Nasty response from a Huckabee supporter

Send her a nice note and suggest that she is extremely misguided in her assumptions about Libertarians and that if she truly wants to uderstand her country she needs to read Griffin's book.

Or you can ignore her and take great delight that she will be one of those that hangs onto her equities as her beloved MSM lies to her and sells her hope. It will all be gone soon and she will wonder what the hell happened.

**Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. -Ayn Rand- **

Sometimes rejection with reason is helpful, or can be helpful for us to see how we are seen. We can change ourselves as to how we "come across" without changing our beliefs and positions. So, she did you and all libertarians a huge favor by telling you how she sees Ron Paul and all of us.

She wrote: "concern with you Libertarians is that while you're touting liberty, what most of you really want is license -- to do and have what you want, irrespective of whether it's right or wrong and how it's going to affect society as a whole."

So now we can do some self evaluation of our own rhetoric. Ron Paul ran all of 2007 and into 2008 with basically ONE SPEECH. So we should take the time to look at it, evaluate it, and improve on it. Yes, we do "tout liberty"...... buy why? This Huckabee lady, as well as millions of people like her no doubt felt and asked the same question, "Why he always on about Liberty? Why are they all touting Liberty so much? Mmm ...What do they REALLY, 'care' about?"

That is a 100% fair question because so many in politics have other agendas and rarely mean exactly what they say.

"What is our REAL wishes?"

She is very sure that what we do not CARE about is "Society". She is very sure that we have a selfish motive of our own.... perhaps to do drugs or abort at will or save and hoard our money.

Evolutionary psychologists are telling us that we humans have a built in way of choosing our leaders. We select those that seem or say they are the most Altruistic to our needs....society's needs. Sure, we recognize they have selfish motives, but if those seeking to rule us pander to the Good of Society, we will give them a listen.

So what is "Good for Society"? When you listen to libertarian Dr. Milton Friedman talk to the liberal talk show host, Phil Donahue years ago, there was something very appealing and enjoyable about the way Milton made his libertarian arguments. No, they would not have pleased Ayn Rand, but they did please most of us, even had Phil Donahue scratching his head.

I submit to you that Dr. Friedmen ALWAYS stated what was GOOD FOR SOCIETY and then went about explaining the BEST WAY to achieve what was GOOD FOR SOCIETY is to respect human liberty and property.

Unlike Ayn Rand, I do believe we have both an altruistic and self interest human nature. The nature of Man is made up of both characteristics and we call upon them, to use them, in regular circumstances. Politics is the world of the "Altruistic Call"... by this I mean, it is a battle of WHO the body politic thinks will do better for them. Certainly a Selfish motive on the part of the body politic, but the demands require the one seeking power to champion an Altruistic stance towards "Society" or the "tribe".

Ron Paul did show concern for "Society" and did worry about the saving poor. On that score he was average or below par and certainly his campaign allowed the MSM to Frame and Peg his positions in a less than flattering way. However those in the Revolution, like the libertarian party members, talked in a more self interested way, with no over riding concern for society..... thus we have a huge vocabulary gap or gulf between the way other political causes speak, and the way we speak.

But this need not be so, as Dr. Friedman's own "For the Greater Good" rhetoric attests. When Dr. Friedman was asked on occasion if a more free and open society did not lead to a better result for people, in that they were poorer and harmed by free trade, would he still be for it, he answered, Yes, he would still be for it, thus cementing his true libertarian bonafides. He choose freedom above all else. Dr. Friedman was always quick to point out that luckily, it never works out that way. We can have the best society, nicest, most honest, the kindest, and the most popular and wealthiest, all by taking care that each of us respect our human liberty and property equally. Dr. Friedman ask his audience to imagine the kind of society you would want to live in, for your children to live in. He described the society and then brought home the lesson that say, minimum wage would not help us in getting the poor a job, indeed it would take jobs from the working poor. And on and on the lessons would go, but always from the standpoint of What is Good For Society.

