CAGW vs. WHTI

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), joined by representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union and The Cato Institute, yesterday released its report, "Border Security: PASS Card Fails on Cost, Privacy." (pdf)

The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, slated to go in effect in 2008, requires U.S. citizens and all travelers to show a passport or other document approved by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in order to enter the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (spp.gov) is supposed to secure the borders of North America and make it easier for citizens of the "North American Community" to travel within North America. But it turns out the real purpose is to make it easier for the government to monitor and control us, even as it in fact makes it more burdensome, not easier, to travel within North America. The CAGW Press Release says:

The PASS Card, or People Access Security Service, may be embedded with an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip that could be read from 30 to 50 feet away.

CAGW’s report questions whether the cost to travel, commerce, and taxpayers outweighs any benefit of the new PASS card. The federal government’s cost estimates have been notoriously low in similar projects. For example, the estimated cost of the REAL ID Act was $100 million, but current estimates are that REAL ID could eclipse $17.3 billion.

(But when has a government estimate not understated costs by at least 1,000%?)

"Your papers, please."

Freeman's Journal Candidate Survey

On Sat, September 2, 2006 1:27 pm, Greg Rothenberger said:

> Dear Mr. Craig,
>
> I'm the publisher of a website based in southern Indiana called
> Freeman's Journal. Currently, I'm focusing on independent and
> third-party campaigns for US Senate and Congress. I was hoping you might
> take some time to answer a few questions, and would agree to having
> those answers published on Freeman's Journal.
>
> 1. Why are you running for Congress?

I would only vote for a candidate that America's Founding Fathers would vote for. There is no such candidate running, so I had to run. This gives people like me someone to vote for.

So why would America's Founding Fathers vote for Kevin Craig and not the Republican or Democrat candidates? Top three reasons:

Abolishing the USA
Most Americans have never thought about what America's Founding Fathers would think about today's government. If they were to travel through time from 1776 to 2006 and see the government they created, the Founders would immediately begin overthrowing it. In no meaningful way can the federal government be said to bear any resemblance to the Constitution they signed. The Declaration of Independence says it is our "duty" to abolish any government that is as destructive of God-given rights as the government under King George III was. The British government was a benevolent libertarian Christian government compared to the Bush-Clinton regime, which is hostile, tyrannical and atheistic.

Most Americans are also unaware that the Bush-Clinton regime is in fact working to abolish the government created by the Constitution, merging the U.S. and Mexico into a new government which might be called the "North American Union" or "The United States of North America." I have described this incredible "paranoid conspiracy theory" here:

http://www.STOPtheSPP.us

It is not a theory, it is an on-going government program that even has its own
website: www.spp.gov

EDUCATION
When the Bible and voluntary prayer were taken out of local schools by the federal government in the early 1960's, one concurring Justice admitted that the Framers of the Constitution believed that teaching religion and Christian morality was the most important function of public schools. Most parents today agree with America's Founding Fathers. Kevin Craig passionately stands for parental choice and "the separation of school and state."

http://education.KevinCraig.us

Government schools train people to become slaves of the government.

WAR on TERRORISM

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796) [Washington's emphasis]

I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)

The U.S. federal government's entangling alliance with the Soviet Union, including economic and technical aid, enabled the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan. The federal government's entangling alliance with the Afghan "Freedom Fighters" enabled Al-queda to invade the U.S. The federal government's entangling alliance with the Shah of Iran gave rise to the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the taking of U.S. hostages, and justified U.S. foreign aid for Saddam Hussein when he was at war with Iran.

In short, the U.S. government created "terrorism." Most Americans are unaware of this shocking history.

And now the federal government wants to destroy our liberties to fight the enemy the federal government itself created.

Not a single person who signed the Constitution would stand for this.

>
> 2. Why are you running as a Libertarian rather than as a Democrat or a
> Republican?

The Republican incumbent will have about $2 million in his campaign war-chest for the 2006 campaign, and is the third most-powerful man in Congress. If I ran as a Republican, I would not make it past the primary to be running in the general election.

Republicans SAY they are for smaller government (in some areas), but Democrats don't even CLAIM to be for smaller government. Both parties believe the State is the Messiah, the bringer of Salvation at home and abroad. Both parties inculcate blind obedience to the state, and party members tend to believe all propaganda emanating from the Ministry of Truth.

