties. As Governor, I will:

Protect freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly.
Reverse the militarization of law-enforcement tactics.
Reform asset-forfeiture laws.
Restore Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Restore voting and gun rights for those convicted of non-violent drug offenses.
Fight against federal overreach and government spying programs.
Restrict law-enforcement use of general surveillance technologies.
Protect internet freedom.

I believe an important part of restoring civil liberties is ending the drug war.

"I object to gun-control advocates who rhetorically and falsely equate "gun culture" with a "culture of violence." This is extremely misleading.

I also object to the Republican Party's attempts to get the information of all concealed-carry permit holders in Virginia. Republicans claim to be in favor of freedom, gun rights, and privacy, but this once again shows that the Republican Party's self-interest comes before the rights of the people.

In contrast, I support Constitutional Carry, which several states already recognize without harm to the safety of their citizens."


Robert Sarvis' Issue Positions (Political Courage Test) - Project Vote Smart


Gun Issues:
No a) Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?
No b) Should background checks be required on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows?
Yes c) Should citizens be allowed to carry concealed guns?
No d) Should a license be required for gun possession?
e) Other or expanded principles:

Robert Sarvis' Issue Positions (Political Courage Test) - Project Vote Smart

I'll refer you to this thread. I highly recommend the linked article.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/322780-sarvis-a-libertarian-nope.html

I counter with this:
"But this is too much. Let’s start with Austrian economics:

First, Sarvis writes for GMU’s Mercatus Center. Here’s his bio:

Robert is a native of Northern Virginia and a lifelong believer in freedom, free markets, and the rule of law. He holds degrees in mathematics from Harvard University and the University of Cambridge and a JD from NYU School of Law. During law school, he co-founded a libertarian and classical liberal law journal, the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, dedicating the first issue to Friedrich Hayek, and he has been outspoken in arguing against government regulation of the tech industry. Robert has worked as a software developer, a lawyer, and a tech entrepreneur, and his research interests span a wide range of topics relating to law, economics, and public policy.

And here’s Sarvis praising Frederich von Hayek in his 2011 GOP campaign for state senate:

His libertarian philosophy is reflected in his answer when asked about his favorite economist. Without pausing, he named Friedrich von Hayek, the Austrian Nobel laureate who taught at the London School of Economics and the University of Chicago.

“Hayek is someone who really influenced my thinking,” Sarvis explained: “How to think about problems that face national economies and how public policy can influence it in many unintended ways,”

Want more:

While a lot of people, such as talk-show host Glenn Beck, focus on Hayek’s 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom, Sarvis said he “was more influenced by his ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society,’ which was probably the seminal paper that won him the Nobel Prize, and also [volume] one of Law, Legislation, and Liberty, where he talks about rules and order.”

In addition to Hayek, Sarvis cites Adam Smith as an influence in his economic thinking.

“In philosophy, they say, there’s Plato and all else are footnotes,” he quipped. “I think that can be said more truly of Adam Smith than of Plato.”

Adam Smith could be what Sarvis was thinking when he was talking about mainstream economics. How about more: Go here for a book review on a series of essays on economics (I need it – all I recall from economics 101 was the pretty brunette I say next to all quarter!) by Sarvis.

I certainly agree that Sarvis mentioned the mileage tax but only as one idea among many – he did not call for it. And Sarvis did not call for the Medicaid expansion but rather reforms and decentralization of the health care system. It is a distortion of his views."
IS THERE a SMEAR CAMPAIGN against ROBERT SARVIS? | Virginia Right!

"As a Libertarian, Sarvis favors restraints on the size and scope of government. We’re comfortable with that.

"I realized that the Republican Party, at least in Virginia, in the current era, is not a good vehicle for liberty candidates," Sarvis told the Richmond Times-Dispatch in August. "Republicans are very strident on personal issues. When they talk about liberty, they don’t mean any personal issues, there is very little respect for personal autonomy.

