Please vote for Scott Brown

DD4RP — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:20:35 GMT

I am active in the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. I voted for Ron Paul, Donated to Rand Paul, am involved in the Campaign for Liberty, The Republican Liberty Caucus and other small government groups.

I have voted for Libertarian candidates for office in the past including Carla Howell and Kamal Jain. The Libertarian Party is always my party of choice when no Republican is running or the Republican nominee is not viable. I have not voted Libertarian in any race where the Republican nominee has received 40%+ of the vote.

I believe our best chance for success lies within the Republican Party. If the type of candidates we support cannot win a Republican primary, they will find it impossible to do so in a general election. Here in Massachusetts, winning many Republican primaries is not only possible, it's easy. Because the GOP does not field candidates for most offices, simply gathering the signatures necessary for the ballot is all that is needed.

In the United States Senate race, I believe Scot Brown can win. I have donated $250 of my own money to help him do do. Should Martha Coakley win nothing will stand in the way President Obama's big government socialist agenda. Senator Scott Brown would become the 41st Republican and allow a filibuster to be maintained without Democrat support. The stakes in this election are much too high to use your vote on another candidate and allow Martha Coakley to win.

Please consider voting for Scott Brown. Thank you for your time.

The case for morality and economics

seascraper — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:26:42 GMT

[irking every __massgroup I join]

The libertarian tradition in America is the best hope for returning the country to economic growth, by rebalancing the seesaw of rights towards the individual and away from the megastate solutions of the major parties.

But the growth will not lead towards "live and let live", in fact it will lead to a strengthened community morality that many libertarians may not be happy with.

Humans are societal beings, evolutionarily disposed to live in small communities of 150 or so. Even in our modern cities, it is unlikely that any one person can maintain a circle of acquaintances exceeding this number. In the prehistory of our species, it was vital for each person to go about cooperatively producing things to eat and places for shelter, and also producing the next generation. Sloth and laziness really were deadly sins, as was homosexuality. Even in our national history we find many examples of colonies which teetered on the edge of failure mainly because the early colonists avoided work.

So our species is called on to produce produce produce. The laws of our society therefore are geared towards increasing production. Laws against drunkenness, drug abuse, sex abuse and suicide, while variably unenforceable, exist in order to promote work and production, both economic and within the family.

This production is not just preferable but vital for our continued survival as a society.

Around 35 years ago we decided to disconnect our money from its physical anchor (gold), and not coincidentally we disconnected work from reward. You could make much more money trading oil or corn futures than actually pumping oil or growing corn. While our economy tanked and poverty and misery increased, we developed cultural coping strategies to make it morally acceptable to deviate from production both economic and physical. In truth, what point was there in working when a swing in the currency could destroy all your effort, and why have children when you were getting poorer all the time and wouldn't be able to feed them?

If at some point we re-establish the link between the dollar and gold we will find the connection between work and reward. In that case, the resulting society will not be more tolerant of deviation from the commandment to "go forth and multiply".

Gold Mass Group - Recent Diaries

Please vote for Scott Brown

The case for morality and economics