"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent
state and defend the rights of the individual."
-- "Statement of Principles," Libertarian Party National Platform
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#sop

"I was just following orders."
"I need to feed my family."
These are the slogans of members of the cult of statism, who are willing to take up arms against their neighbors if ordered to by the government.

"I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving
political or social goals."

To become a member of the Libertarian party, one must sign this pledge. The Libertarian party is the only party of principle. This is why I'm a Libertarian.

>
> 3. What do you feel are the most important issues facing the United
> States today?

See above:
SPP
Education
"Woah on Terruh"
also:
Social Security -- fraudulent and unethical program, racking up trillions in debt; should be abolished/privatized.

More issues here, many of which are equally crucial, because each one logically implies many others:

http://issues.KevinCraig.us

>
> 4. Is there anything you would like to add that you believe people
> should know about you?

I am a Christian Anarchist.

I passed the California Bar Exam but was denied a license to practice law because my allegiance to God is greater than my allegiance to the State:

http://i.am/not-a-lawyer

Most people vote for bumper sticker slogans and political parties.
The only people who will vote for Kevin Craig are those who are willing to learn and think about the issues.
I am committed to continue learning about the issues, and appreciate feedback on my website, KevinCraig.US, or my blog, blog.KevinCraig.US

>
> Thank you for taking the time to respond to these questions. I look
> forward to hearing from you, and placing your responses in Freeman's
> Journal.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Greg Rothenberger
> New Albany, Indiana (USA)
> http://freemansjournal.net
>
>
>

Thank you, Greg.


Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
www.KevinCraig.US
blog.KevinCraig.US
www.STOPtheSPP.US

SPP = European Union

Let's examine some more deception found at the government's SPP website:

SPP Myths vs Facts

Myth: The SPP ["Security and Prosperity Partnership"] is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.
Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

There are two possibilities here. First, some high school intern was given the assignment of writing this. The intern knew nothing about the European Union being a model for "regional integration" of the Western Hemisphere, and so could say with all honesty, "I don't know anything about creating a North American Union modeled after the European Union."

The other possibility is a little more frightening: someone who knows the truth is lying.

The SPP represents the abolition of the United States and the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. and Mexico will be merged together into a new system of government, having legislative, executive, and judicial powers that will overrule those of the present U.S. Constitution. After the U.S., Mexico, and Canada are integrated, the nations of Central America and South America will be added, until the Western Hemisphere takes the shape of the European Union.

To doubt these claims is evidence of a love of America: "Our leaders would never do that!" But it is also evidence of an ignorance of the facts. Here are the facts:

The SPP was agreed upon by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin. Here's how President Fox described the purpose of his "partnership" with the U.S. and Canada:

Eventually our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes [such as] the future prosperity of North America, and the movement of capital, goods, services, and persons.
Mexican President Vicente Fox in a candid address before the "Club XXI" at the Hotel Eurobuilding in Madrid, Spain, May 16, 2002

Did President Fox speak out of turn? Did Bush gasp in horror when he heard the obvious mis-statement of Fox? Not at all.

Well-known supporters of the SPP, such as the Wall St. Journal, have also drawn the parallels between the SPP and the EU:

---

Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper....
Robert L. Bartley, July 2, 2002 Wall St. Journal editorial:
"Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?"

---

The SPP has been called "NAFTA on steroids." Concerning NAFTA, Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called the vote on NAFTA the single most important decision that Congress would make during Mr. Clinton's first term. Indeed, Kissinger acknowledged in the Los Angeles Times that NAFTA "will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere." NAFTA "is not a conventional trade agreement," he noted, "but the architecture of a new international system."

Soon after entering into the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" with Mexico, President Bush met with members of the European Union, and made it clear that the goals of the SPP were shared with the EU, and that the long-term goal is integration -- not just of North America, and the rest of the the Western Hemisphere, but ultimately integration of the EU and the "Free Trade Area of the Americas":

During the conversation our talks reminded me about the importance of our partnership and the fact that this partnership is based on common values and shared aspirations; a partnership that really has helped build a Europe that is whole, free and at peace. The United States continues to support a strong European Union as a partner in spreading freedom and democracy and security and prosperity throughout the world. My message to these leaders and these friends was that we want Europe strong so we can work together to achieve important objectives and important goals.

