Austin Petersen for President

[Wildman]

I was more than a little surprised by this. Petersen's campaign has been making some pretty big leaps this last month:

Conservative Icon Mary Matalin Endorses Austin Petersen for President

By Mary Matalin


After a considered review of the 2016 candidates’ philosophies and positions, I am proud to endorse Austin Petersen for the Libertarian Party nomination for President of the United States.

Petersen has had a distinguished and dedicated career in advocacy for the principles upon which this unique country was founded and under which it has thrived.

In an ideal world, the GOP would continue to be the natural home of libertarian principles. In modern times, the Republican Party had attracted many citizens who consider themselves constitutional conservatives or Federalists. It was the party that supported the hard fought Jeffersonian/Madisonian vision of governance: minimum centralized governance, solid support for enumerated powers and state sovereignty, and above all, institutionalized provisions against infringements on individual liberty.

Unfortunately, both parties have decimated the first principles that made this country great over the last 80+years. The Democratic Party, steeped in progressive, liberal philosophy, has consistently fought for consolidated, centralized political power at the expense of individual self-determination. In recent years, the GOP has been less rigorous in providing a robust loyal opposition. Ironically, even though recent elections have produced a plethora of courageous constitutionalists under the GOP banner, the party has failed to enact policies predicated on the venerable principles of liberty enshrined in a Libertarian worldview.

At the heart of libertarianism is a devotion to individual freedom, the indisputable catalyst for the greatest leap in human history. With freedom comes responsibility, not just to not hurt our neighbors, but to fight for the principles and policies that promote liberty steeped in a natural order.

A natural order which above all respects the inalienable right of self-determination for every single individual, including the unborn citizen. A natural order which incentivizes growth through free market mechanisms; an order which institutionalizes enforceable, transparent regulations promoting interstate and global commerce by rewarding risk-taking entrepreneurs and penalizing corrupt crooks; an order that stimulates innovative adaptations to modern challenges.

To date, these values have been promulgated by none of the current crop of major party candidates. Unlike those presidential candidacies, Austin Petersen has, and can continue to, effectively articulate and promote these bedrock principles to a rightly angry (and sometimes uninformed) citizenry.

While Thomas Jefferson’s ideas on governance provide a model, his often-utopian aspirations have to be tempered by Madisonian practicality and Burkean adaptation to reality. Today, the same unavoidable conflict between two inherently disparate views of governance remains; the same conflict evidenced in the struggle for ratification of the Constitution and highlighted in the campaign of 1800, which resulted in a two party system. Our country’s remarkable founding was never about a Party or a Person, but the glorious ideal of freedom applied to unruly human nature.

In these tumultuous times of domestic and global uncertainty, the country would be well served with Austin Petersen on the national ballot along with the two established party candidates. The times call for and Americans deserve a full-throated, clear, coherent call for the restoration of those principles our Founders divined and their progeny refined. Austin Petersen is a courageous adherent of and best represents Jefferson’s inviolate first principle: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.



Mary Joe Matalin is an American political consultant well known for her work with the Republican Party. She has served under President Ronald Reagan, was campaign director for George H.W. Bush, was an assistant to President George W. Bush, and counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney until 2003. Matalin has been chief editor of Threshold Editions, a conservative publishing imprint at Simon & Schuster, since March 2005. She is married to Democratic political consultantJames Carville. She appears in the award-winning documentary film Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story and also played herself, opposite her husband, James Carville,John Slattery, and Mary McCormack in the short lived HBO series K Street.



Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ma...#ixzz49eG0xVr5
Follow us: @TheLibRepublic on Twitter

[Wildman]

[edwardv]

I like libertarians I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries twice. I can't stand Beck. Is Levin going libertarian too? I know Limbaugh is not. How about Maddow or any of the left talking heads hell this guy is more liberal in many ways than Hillary or Trump but with sanity. If he garners enough votes ala Perot he could swing the election either way depending on if he gets the Bernie voters or the anti Trump repubs.

[rocknblues81]

I watched part if it. I agree with what he says about the socialists take this country bit by bit. They understand that it's a battle of inches and that's why they call for small gun control now. They'll want more in the future because that is their game. That's why I'm so mad at them. It's others that don't seem to comprehend this and they think I should just try to get along with these people and compromise.

[Get The Show On The Road]

I watched part if it. I agree with what he says about the socialists take this country bit by bit. They understand that it's a battle of inches and that's why they call for small gun control now. They'll want more in the future because that is their game. That's why I'm so mad at them. It's others that don't seem to comprehend this and they think I should just try to get along with these people and compromise.

You cannot compromise with these people, and that's the problem. Their view of life is incompatible with personal liberty and freedom.

How more people don't understand this us a mystery to me.

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

That's why the NRA takes the position they do. The left gets to feign ignorance because the ones who do want to ban guns know they can't yet admit it.

[Get The Show On The Road]

That's why the NRA takes the position they do. The left gets to feign ignorance because the ones who do want to ban guns know they can't yet admit it.

Exactly. How do you "compromise" with someone that wants to completely ban firearms? You can't. In that scenario (and I can think of many others) one side gets its way and the other side doesn't. You can't compromise when someone's idea of compromise is "zero."