"And on economic issues, it’s almost like they don’t believe in what they talk about. They talk about limited government, but they are just as bad as the other party at cronyism, raising taxes and growing government."

If there is one knock on Sarvis’ record, it is this: He has never held elected office. If he wins on Tuesday, he would have to navigate a swamp of partisan politics in Richmond."

Robert Sarvis captured 6.5 percent of the vote in Virginia's gubernatorial election Tuesday. The Libertarian's campaign was derided by some opponents as a dirty trick that doomed Republican Ken Cuccinelli.

Sarvis says that's not true.

"Am I an Obama puppet or am I a GOP puppet? I tend to think neither," he told U.S. News on Wednesday. "The GOP had a concerted effort to misrepresent my policy positions [and] this was one last-ditch effort to do so."

"Among the negative press Sarvis received was an Election Day article in The Blaze that reported the Libertarian Booster PAC – which gave in-kind donations totalling $11,454 to Sarvis, mostly for ballot petitioning – received $150,000 in January from Joe Liemandt, a wealthy Democratic donor who also gives to Libertarians.

[READ: Did Guns Help McAuliffe Win? Probably Not]

"The donor in question didn't donate to my campaign," Sarvis counters. "He donated to a Libertarian PAC well before I got into the race.""

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...l-gop-learn-from-virginia-26.html#post8120904

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If one wants to play up libertarian credentials while still being able to leave themselves room to insult Austrian economics then saying Hayek is their favorite economist is the way to go. Hayek can certainly be thought of as an Austrian school economist, but he could also be considered an apologist for government intervention of the market. He would sometimes take both positions seemingly in the same breath. As for Smith, he was essentially nothing more than a plagiarist with few original ideas.

I admit I didn't read the rest of your dissertation, so you'll have to forgive me for leaving off my response there.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Intense is going to burn in hellfire.

 

[Pheonixops]

If one wants to play up libertarian credentials while still being able to leave themselves room to insult Austrian economics then saying Hayek is their favorite economist is the way to go. Hayek can certainly be thought of as an Austrian school economist, but he could also be considered an apologist for government intervention of the market. He would sometimes take both positions seemingly in the same breath. As for Smith, he was essentially nothing more than a plagiarist with few original ideas.

I admit I didn't read the rest of your dissertation, so you'll have to forgive me for leaving off my response there.

Face it, a lot of these republican assholes spread false rumors about Sarvis and some people bought it. I think it's pretty ignorant for people to cal him a "fake Libertarian".

"In 2002, Sarvis enrolled at the New York University School of Law, graduating with a J.D. in 2005. During his time at NYU, Sarvis co-founded and became editor-in-chief of the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, a student-run, conservative-libertarian law review.[8] Sarvis was also awarded a "Vanderbilt Medal"[1] during law school for his work on the Journal, an honor reserved for those "who have distinguished themselves in their commitment to the Law School through their work in student groups, journals, or other Law School activities and events.
" He was a member of the Federalist Society while at NYU, helping sponsor events such as a legal debate "on the legal foundations and implications of recent lawsuits against fast food restaurants, gun manufacturers, and cigarette makers.""

"Virginia State Senate campaign, 2011

In 2011, Sarvis ran unopposed for the Republican nomination for State Senate in the heavily Democratic-leaning Virginia's 35th district. In the general election in November, he lost to Democrat Dick Saslaw, then the Senate Majority Leader, 62% to 36%. Sarvis was outspent by his opponent Saslaw $1,897,061 to $26,402.[21]

Shortly after the 2011 elections, Sarvis left the Republican Party, saying that "I realized that the Republican Party, at least in Virginia, in the current era, is not a good vehicle for liberty candidates. Republicans are very strident on personal issues. When they talk about liberty, they don’t mean any personal issues, there is very little respect for personal autonomy.".


Where's the "democrat connection"?