The goal is, of course, the "New World Order" which Dubya's father spoke about so frequently. As the elder Bush put it,

Half a millennium ago, Portugal and Spain helped chart a course towards a new world. Five hundred years later, European unity guides the way towards a new world order. Those early pioneers believed their mission was to probe the secrets of the world. Now we must explore the frontiers of common interest and common ground. The next horizon: a strengthened partnership between the United States and the European Community.
Remarks at the Departure Ceremony for European Community
Leaders Anibal Cavaco Silva and Jacques Delors, April 22nd, 1992

More facts about the EU can be found at the STOPtheFTAA.org website.

Have you told your Congressman that you oppose the abolition of the US and its merger with Mexico? Click the link at the top of this page: www.STOPtheSPP.US

More Canadian Opposition to SPP

In a previous post, "Canadians Against SPP," I noted Canadian opposition to the plan ("Security and Prosperity Partnership," [SPP]) to merge Mexico, the U.S. and Canada into a new "North American Union," or "United States of North America," or whatever it will be called:

Vive le Canada - Harper Not Just Americanizing, But Abolishing Canada

The title indicates that these Canadians fear that the architects of this merger are fronting for the American corporations they serve ("Americanizing"), but the greater danger, a danger that we as Americans face as well, is the abolition of Canada and the U.S. as sovereign nations.

The SPP is not just about trade, it's about creating a new government, to replace the government created by the Constitution.

Rep. Ron Paul on SPP

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has written an article entitled "A North American United Nations?" on his "Texas Straight Talk" website.

Report at WorldNetDaily.

Jim Rutz on Democide

Jim Rutz gave me a tip of the hat in his most recent WorldNetDaily article.

"Hitler murdered 6 million Jews," we often hear. But Hitler didn't dirty his own hands with the deed. Millions of Germans worked to murder millions of other Germans. "I was just following orders."

70 million were murdered under Mao, an extraordinary mass-murderer. But that only means that millions of ordinary Chinese were willing to murder millions of other Chinese.

It's the willingness to "follow orders," the willingness to initiate force against others, that Libertarians must be battling -- in the hearts and minds of millions of people.

This isn't just a political campaign for office that will end on November 7, 2006. This is a campaign for the next step in human "cultural evolution." Human beings must come to believe that it's not OK to be part of "the government."

A Neglected Anniversary

Thanks to Cato Craft of Radio Free Liberty for the reminder that yesterday was the 14th anniversary of the Ruby Ridge incident. I had never seen this video. More info.

"Remember Ruby Ridge" by Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice.

More SPP Deception

In my last post I introduced a new addition to the SPP.gov website: a "Myths and Facts" page that seeks to debunk all the "conspiracy theories" circulating on the internet.

In this post we'll consider another "myth" debunked by the SPP Ministry of Truth.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.
Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at http://www.spp.gov/, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

Let's look at the claim that the SPP "does not change our courts." This is deception. What the SPP does is set up "tribunals" that have the power to overrule U.S. Courts. This power already exists under NAFTA, and the power is strengthened under the SPP.

In April 2004, a NAFTA tribunal overruled U.S. courts in a dispute between a Canadian and an American firm. Chapter 11 of the agreement gives NAFTA courts power over U.S. Courts. Abner Mikva was a U.S. Congessman and also a federal appeals court judge, and is now a judge in a NAFTA court. Mikva commented on this provision, "If Congress had known that there was anything like this in NAFTA, they would never have voted for it." The attitude expressed by Mikva should awaken all of America's leaders to the sovereignty issue.

But it won't. Many "leaders" will simply go along with NAFTA courts. When the California Legislature passed a bill last year to help the state dispose of millions of scrap tires by recycling them into asphalt for road construction, Mexican rubber producers claimed this was a violation of NAFTA. Gov. Schwarzenegger, citing the supposed supremacy of NAFTA, vetoed the bill.

The government seeks to deceive us. It cannot be trusted.

Some people will criticize me for saying this. But John Adams wrote in 1772:

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government
ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the
public liberty."

