Tag Archives: libertarian

Give MoveOn a Piece of Your Mind

1 Reply

Whether you agree or disagree with MoveOn‘s political motivations, you shouldn’t miss the golden opportunity to give them a piece of your mind. They’ve posted three-question, open-ended (free text) survey to the web and are soliciting opinions.

  1. Share with us what you personally are thinking today. What is going through your head?
  2. What do you think Moveon.org should do next — either right away or between now and Election Day?
  3. Have you thought about what you personally want to do to help before Election Day? Do you have anything in particular in mind?
    Is there anything MoveOn as an organization can do to help you do that?

I’m sure they’re expecting an echo chamber of typical liberal talking points. Let’s give them something better, though. Let’s tell them all about Ron Paul’s message of returning to the libertarian and sound economic principles our constitutional republic was found on! C’mon, r3volutionaries, let’s tell MoveOn what we’re thinking!

P.S. If you’re not a Ron Paul supporter, that’s fine. Answer the survey anyway, especially if you’re not part of their assumed demographic. 🙂

Pittsburgh Domestic Registry a Good Idea

7 Replies

Pittsburgh City Councilman Bruce Kraus has introduced a proposal to City Council that would take a step toward getting the State out of the marriage business by setting up a “domestic registry“.

Continue reading →

Dr. Paul May Do Harm

5 Replies

On 21 May 2008, “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” became law. Essentially, the act prohibits health insurance companies from denying coverage to someone with negative genetic makeup. This law is good legislation since it guarantees that everyone has the opportunity to enroll in or buy into health insurance to help improve or save peoples’ lives no matter what their genes may predispose them to.

If the legislation did not pass, many people with genetic issues would have to live without health insurance or live on the emergency room system (the general public). In addition, parents with children with negative genetic makeup would be forced to drop their children off their insurance. Some parents would probably even be forced to abort their children so they (the parents) could have insurance. (So much for safe and rare.)

97% of the US House voted for the Act. Ron Paul, a doctor, was part of the 3% who voted against it. Why would a doctor vote against it? Yes, with this Act the government is interfering in private industry, but with life and death issues, the government must intervene.

FD has suggested to me that the Act may be seen as another affirmative action law. I disagree in part. Yes, it says that the disadvantaged gets special treatment; in affirmative action law, minorities get to get into college. However, with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, the disadvantaged get to live. Insurance companies should not dictate that part of society at large must die to win a heavy bottom line (with blood).

What do you think of the Act? Why do you think Dr. Paul voted against it? (I thought he was OTAAC, or pro-life.)

Libertarians at Sea?

Leave a reply

A bunch of geeks are apparently trying to upstage the Free State Project.

Silicon Valley Nerds Plan Sea-Based Utopian Country to Call Their Own

“A group of super-rich Silicon Valley nerds are sick of the man keeping them down. That’s why they’re planning to create their own sea-based country made up of floating structures that will be similar to oil rigs, but with houses and offices rather than, you know, oil rig stuff on board. And this isn’t some conceptual plan; they’re looking to have their first prototype in the San Francisco Bay within two years.”

Libertarians at the Pitt News?

1 Reply

The Pitt News, like most college newspapers, is know more for articles written by liberals and libertines than libertarians. Nevertheless, in the last few months I’ve noticed several editorials that present or at least hint at libertarian ideals. Here’s a sampling. Give me your impressions in the comments.

Continue reading →