 

[asterism]

If one wants to play up libertarian credentials while still being able to leave themselves room to insult Austrian economics then saying Hayek is their favorite economist is the way to go. Hayek can certainly be thought of as an Austrian school economist, but he could also be considered an apologist for government intervention of the market. He would sometimes take both positions seemingly in the same breath. As for Smith, he was essentially nothing more than a plagiarist with few original ideas.

I admit I didn't read the rest of your dissertation, so you'll have to forgive me for leaving off my response there.

Face it, a lot of these republican assholes spread false rumors about Sarvis and some people bought it. I think it's pretty ignorant for people to cal him a "fake Libertarian".

"In 2002, Sarvis enrolled at the New York University School of Law, graduating with a J.D. in 2005. During his time at NYU, Sarvis co-founded and became editor-in-chief of the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, a student-run, conservative-libertarian law review.[8] Sarvis was also awarded a "Vanderbilt Medal"[1] during law school for his work on the Journal, an honor reserved for those "who have distinguished themselves in their commitment to the Law School through their work in student groups, journals, or other Law School activities and events.
" He was a member of the Federalist Society while at NYU, helping sponsor events such as a legal debate "on the legal foundations and implications of recent lawsuits against fast food restaurants, gun manufacturers, and cigarette makers.""

"Virginia State Senate campaign, 2011

In 2011, Sarvis ran unopposed for the Republican nomination for State Senate in the heavily Democratic-leaning Virginia's 35th district. In the general election in November, he lost to Democrat Dick Saslaw, then the Senate Majority Leader, 62% to 36%. Sarvis was outspent by his opponent Saslaw $1,897,061 to $26,402.[21]

Shortly after the 2011 elections, Sarvis left the Republican Party, saying that "I realized that the Republican Party, at least in Virginia, in the current era, is not a good vehicle for liberty candidates. Republicans are very strident on personal issues. When they talk about liberty, they don’t mean any personal issues, there is very little respect for personal autonomy.".


Where's the "democrat connection"?

The funding perhaps?

Surprise: Obama Bundler Bankrolling Libertarian in VA Governor's Race - Katie Pavlich

Libertarian Candidate in Va. Gubernatorial Contest Bankrolled by Obama Bundler | National Review Online

Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race | TheBlaze.com

 

[American4Americ]

If one wants to play up libertarian credentials while still being able to leave themselves room to insult Austrian economics then saying Hayek is their favorite economist is the way to go. Hayek can certainly be thought of as an Austrian school economist, but he could also be considered an apologist for government intervention of the market. He would sometimes take both positions seemingly in the same breath. As for Smith, he was essentially nothing more than a plagiarist with few original ideas.

I admit I didn't read the rest of your dissertation, so you'll have to forgive me for leaving off my response there.

Face it, a lot of these republican assholes spread false rumors about Sarvis and some people bought it. I think it's pretty ignorant for people to cal him a "fake Libertarian".

"In 2002, Sarvis enrolled at the New York University School of Law, graduating with a J.D. in 2005. During his time at NYU, Sarvis co-founded and became editor-in-chief of the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, a student-run, conservative-libertarian law review.[8] Sarvis was also awarded a "Vanderbilt Medal"[1] during law school for his work on the Journal, an honor reserved for those "who have distinguished themselves in their commitment to the Law School through their work in student groups, journals, or other Law School activities and events.
" He was a member of the Federalist Society while at NYU, helping sponsor events such as a legal debate "on the legal foundations and implications of recent lawsuits against fast food restaurants, gun manufacturers, and cigarette makers.""

"Virginia State Senate campaign, 2011

In 2011, Sarvis ran unopposed for the Republican nomination for State Senate in the heavily Democratic-leaning Virginia's 35th district. In the general election in November, he lost to Democrat Dick Saslaw, then the Senate Majority Leader, 62% to 36%. Sarvis was outspent by his opponent Saslaw $1,897,061 to $26,402.[21]

Shortly after the 2011 elections, Sarvis left the Republican Party, saying that "I realized that the Republican Party, at least in Virginia, in the current era, is not a good vehicle for liberty candidates. Republicans are very strident on personal issues. When they talk about liberty, they don’t mean any personal issues, there is very little respect for personal autonomy.".


