Political Cousins
Earlier this evening, I put a post on Facebook asking GOPers if they would be willing to sign the same pledge I sign every time I renew my membership in the Libertarian Party, specifically
I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.
I did this as it continues to piss me off that certain Republican State Representatives and Governor Candidates can openly call for war against the US Government or support bills that would lead directly to such a war, and yet Libertarians are the ones that most people think of as crazy!
Anyway, as is typically the case, one of my somewhat-liberty-leaning GOP friends there put up a comment basically blasting me because we are “political cousins”. I responded by point blank telling him that if he advocated using violence to achieve his political goals, then we have NOTHING in common – and I mean that. The “Sexton Doctrine” is one of the absolute bedrock core values I hold. It is why I can endure so much abuse that honestly most people wouldn’t take.
Anyway, another friend who has known Tom for quite a while, Josh Spradley, responded to that same statement with this, which is what I really wanted to highlight with this post:
The GOP and libertarians are not cousins. GOP may claim libertarian sentiments when it makes for good crowd pleasing sound bites but in the end the GOP stands for liberty in the exact same way democrats do, the liberty for people to do and act exactly as they see fit.
Certain GOP members in the past have shared a lot of libertarian views, as have some Democrap party members, to say we are “cousins” is giving the GOP way too much credit for beliefs that it has never traditionally had.
We as libertarians are on a completely different, non-authoritarian, political spectrum than the left-right false duality. Every philosophy throughout human history has started out as “unrealistic” and unable to be “taken seriously”. People didnt just flock to Jesus Christ, at the start it was a radical sect of “religuous kooks” who dared to defy the status quo…look at them now.
Powered by FireStats
December 10th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I would agree to that non-violence pledge. In no way, shape, or form would I advocate (or commit) violence just so someone will agree with me. That’s cruel and it is inhumane. Any Republican (or any elected official for that matter) that would agree with or advocate a policy similar to that should be removed from office through the democratic process as soon as possible.
The only point in time where I would consider violence is when the United States has been converted into a totalitarian state where the Constitution is a document with no relevance and the Bill of Rights has been used by the tyrant as toilet paper.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Jeff,
Who is calling for war? I know that McBerry talks some strong words, but he is not saying that he will start a war with the federal government when he is elected. He is however taking a stand. If our governors are not willing to do so, what is the point in having state lines other than to be able to say that this is where the state of Georgia once was? My family has been on this soil prior to the War for Independence. Should they too have played nice in an effort to pledge themselves to not “advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.” I am not endorsing McBerry or calling for war; however, Kyle has an excellent point about the Constitution having no relevance if it is not defended.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:35 am
Bill,
Bobby Franklin called for war on Veteran’s Day, and at least two of McBerry’s “States Rights” bills will lead directly to war.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Jeff,
Bobby Franklin didn’t call for war. He said that in the future we may have to answer the call to arms here at home. Will that happen? I hope not, but it has happened before.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Bill,
His exact words were “let’s hope that someday soon maybe perhaps some will be willing to pay the ultimate price for freedom here at home”. I’m sorry, but there can be no other logical conclusion other than that he was calling for a Second American Civil War.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Jeff,
He could mean that perhaps someday people will be willing to fight for their freedoms rather than pledge not to believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.
Until someone says that Georgia must succeed, I don’t interpret their words as a call to war.
Donna says that Texas teaches that they were once a country and they can split the state up into territories and be another with no problems. A friend of mine also says that Texas votes often to decide if they want to remain in the Union. We are not even close to Texas.
I was helping my son last night with a test for this morning. They are teaching about the war with Britain for our Independence. You quote Josh saying that the followers of Christ were once thought of as kooks, but look at the Christian movement now. The same could be said of the patriots that took a stand. Look at us now.
I know my family’s history during the War Between the States. Believe me, Civil War is not what I’m after, but if the states do not protect the rights that are theirs as provided by the Constitution, the document and state lines mean nothing. I hope that laws proposed by McBerry, and the gun laws passed in Texas and Montana can be settled peaceably in the Supreme Court.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I generally hold the doctrine “when white folks are fussing, leave it alone.” lol But, this discussing is fascinating because our nation and region’s history has points where one person’s violence would be someone else’s self-defense or fight for what is perceived to be right . During my radical college years, my crew did not fully understand the peace and love views MLK held 30 years earlier. If you are at church and someone wants to blow the place up, you need to reach for your rifle—self-defense: plain and simple. During our extended cocktail hour (s), someone would pose the question “if we were still slaves and all the masters were having their annual meeting in the Macon Coliseum…and a gas line ran under the place…and you had a cigarette…” Is that terrorism or justifiable homicide. During cowboy movies, we cheered for the Indians.
After 911, peaceful Muslims pointed out to this Methodist that their scriptures clearly prohibit attacking women, children and unarmed men. Yes, there were times this summer when real concerns with political directions and spending were followed by what appeared to be thinly-veiled calls for the overthrow of this nation. At the time, the question was whether or not the GOP could harness that energy inside their movement or would the revolutionaries be a problem or third party—similar to MLK dealing with the Black Panthers.
At the end of the day, we are all Americans and vocal protest is a healthy part of the process. Every time I walked in the U.S. Capitol, I thought we must be a great nation to allow statues of leaders of the biggest effort to divide this nation (Lee, Stevens, Wheeler, Jeff Davis). I am not trying to erase history and will acknowledge Lee’s military skill but I am just saying. I going back to my rural hole to hibernate because you cats over here are rolling with the big dogs….I better stay on the porch.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Jeff we have had this talk before. You say the only logical conclusion is he is calling for another civil war. I can agree with that in part. That does not mean an armed conflict.
For me it comes down to two things. The first one is defense. If our elected officials at the State level refuse to defend our rights then what? The status quo seems to indicate consent in large part by the States. I believe that if the States would begin to stand up to the Federal Government we the people will see some positive changes. Absent some action by the State we are left with two options. One would be to take up arms. (Really bad idea, crazy in fact) The other,(which is what I believe Bobby was hoping for) is that we the people come to the point that we are willing to risk it all and refuse to CONSENT! We hear alot of talk by many self proclaimed patriots and we see very little action. They continue to go along to get along hoping to change the system from within. That approach has not worked in well over 200 years and I see no reason to think it will begin to work now.
Just as Will points out in his post. We can learn alot from Dr. King.We can overcome but it will take actions not just words and elections to restore our liberty and the rule of law.We need to drop the identity politics and realize that our problems are human rights problems not republican or democrat problems. We have been playing the same old tired game of left right for decades. Should we now have faith in a different result?