[rocknblues81]

I just took the Isidewith thing again... Results:

I agree with

John McAfee: 96%
Darryl W/ Perry: 96%
Mark Feldmen: 91%
Kevin McCormick 91%
Gary Johnson 90%
Austen Petersen: 89%


It says that I'm slightly to the right of being a centrist Libertarian.

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

I just took the Isidewith thing again... Results:

I agree with

John McAfee: 96%
Darryl W/ Perry: 96%
Mark Feldmen: 91%
Kevin McCormick 91%
Gary Johnson 90%
Austen Petersen: 89%


It says that I'm slightly to the right of being a centrist Libertarian.

There is actually a much more direct test, one that makes you really decide between government control and individual choice. It was created by David Boaz, the executive VP of the Cato Institute.

It's very quick and you can take it here.

Before you take it, I need to explain one question. There is a question about driving a cab without a license. He doesn't mean driver license, he means a government license/medallion to pick up passengers and take them places--government limits those.

[Get The Show On The Road]

There is actually a much more direct test, one that makes you really decide between government control and individual choice. It was created by David Boaz, the executive VP of the Cato Institute.

It's very quick and you can take it here.

Before you take it, I need to explain one question. There is a question about driving a cab without a license. He doesn't mean driver license, he means a government license/medallion to pick up passengers and take them places--government limits those.

Heh, I answered "you" on every question.

I'm not sure how any grown man or woman would answer differently, but whatever.

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

Heh, I answered "you" on every question.

I'm not sure how any grown man or woman would answer differently, but whatever.

Me too, and people shit on this quiz because they don't like the result they get. "It's too simplistic." "Life isn't black and white; it's shades of gray." I have heard them all.

This goes back to most people not having a coherent political philosophy, often times because they aren't really challenged on it. When Motherload asked me what was so important about philosophy and consistency, I gave him a baseball analogy. The point of playing baseball is to have fun, and we have rules to keep the game structured. That's where I am.

But what would happen if the umpire decided the batting team's best hitter ought to get 4 strikes because it's more fun? But then when the next team is up, he says their leadoff hitter walks after 3 balls. Because it will make it more fun. Eventually, though, the game breaks down to the point where it's no longer fun because you've made these exceptions to make the game better.

I think a lot of people would answer "you" on those questions. But then they wouldn't like what that means, and aren't willing to consider it.

[It's Mike]

There is actually a much more direct test, one that makes you really decide between government control and individual choice. It was created by David Boaz, the executive VP of the Cato Institute.

It's very quick and you can take it here.

Before you take it, I need to explain one question. There is a question about driving a cab without a license. He doesn't mean driver license, he means a government license/medallion to pick up passengers and take them places--government limits those.

I don't like how the quiz is written. As its big on the word "you". Should you be allowed to buy a gun? Well you,as in me, aren't the problem. When you ask it that way millions are libertarians. The questions are better worded as "everyone". Ask that questions that way (a more honest way) and the answers change dramatically.

Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

I don't like how the quiz is written. As its big on the word "you". Should you be allowed to buy a gun? Well you,as in me, aren't the problem. When you ask it that way millions are libertarians. The questions are better worded as "everyone". Ask that questions that way (a more honest way) and the answers change dramatically.

Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk

Even if you answer 'not sure' on several wedge questions like that, you still come out on that side of the graph. I think most people would think that way, and rightly so. The problem is that people can be easily persuaded to come to the authoritarian side of that graph when you're told things are unfair or they use fear.

To me it is a good quiz to start a conversation because if you are leaning towards "you" on something you otherwise are more authoritarian, it makes you think about where the line is.

[It's Mike]

Even if you answer 'not sure' on several wedge questions like that, you still come out on that side of the graph. I think most people would think that way, and rightly so. The problem is that people can be easily persuaded to come to the authoritarian side of that graph when you're told things are unfair or they use fear.

To me it is a good quiz to start a conversation because if you are leaning towards "you" on something you otherwise are more authoritarian, it makes you think about where the line is.

But the word you is the deal breaker. Responsible people don't need seat belt laws and laws on insurance, etc. We need them for the fucking dopes who impact responsible people. I answered you on most of those questions, I'm nowhere near a Libertarian.

Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk

[rocknblues81]

There is actually a much more direct test, one that makes you really decide between government control and individual choice. It was created by David Boaz, the executive VP of the Cato Institute.

It's very quick and you can take it here.

Before you take it, I need to explain one question. There is a question about driving a cab without a license. He doesn't mean driver license, he means a government license/medallion to pick up passengers and take them places--government limits those.

Somewhere between 30 and 40 million Americans hold libertarian views. Are you one of them? Take this quiz and find out just how libertarian you really are!

Of course, very few people will have “perfect scores” in any one direction. Read more about libertarianism in the new book The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom, and see how closely you line up!


Your personal score is 100

Your economic score is 100

Libertarian
Congratulations, you're a libertarian! Welcome to the political movement that will change the twenty-first century with a message of individual freedom, economic growth, and equal rights for all. Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. Libertarianism is the movement that has consistently applied the promises of the Declaration of Independence of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to everyone.

You support high levels of both economic and personal freedom, and believe that people can make most of the decisions about their lives better than any legislator or regulator could. You're not alone—somewhere between 30 to 40 million Americans hold libertarian views on a range of issues.

Of course very few people will have "perfect scores" in any one direction. Read more about libertarianism in the new book The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom, and see how closely you line up!

That is what I got.

I don't find this to be a really good quiz though.