Where's the "democrat connection"?

The funding perhaps?

Surprise: Obama Bundler Bankrolling Libertarian in VA Governor's Race - Katie Pavlich

Libertarian Candidate in Va. Gubernatorial Contest Bankrolled by Obama Bundler | National Review Online

Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race | TheBlaze.com

These links give the true story! What libs don't want to hear!

 

[Billy000]

Face it, a lot of these republican assholes spread false rumors about Sarvis and some people bought it. I think it's pretty ignorant for people to cal him a "fake Libertarian".

"In 2002, Sarvis enrolled at the New York University School of Law, graduating with a J.D. in 2005. During his time at NYU, Sarvis co-founded and became editor-in-chief of the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, a student-run, conservative-libertarian law review.[8] Sarvis was also awarded a "Vanderbilt Medal"[1] during law school for his work on the Journal, an honor reserved for those "who have distinguished themselves in their commitment to the Law School through their work in student groups, journals, or other Law School activities and events.
" He was a member of the Federalist Society while at NYU, helping sponsor events such as a legal debate "on the legal foundations and implications of recent lawsuits against fast food restaurants, gun manufacturers, and cigarette makers.""

"Virginia State Senate campaign, 2011

In 2011, Sarvis ran unopposed for the Republican nomination for State Senate in the heavily Democratic-leaning Virginia's 35th district. In the general election in November, he lost to Democrat Dick Saslaw, then the Senate Majority Leader, 62% to 36%. Sarvis was outspent by his opponent Saslaw $1,897,061 to $26,402.[21]

Shortly after the 2011 elections, Sarvis left the Republican Party, saying that "I realized that the Republican Party, at least in Virginia, in the current era, is not a good vehicle for liberty candidates. Republicans are very strident on personal issues. When they talk about liberty, they don’t mean any personal issues, there is very little respect for personal autonomy.".


Where's the "democrat connection"?

The funding perhaps?

Surprise: Obama Bundler Bankrolling Libertarian in VA Governor's Race - Katie Pavlich

Libertarian Candidate in Va. Gubernatorial Contest Bankrolled by Obama Bundler | National Review Online

Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race | TheBlaze.com

These links give the true story! What libs don't want to hear!

I don't get it. Why should I be bothered by this? Who the hell cares if he did?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The funding perhaps?

Surprise: Obama Bundler Bankrolling Libertarian in VA Governor's Race - Katie Pavlich

Libertarian Candidate in Va. Gubernatorial Contest Bankrolled by Obama Bundler | National Review Online

Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race | TheBlaze.com

These links give the true story! What libs don't want to hear!

I don't get it. Why should I be bothered by this? Who the hell cares if he did?

Because you would be whining right now if the opposite had been true. Cue the hypocrisy.

 

[Pheonixops]

If one wants to play up libertarian credentials while still being able to leave themselves room to insult Austrian economics then saying Hayek is their favorite economist is the way to go. Hayek can certainly be thought of as an Austrian school economist, but he could also be considered an apologist for government intervention of the market. He would sometimes take both positions seemingly in the same breath. As for Smith, he was essentially nothing more than a plagiarist with few original ideas.

I admit I didn't read the rest of your dissertation, so you'll have to forgive me for leaving off my response there.

Face it, a lot of these republican assholes spread false rumors about Sarvis and some people bought it. I think it's pretty ignorant for people to cal him a "fake Libertarian".

"In 2002, Sarvis enrolled at the New York University School of Law, graduating with a J.D. in 2005. During his time at NYU, Sarvis co-founded and became editor-in-chief of the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, a student-run, conservative-libertarian law review.[8] Sarvis was also awarded a "Vanderbilt Medal"[1] during law school for his work on the Journal, an honor reserved for those "who have distinguished themselves in their commitment to the Law School through their work in student groups, journals, or other Law School activities and events.
" He was a member of the Federalist Society while at NYU, helping sponsor events such as a legal debate "on the legal foundations and implications of recent lawsuits against fast food restaurants, gun manufacturers, and cigarette makers.""