When a society (or tribe) thinks War is good for it, thinks plunder (taxes) are good for it, then it will work collectively to bring those things about.

But when a society believes what is best for it is liberty like Ron Paul talked about, it will make Ron Paul President faster than you or I can send a dollar into his campaign. So lets not forget where people come from, they come from the altruistic side as to what is "Best for society".

Treg

But I think this one is too closed minded and thinks she knows something. I ran into a few of those when I walked my precinct. But you are doing the right thing in handlng it the way your are. The sad part is that some people think that, because Dr. Paul doesn't favor a Constitutional amendment to solve every social woe, he is morally lax. They don't understand that the whole issue is about preserving freedom on the local level so we can control the gov't instead of it controlling us.

They want an amendment for abortion, and an amendment for marriage, all the while not realizing that this will legitimize the notion that the federal gov't has any role to play in these issues, which it certainly does not. That's how everything got so out of control in the first place!

How can you really blame the woman. If she doesn't get any education except that which is broadcast into her home, then how would she know any better. Just move on to the next person, perhaps all they need is someone to confirm what they already suspect. There is always safety in numbers.

I can point to several comments on this board that are way more offensive than anything this lady said. In fact, I think this is one of the more eloquent responses you can get from someone who doesn't like our candidate. She cited specific reasons and gave her opinion - how is that offensive?

Misinformed? Absolutely. She clearly has preconcieved notions about a libertarian philosophy. And she clearly doesn't understand that morality does NOT flow from government. It's the other way around - a peoples' morality dictates the type of government they create!

Yes, libertarians want license to do what they want (it's called Freedom), but not without regard to whether it's right or wrong. It is wrong to infringe on those same rights of other people.

I would just reply nicely and thank her for taking the time to respond to you. Just explain you weren't trying to be provacative, don't get into a debate, and just remind her that there are many, many social conservatives who support Ron Paul, despite the skewed reporting by the MSM. Point her to a resource, and offer to answer any questions she may have about your candidate.

This comment says it all...

"My concern with you Libertarians is that while you're touting liberty, what most of you really want is licence -- to do and have what you want, irrespective of whether it's right or wrong and how it's going to affect society as a whole."

She obviously has no concept of what liberty or freedom actually mean, and she's way too high strung to reason with considering she got all bent out of shape from you simply asking her to consider Ron Paul.

Some people in America think they are proponents of Freedom and have absolutely no ability to coceptualize it in a logical manner. They believe that allowing people to use drugs in their own home will bring down all of society. Forget about the fact that millions of people use them now.

Ron Paul was a OBGYN, and has delivered many babies.
Wants states to have right to decide if it should be legal or not,(which is Constitutional way) and doesn't and won't vote for legislation supporting abortion funding by the government.
His stances in this area are more conservative than any candidate on both sides of the aisle still left running.

Your message was spot on and her reply was spot-completely-off. I'd say just ignore her and let her go on believing what she wants to believe. This type of person has an insurmountable wall up in front of everyone and the only way you could ever reach her is if she climbed up over that wall to meet you, you'll never get over that wall no matter how hard you try.

I work in marketing and it's mostly a numbers game, when I run into someone who is especially ugly to me I just forget about and move on to the next one because chances are there is someone out there willing to listen who is just waiting for the call, why waste time arguing with a brick wall that you could be contacting the open-minded and willing?

That's how I see it anyway.

sometimes you just can't argue with retards. Waste of time and energy. Just ridicule them

...as those who will not see.

-jcr

on someone who hasn't made up their mind yet.

and your wasting your time.

"May America Bless God." She is a theocrat.

ya know.. the more I think about it the more i think she just has bad PMS....:) kinda like onvoiceofTREASON

why waste your resources? find those who agree with Paul, first!

THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost

Don't waste time on her. She totally brainwashed and indoctrinated by socialist media of NWO. Her self-deception is almost impossible to get treatmnet. Keep going with RP.