His twitter name is WalshFreedom

I know it is my principle problem with so called Tea Partiers. As a card carrying Libertarian I find several of their stances absurd in light of their supposed love of free markets, state's rights, and the Constitution. Let's review a few:

1) Common Core. These idiots do not get that the standards are great for this country, and each state signs up to be a part. It is the epitome of state's rights. They are electing to be a part of it. The standards are not a federal government mandate.
2) Abortion. A true Libertarian (and I am looking at you Ron Paul) would be ok with people's freedom to choose. But, if you really want to defend this on Constitutional grounds, then it goes back to a state's rights issues (where I stand). In no way does the U.S. Constitution speak on abortion. As such, the 10th amendment applies, and each state should decide on its own.
3) Drug legalization. My goodness, has there ever been an issue that makes no sense for the Federal Government to be involved in? The so-called war is lost. If you support individual freedom, then drugs should largely be legal and regulated by the states.
4) The Muslim issue. If you really believe in everything this country stands for, then freedom of religion should apply here. Our country was founded by folks seeking religious liberty. Live and let live.

Ron Paul has some Civil Rights Act issues and some issues with a newsletter. I agree with him on a few things but overall I think he's a fraud.

Joe Walsh sounds a lot like Kirk Van Houten.

Hub looks like him, Walsh sounds like him.

The Tea Party was unfortunately co-opted by far right Republicans. Ron Paul, all in, is the politician that most fits my beliefs. I disagree with his abortion stance, but that's about it. I also like his non-interventionist approach to foreign policy.

As for Libertarians and rules like fire codes, there are various schools of thought. I have heard pure Libertarians make the case for things as far fetched as private fire departments. I am no where near that. As a believer in the U.S Constitution, I want the Federal Government to have a limited role that mainly includes control of trade, the money supply, and national defense. All else is reserved for the states. While I want the states to restraint in the economy, I recognize the need for things that the private market cannot produce, like roads, a limited welfare benefit, police, etc.

It is tougher for me on things like environmental rules, civil rights, and food safety standards where I think we have to accept a Federal role in these matters. So I am not a purist, but I lean toward state's rights where ever possible.

At this point, I would simply be happy to see a sound money policy and balanced budget......

2) Abortion. A true Libertarian (and I am looking at you Ron Paul) would be ok with people's freedom to choose. But, if you really want to defend this on Constitutional grounds, then it goes back to a state's rights issues (where I stand). In no way does the U.S. Constitution speak on abortion. As such, the 10th amendment applies, and each state should decide on its own.

4) The Muslim issue. If you really believe in everything this country stands for, then freedom of religion should apply here. Our country was founded by folks seeking religious liberty. Live and let live.

Rauner has a chance to do things. One, he largely funded his own campaign. Second, you are correct in that he ran on an economic platform. And finally, it seems like there is a recognition by the political class that big things need to get done.

Freedom to choose to murder innocent unborn children? Is that what Libertarians stand for?



Freedom of religion is fine until the core tenets of said religion interfere with America's secular values and/or laws. For example, Some Guy, Sini, Ike, and I are forming a new religion where our sacraments are shooting heroin and sacrificing virgins. I'm sure you don't support our right to practice.

I'm not sure he ran on an economic platform. Not being Quinn was just about enough to get my vote and the vote of a lot of other people. He was very vague on the campaign trail.

I believe in the freedom of Muslims to practice their religion as I do with Mormons, Jews, Christians, Hindu's, Devil Worshippers, and coke snorting Ike's.

The abortion debate, like pornography, is best settled under a community standard approach. Essentially, each state should decide for itself where they stand. About half think it is murder and half think it is a medical procedure.

If it's murder, then why would you allow an abortion in the case of rape? In any case, the courts have ruled in such a way that is an acceptable and legal medical procedure. My point is simply that the decision should be left to the states to decide.

Exactly. The government is too involved in social issues when their focus should be on economic & financial issues.

One of the things that I liked about Bruce Rauner was that he ran on an economic platform & he had no social platform or agenda.
He understands what the priorities are for his job & this fucked up state of ours.

Addressing the nomination of Joe Walsh...he's a great guitar player. Not interested in his political views, but bless his heart for trying.

I think that newsletter thing was a hack job.

...and on the first day in office decided to put the brakes on medical marijuana licensing

Revenues are higher than expected in Colorado, since legalization. Maybe Rauner isn't such a great business man.

Do you also believe OJ was innocent? Doesn't take much research in this to see it is VERY likely that he either wrote or tacitly approved of the newsletters in question. Fortunately his time has passed so it really doesn't matter any more.