"Virginia State Senate campaign, 2011

In 2011, Sarvis ran unopposed for the Republican nomination for State Senate in the heavily Democratic-leaning Virginia's 35th district. In the general election in November, he lost to Democrat Dick Saslaw, then the Senate Majority Leader, 62% to 36%. Sarvis was outspent by his opponent Saslaw $1,897,061 to $26,402.[21]

Shortly after the 2011 elections, Sarvis left the Republican Party, saying that "I realized that the Republican Party, at least in Virginia, in the current era, is not a good vehicle for liberty candidates. Republicans are very strident on personal issues. When they talk about liberty, they don’t mean any personal issues, there is very little respect for personal autonomy.".


Where's the "democrat connection"?

The funding perhaps?

Surprise: Obama Bundler Bankrolling Libertarian in VA Governor's Race - Katie Pavlich

Libertarian Candidate in Va. Gubernatorial Contest Bankrolled by Obama Bundler | National Review Online

Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race | TheBlaze.com

I'm not surprised that those sources you quoted only gave a skewed version of the total truth.

"Among the negative press Sarvis received was an Election Day article in The Blaze that reported the Libertarian Booster PAC – which gave in-kind donations totalling $11,454 to Sarvis, mostly for ballot petitioning – received $150,000 in January from Joe Liemandt, a wealthy Democratic donor who also gives to Libertarians.

[READ: Did Guns Help McAuliffe Win? Probably Not]

"The donor in question didn't donate to my campaign," Sarvis counters. "He donated to a Libertarian PAC well before I got into the race."

That $11,454 Sarvis received was from the Libertarian PAC and NOT from Liemandt. The way some of those sources present the story is bogus and they try to imply that he was "bankrolled" by a Democrat. Too funny!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If one wants to play up libertarian credentials while still being able to leave themselves room to insult Austrian economics then saying Hayek is their favorite economist is the way to go. Hayek can certainly be thought of as an Austrian school economist, but he could also be considered an apologist for government intervention of the market. He would sometimes take both positions seemingly in the same breath. As for Smith, he was essentially nothing more than a plagiarist with few original ideas.

I admit I didn't read the rest of your dissertation, so you'll have to forgive me for leaving off my response there.

Face it, a lot of these republican assholes spread false rumors about Sarvis and some people bought it. I think it's pretty ignorant for people to cal him a "fake Libertarian".

"In 2002, Sarvis enrolled at the New York University School of Law, graduating with a J.D. in 2005. During his time at NYU, Sarvis co-founded and became editor-in-chief of the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, a student-run, conservative-libertarian law review.[8] Sarvis was also awarded a "Vanderbilt Medal"[1] during law school for his work on the Journal, an honor reserved for those "who have distinguished themselves in their commitment to the Law School through their work in student groups, journals, or other Law School activities and events.
" He was a member of the Federalist Society while at NYU, helping sponsor events such as a legal debate "on the legal foundations and implications of recent lawsuits against fast food restaurants, gun manufacturers, and cigarette makers.""

"Virginia State Senate campaign, 2011

In 2011, Sarvis ran unopposed for the Republican nomination for State Senate in the heavily Democratic-leaning Virginia's 35th district. In the general election in November, he lost to Democrat Dick Saslaw, then the Senate Majority Leader, 62% to 36%. Sarvis was outspent by his opponent Saslaw $1,897,061 to $26,402.[21]

Shortly after the 2011 elections, Sarvis left the Republican Party, saying that "I realized that the Republican Party, at least in Virginia, in the current era, is not a good vehicle for liberty candidates. Republicans are very strident on personal issues. When they talk about liberty, they don’t mean any personal issues, there is very little respect for personal autonomy.".


Where's the "democrat connection"?