Should libertarians have more confidence in their government? Thomas Jefferson, 1799:

Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power.… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

James Madison warned the people of Virginia (1799):

the nation which reposes on the pillow of political confidence, will
sooner or later end its political existence in a deadly lethargy.

Madison added in Federalist No. 55,

[T]here is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of
circumspection and distrust. . . .

Trusting government, having "confidence in government," is un-American. Having trust in the SPP-created North American Union and its organs of disinformation is suicidal.

SPP Deception

This past March 31, the White House (WhiteHouse.gov) posted a webpage entitled, The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: Next Steps.

Now this sounds like the "first" step or steps have already been taken, and we're ready to move on to the next steps. The first sentence of the webpage describes the initial step that was taken in 2005:

The three leaders of North America agreed to advance the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) by focusing on five high priority initiatives.

Those "initiatives" -- the "next steps" -- are then listed. Together with other documents, such as "Building a North American Community: Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America," which propose a new intergovernmental structure consisting of such institutions as an "inter-parliamentary" institution, "a permanent tribunal" "that would replace the ad hoc dispute settlement mechanisms that were in NAFTA," and other institutions that have an executive function, these "steps" represent nothing short of the creation of a new system of government. All those who did not sleep through Civics 101 can see the outlines of the three branches of government, which this new "Partnership" will create. A moderator (New York Times correspondent Anthony DePalma) of a panel proposing this new regional government structure summed up these steps nicely:

DEPALMA: Thank you, Bob. I won’t go over all ... of those recommendations, but among them are the North American advisory council, the creation of an inter-parliamentary group, and a permanent tribunal to deal with NAFTA disputes.

Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

These kinds of documents have recently ignited an explsion of controversy on the Internet among people who have been opposed to the idea of the U.S. and Mexico merging into a "North American Union" for over a decade, and specifically over the agreement reached in 2005 between Bush, Fox, and Martin to "establish" the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America."

It was only a matter of time before the SPP decided to attempt to defuse the controversy, or as a writer for the Kansas City Star described it, the "flood of conspiracy charges." So the official SPP government website now has a "Myths and Facts" page which attempts to refute these "conspiracy theories" with a series of "Myth vs. Fact" couplets. The first couplet sets the tone:

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

"What's all this talk about a new government?" they seem to be saying. "We never signed an agreement to create a new government! No agreement has ever been signed. This is all just a big CONSPIRACY THEORY!"

This is calculated deception. It is evidence of a fundamental self-deception on the part of the government agency or bureaucrat who wrote this webpage, or it is evidence of a malignant corruption of ethics.

OK, so it was a "Gentlemen's Agreement." Nothing signed. The White House website linked at the top of this post admits there was an agreement, and boasts about all the progress made along the path that was "agreed" upon.

Billy and his sister are fighting, and Billy pokes Sis in the eye. She runs to Mommy, "Billy hit me!" Billy says "I didn't hit her!" The next-door neighbor, who witnessed the conflict, confirms Sis' story. Under pressure, Billy confesses, "I didn't hit her, I poked her." And the Mexican, Canadian and U.S. governments didn't sign an agreement, so you don't have to worry about a thing, and shouldn't listen to all those crackpot "conspiracy theories."

I love the word "dialogue." Few words set off more red flags. It's perfect for this slimy unethical government propaganda. The SPP is not an "agreement," it's a "dialogue." Use that line in an SPP court ("tribunal") when Missouri Law is overridden by SPP laws, and your company is ordered to pay millions of dollars in fines.

We'll look at more of this unethical government deception in future posts.

Stop the SPP

Canadians Against SPP

In response to yesterday's press release by the U.S. Department of State, a Canadian group called Council of Canadians (www.canadians.org) has issued a press release of their own on the Vive le Canada website.

We believe that "deep integration", also known as NAFTA plus, will harm citizens of all the North American countries by limiting democracy and enshrining corporate rights over their rights.

Both organizations have an anti-business slant, but their point is well taken. The SPP is un-democratic in the sense that those who will make and enforce the laws are completely unelected and unrepresentative.

"No taxation without Representation" was a slogan of the American Revolution. Taxes are already being levied to pay for the people who are merging the U.S. and Mexico and Canada. Taxes will be levied to pay for the NAFTA Super Highway. A Mid-Contenent SPP "SmartPort" is already being built in Kansas City with somebody's tax dollars, without anything even posing as "representation." None of these people were elected or represent the interests of Americans or Canadians or Mexicans.