Did you not read the article I linked to?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Face it, a lot of these republican assholes spread false rumors about Sarvis and some people bought it. I think it's pretty ignorant for people to cal him a "fake Libertarian".

"In 2002, Sarvis enrolled at the New York University School of Law, graduating with a J.D. in 2005. During his time at NYU, Sarvis co-founded and became editor-in-chief of the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, a student-run, conservative-libertarian law review.[8] Sarvis was also awarded a "Vanderbilt Medal"[1] during law school for his work on the Journal, an honor reserved for those "who have distinguished themselves in their commitment to the Law School through their work in student groups, journals, or other Law School activities and events.
" He was a member of the Federalist Society while at NYU, helping sponsor events such as a legal debate "on the legal foundations and implications of recent lawsuits against fast food restaurants, gun manufacturers, and cigarette makers.""

"Virginia State Senate campaign, 2011

In 2011, Sarvis ran unopposed for the Republican nomination for State Senate in the heavily Democratic-leaning Virginia's 35th district. In the general election in November, he lost to Democrat Dick Saslaw, then the Senate Majority Leader, 62% to 36%. Sarvis was outspent by his opponent Saslaw $1,897,061 to $26,402.[21]

Shortly after the 2011 elections, Sarvis left the Republican Party, saying that "I realized that the Republican Party, at least in Virginia, in the current era, is not a good vehicle for liberty candidates. Republicans are very strident on personal issues. When they talk about liberty, they don’t mean any personal issues, there is very little respect for personal autonomy.".


Where's the "democrat connection"?

The funding perhaps?

Surprise: Obama Bundler Bankrolling Libertarian in VA Governor's Race - Katie Pavlich

Libertarian Candidate in Va. Gubernatorial Contest Bankrolled by Obama Bundler | National Review Online

Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race | TheBlaze.com

I'm not surprised that those sources you quoted only gave a skewed version of the total truth.

"Among the negative press Sarvis received was an Election Day article in The Blaze that reported the Libertarian Booster PAC – which gave in-kind donations totalling $11,454 to Sarvis, mostly for ballot petitioning – received $150,000 in January from Joe Liemandt, a wealthy Democratic donor who also gives to Libertarians.

[READ: Did Guns Help McAuliffe Win? Probably Not]

"The donor in question didn't donate to my campaign," Sarvis counters. "He donated to a Libertarian PAC well before I got into the race."

That $11,454 Sarvis received was from the Libertarian PAC and NOT from Liemandt. The way some of those sources present the story is bogus and they try to imply that he was "bankrolled" by a Democrat. Too funny!!!

Being bankrolled by a pac bankrolled by a Democrat is the same thing.

 

[kaz]

Libertarians aren't necessarily pro-choice.

Yes, my brother and I agree on most issues, but abortion is a big exception. He's pro-life, I'm pro-choice.

While I recognize what you say is true, I still don't grasp how a libertarian can think it's the role of government to force a woman to carry a baby to term. And most libertarians don't think that. But it's definitely true that some do.

Well if they think that abortion is the same as taking a life then it's easy to see how a libertarian could be pro-life the same way they might support the government making laws against murder.

1) There is no intent to "kill" with abortion. The intent is to not have a baby in her body.

2) Not murdering someone just involves not committing the act of murdering them. Not having an abortion means she is required to carry the baby to term. What other law does government not only tell you what you can't do (e.g., shoot someone, take drugs, steal), but what you must do (continue to carry the baby)?

3) Even if you personally view it that way, there is clearly no consensus among society. They are falling into the liberal trap of the solution being government. Nobody is going to carry a fetus to term because a politician says so. Which means it's a poor solution. What about taking personal responsibility and offering women options, education and support? Government is the worst solution to any problem.

3a) And carrying on from 3, we once again are training people to not respect the law. Not shooting someone else people grasp universially as wrong. Government telling you what to do with your body they don't. The more we learn not to respect the law because the law is not respect worthy, the more we don't respect it in any way.

 

[kaz]

Yes, my brother and I agree on most issues, but abortion is a big exception. He's pro-life, I'm pro-choice.

While I recognize what you say is true, I still don't grasp how a libertarian can think it's the role of government to force a woman to carry a baby to term. And most libertarians don't think that. But it's definitely true that some do.

Then there's the Harry Browne school: Personally pro life, with the recognition that if abortion were outlawed, men would probably find a way to get one.

The pro-life libertarian might respond that men find a way to kill one another despite the law and despite the fact that nobody thinks that laws against murder ought to be repealed on this basis.

Even murderers know murder is wrong, which is why they lie about it. And not just to the police. Pro-life libertarians should take personal responsibility to fight abortion and not believe that roughly half the country should force their will on the other half by running to government and using the force of guns. A libertarian should know better.

 

[kaz]

Then there's the Harry Browne school: Personally pro life, with the recognition that if abortion were outlawed, men would probably find a way to get one.

The pro-life libertarian might respond that men find a way to kill one another despite the law and despite the fact that nobody thinks that laws against murder ought to be repealed on this basis.

True as that may be, there are few libertarians who don't believe Roe to be horribly bad law, no matter which camp they're in.

Agreed. I'm obviously pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination. Abortion is not in the Constitution no matter how you slice it, it was legislation from the bench pure and simple. That means it's the States or better yet to the people. The Federal government has no say on abortion at all.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, my brother and I agree on most issues, but abortion is a big exception. He's pro-life, I'm pro-choice.

While I recognize what you say is true, I still don't grasp how a libertarian can think it's the role of government to force a woman to carry a baby to term. And most libertarians don't think that. But it's definitely true that some do.

Well if they think that abortion is the same as taking a life then it's easy to see how a libertarian could be pro-life the same way they might support the government making laws against murder.

1) There is no intent to "kill" with abortion. The intent is to not have a baby in her body.

2) Not murdering someone just involves not committing the act of murdering them. Not having an abortion means she is required to carry the baby to term. What other law does government not only tell you what you can't do (e.g., shoot someone, take drugs, steal), but what you must do (continue to carry the baby)?

3) Even if you personally view it that way, there is clearly no consensus among society. They are falling into the liberal trap of the solution being government. Nobody is going to carry a fetus to term because a politician says so. Which means it's a poor solution. What about taking personal responsibility and offering women options, education and support? Government is the worst solution to any problem.

3a) And carrying on from 3, we once again are training people to not respect the law. Not shooting someone else people grasp universially as wrong. Government telling you what to do with your body they don't. The more we learn not to respect the law because the law is not respect worthy, the more we don't respect it in any way.

I'm not saying that these are my positions, necessarily. I, unfortunately, am undecided on the "issue." Though I obviously see no role for the government.

 

[kaz]

Well if they think that abortion is the same as taking a life then it's easy to see how a libertarian could be pro-life the same way they might support the government making laws against murder.

1) There is no intent to "kill" with abortion. The intent is to not have a baby in her body.

2) Not murdering someone just involves not committing the act of murdering them. Not having an abortion means she is required to carry the baby to term. What other law does government not only tell you what you can't do (e.g., shoot someone, take drugs, steal), but what you must do (continue to carry the baby)?

3) Even if you personally view it that way, there is clearly no consensus among society. They are falling into the liberal trap of the solution being government. Nobody is going to carry a fetus to term because a politician says so. Which means it's a poor solution. What about taking personal responsibility and offering women options, education and support? Government is the worst solution to any problem.

3a) And carrying on from 3, we once again are training people to not respect the law. Not shooting someone else people grasp universially as wrong. Government telling you what to do with your body they don't. The more we learn not to respect the law because the law is not respect worthy, the more we don't respect it in any way.

I'm not saying that these are my positions, necessarily. I, unfortunately, am undecided on the "issue." Though I obviously see no role for the government.

I understand you want to clarify, but I'm aware you're an anarchist and that you wouldn't support government involvement in abortion since you don't support having a government. I believe my phrasing was consistent with that.