Most Americans have an excuse for not opposing the SPP. After all, the MSM (MainStreamMedia) has not been reporting on the merging of the U.S. and Mexico like they reported on the American Revolution in 1776. The MSM of 1787 published "The Federalist Papers" (as we know them today), a defense of the proposed Constitution of the United States, which prompted public debate before the ratification conventions in the various states. The MSM will not publish the papers defending the new government of the United States of North America.

www.STOPtheSPP.US

The SPP Coup d'Etat

http://usinfo.state.gov/ is a website that "delivers information about current U.S. foreign policy and about American life and culture. This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs."

Yesterday USINFO posted a news release entitled "Business Leaders Address North American Economic Competitiveness," announcing that something called the "North American Competitiveness Council" (NACC) would be meeting today in Washington "to define priorities and discuss specific recommendations for enhancing North American competitiveness."

U.S. President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Vicente Fox announced the creation of the NACC in March to provide recommendations on issues concerning North American competitiveness that could be addressed through the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

The NACC comprises high-level business leaders from each country who meet regularly with senior North American government officials ... to discuss the proposed priorities and recommended action items to be submitted to regional officials at the next SPP ministerial.

The U.S. section of the NACC, for which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Council of the Americas serve as the secretariat, developed a set of recommendations in areas including standards and regulatory cooperation, border security and infrastructure, trade facilitation and customs reform, innovation, external dimension and energy integration.

This demonstrates that the SPP, like NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA, are not merely "trade" agreements. What business does the SPP have in determining what forms of energy Americans will use?

In a related article, the scope of the SPP is hinted at:

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Mexican President Vicente Fox and U.S. President George W. Bush -- in Cancún, Mexico, for a trilateral summit – told reporters that the agenda of North America's Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) will be pursued through trilateral Cabinet-level meetings on trade, environmentally responsible energy policies, immigration, border security and technological innovation.

Public health and emergency management are key issues, as well, said Harper, explaining that in addition to cooperating on SPP programs, the nations planned to "develop a coordinated and comprehensive approach to preparing for a possible avian or pandemic influenza outbreak in North America."

In other words, no area of life is outside the jurisdiction of the SPP. It is not just a "trade" organization. It is a new government, to rule over the merged nations of North America, composed of unelected leaders.

What we are witnessing is nothing short of a coup d'etat.

http://STOPtheSPP.US

Why Incumbents Always Win

Here is an excellent podcast from Cato Institute on why incumbents always win, and why multi-millionaire Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman is no exception to this rule.

But perhaps here is a better explanation:

When asked to name two of Snow White's Seven Dwarfs and two of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices, 77% of Americans polled were able to identify two dwarfs, while only 24% could name two Supreme Court Justices.

73% of those polled [were] able to name all three of The Three Stooges, while only 42% could name the three branches of government.

And guess which ones are the ones who vote!

Campaign Wiki

I received a spam from the Wikipedia people informing me of the creation of a Campaign Wiki.

I have used Wikipedia before (as have many, I deduce, since so many google searches have the Wikipedia entry at the top), but have never contributed.

I spent a few minutes looking at the Campaign Wiki, and the learning curve is too steep for me. Anybody care to walk me through the process of creating an entry for my campaign?

http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Campaigns_Wikia

There is no Button

Here I began a discussion based of Leonard Read's claim that he would "push the button" to abolish the State. I responded to one critic of this idea here. I remain a button-pusher.

But there is no button to push. So how do we get there from here? Or, more concretely, how do I persuade people to vote Libertarian?

It is important (especially for button-pushers like me) to keep in mind that even some Libertarians don't want to get "there." They are afraid of pure 100% laissez-faire capitalism (i.e., "anarcho-capitalism"). There are really two questions here. Before voters ask "How do we get there from here?" voters ask "Should we get there at all?"

I want to get there. I would "push the button" to get there. I want a world free from the crime of socialism, free from theft ("taxation"), free from senseless bureaucratic regulation.

To get there from here, candidates and campaigners like me must keep in mind that most folks are trained to react strongly against the idea of eliminating all socialism and moving to pure capitalism.

This fear is so strong, that those who are perceived as really serious about cutting government and lowering taxes (rather than just mouthing off campaign slogans) are considered "extremists" and "fanatics."

The idea of pushing the button was called "stupid" here, in a post to a Libertarian group. A Libertarian group is where you would expect to find people ready to cut taxes and cut government. But even here you find that same emotional reaction to "anarchy." For those who are not members of the group and cannot read the post, here is how it began:

Okay, one problem here. If our principle is "no taxation" then do we have any government at all? Do we have a police force, military, court system, fire department. I'm just fine with not paying representatives (sorry to the candidates but if that's how we want it done, fine) but I rather like having a professional able to investigate crimes, a military to protect us from the islamofacists and I like my Logan Rogersville Fire Dept. I actually voted for the tax increase to pay for more firefighters, the first tax increase I've ever voted for (we are a growing area and my garden hose just isn't going to cut it if my neighbor's house catches fire). So are we against taxation? We cannot be. To be completely against taxation is stupid, and if you are completely against it then I'm not sorry to say that you are stupid. As a classical liberal I view the government as a necessary evil. It is evil, yes, but it is necessary and we must give it some leeway to maintain itself,

Three things must be said. First, we can have government without "the government"; order and safety without taxation.

• "The government" feeds the poor.
  But the poor can be fed without taxation.
• "The government" builds schools.
  But schools can be built without taxation.
• "The government" builds roads.
  But roads can be built without taxation.

All these things -- charity, education, and transportation -- were at one time provided exclusively by the free market, with no government involvement.

There is no social service -- the elements of what we call "government" -- that can only be provided by "the government" and its various systems of "taxation," that is, theft. A Free Market in these services would deliver these services at a lower cost, with higher quality and efficiency, without threatening violence to those who don't pay the government's price for them. Even the services mentioned above -- "a police force, military, court system, fire department" -- can be provided without taxation.

The question is, why should we? The answer is, taxation is theft. Taking money from people under threats of force or violence is immoral.

But the libertarian writer above believes that it is "necessary" to maintain a system of institutionalized extortion in order to have our disputes adjudicated, crimes investigated, fires extinguished, and Islamofascist aggression resisted.

We can have "professionals" providing these vital services, just like we have professionals treating sickness, preparing legal instruments, and drawing up blueprints for our homes or businesses, without having these professions nationalized, i.e., seized and monopolized by the State, and funded through extortion.

Notice that our libertarian above voted to increase taxes, rather than force the government to provide these services more efficiently at a lower cost. I can only suspect that if Libertarians think and vote this way, the public at large is even more unwilling to "push the button."

Why would the average voter even consider the possibility of voting libertarian? If "libertarian" is the fellow above, who votes for more taxes, why vote for him when Democrats and (especially) Republicans have proven themselves more than willing and able to raise taxes? They will win in an election, whereas the libertarian tax-hiker will lose. Why not vote for the winning party?

The only reason someone would vote libertarian is if they want smaller government and lower taxes. I mean, really want that. Surely people know by now that even though Republicans talk about smaller government and lower taxes, they're not really going to deliver that. The only possible reason for voting libertarian is that you actually want less "government," that is, more social services at a lower price through the Free Market.

But most voters do not want this! Most voters want more "government" because "government" means social services provided "free." The great advantage of "the government" is that it claims to provide the vital social services we want, yet without our having to pay for them. The real costs are either transferred to our neighbor, or postponed into a future we don't have to deal with right now. The popular perception is (1) only the government, and not the Free Market, can provide certain essential social services, and (2) somehow, I can benefit from these services without having to pay for them personally. "Something for nothing."

Before people will vote libertarian, they must be persuaded that (1) less government means a better standard of living for me -- in every area of life -- and (2) even if I could get something for myself by having my neighbor (or my grandchildren) pay for it, government extortion (or deficit spending) is immoral.

In other words, few people will vote Libertarian unless they're convinced that we must get there from here.

If the government has proven itself to be the only way to provide the most vital and essential social services, why can it not be trusted to provide services which are not as vital? Why all this talk about "cutting" an institution which has proven itself to be so necessary? As long as a voter believes that government is "necessary," the possibility of voting for someone who is committed to cutting government will be seen as "dangerous."