Via email.
Your Monday Message from the Libertarian Party:
Dear friend,
I was going to chat with today about what we really need to stimulate the economy.
But then Nancy Pelosi had to go and say children are a burden and a lot of the poor ones should never have been born.
In fact, she said it twice just in case you didn’t hear her the first time.
She was on ABC’s This Week last Sunday, discussing the Democrats’ $825 billion so-called “stimulus package.” The conversation didn’t really get interesting until host George Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi about some of the more ridiculous items in the package, like $200 million for contraception, and how that creates jobs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
So much for the notion that expanding government services fosters compassion.
Private charities treat people with dignity and love because their funds are given to them out of a desire to help people.
But as far as politicians like Nancy Pelosi are concerned, the poor and suffering are parasites feeding off a body designed to deliver votes and preserve political power.
Their numbers must be reduced to keep the host healthy. The only question is how many can you cast off without losing the votes you need to win re-election.
The lesson learned from Pelosi’s momentary lapse of honesty is libertarianism is a philosophy rooted in compassion and respect for your fellow man. The voluntary exchange of goods, services and charitable giving creates a country where health care and education are shared for the right reasons – because we love and respect our neighbors.
Compare that to the cold calculations of the government-sponsored welfare state. Born not out of compassion, but out of a desire to buy votes, the well-being of your neighbor becomes a mathematical calculation. How many can you serve without tapping out funds for people who can buy you even more votes? How many can you cast out into the street, or in Pelosi’s case prevent from ever existing, before they stop voting for you?
I’ve volunteered in homeless shelters, schools and my church’s food bank. I’ve never once heard anyone grumble about the number of people we help and propose we do something to prevent them from ever existing.
So as you go out into the world this week, take a moment to share Pelosi’s cold calculations with your friends. Would they rather a taxpayer-funded welfare state where the government begins controlling the population to keep the system from collapsing, or a community of volunteers who realize the poor and suffering are friends and neighbors in need of a little help?
The choice is theirs at the ballot box.
Live free,
Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian Party
[email protected]
Posted to IPR by Paulie
Matt Harris:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GrassrootsLibertarians/message/898
This almost looks as if it were designed to appeal to the Alex Jones conspiracy
theory crowd (they’ve been long claiming that the government is out to enforce
eugenics policies which were popular in the early 20th century, and which
Planned Parenthood founders were among the most vocal proponents of, primarily
for racial reasons.) At the end of the day, who knows? We’ve seen too much
whacky crap coming out of the national office in the past year to even begin to
understand, between Shane Cory calling for more FBI involvement in our nation’s
law enforcement efforts as a thinly veiled attack on Mary Ruwart, to polls which
describe protectionist mercantilist practices as being beneficial to American
business (hint: my Republican friends don’t think this!) I don’t know that the
whole ex-GOP thing is to blame. I can fathom a guess as to what I feel is, but
I’ll let you all take inferrences on that one rather than stating it outright.
😉
– Matt
Michael H. Wilson
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GrassrootsLibertarians/message/897
I have to agree with Theresa on this one. Mr. Ferguson may wish to read the
book Freakenomics ( Sp?). As I recall this issue is one that is looked at in
there and the conclusion was that an increase in abortions, etc lead to a
decline in inner city crime. That is probably putting my own twist on the
issue, and it has been awhile since I read it.
I can save you a dollar in taxes, but it’ll cost you a quarter in taxes.
Lot’s of issues out there maybe this on should have been avoided.
MW
Civil Liberties
Economic Freedom
Mike Seebeck:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GrassrootsLibertarians/message/896
Reading through this, I fail to see where Ferguson is getting out of Pelosi’s comments what his spin is on it. I don’t see Pelosi talking about children that should not have been born. What I do see is that Pelosi is pointing out that contraceptive (preventing conception, which is totally different!) funding reduces the costs on the state, which is entirely accurate even if we disapprove of the state funding part, simply because human bodies are a drain on the system as it now stands, welfare or not.
I see a partial parallel in the pet MSN debate I’m currently embroiled in (and recruiting libertarians in the process!). There, government, encouraged by the anti-property-rights crowd of the animal rights movement, want to force sterilization on all pets to elimiante them in a generation. Their theory is that doing so will reduce the cost burden on the state as well. Pet owners like me know that’s BS because these government animal control people are bad in management (among many other things!), but people buy into it nontheless. The partial parallel is that Pelosi is giving the same message and is also coercing our particiaption, except on humans instead of pets. The difference is that with MSN, nobody has to own a pet, while with what Pelosi is talking about, nobody has to go into the clinic. In both cases, taxpayers writ large pay for government programs or laws that are anatheme to Liberty in that it’s none of government’s business except by way of excuse.
In either case, it’s wrong, but Ferguson is making a leap of logic here that does not follow by mistakenly equating contraception with “buying votes”. He should have gone agaisnt the public funding as a form of welfare, which I think most if not all libertarians would agree with. But this, it makes for great nonsense.
Next from Theresa:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GrassrootsLibertarians/message/894
Absolutely agreed.
The prostitution laws are tied up in the family planning and other
sex-related laws and other conservative nanny state philosophies, though.
How many prostitutes have suffered because of anti-sex motivated laws
that demand organizations receiving aid condemn the work prostitutes
do… while misrepresenting the value of condoms? And how many
prostitutes have been arrested merely for being caught by cops carrying
condoms, which show that they’re trying to be responsible?
Again: with the economy going to shit, telling men and women they can’t
make money a certain way because somebody somewhere finds it offensive
is… well, offensive. To me, anyway.
But, that having been said, I don’t think the number of unplanned
pregnancies would drop much with legalized prostitution. Men would have
to actually seek out professionals instead of having sex with their
partners — and that’s not necessarily the dichotomy that we’ve been
presented with… especially not among a low-income demographic.
While I hear what you’re saying about abortion, I’m talking about birth
control… which makes abortion less necessary. The availability of
birth control has been one of the reasons abortion rates are dropping.
Making abortion illegal or more difficult to access won’t make it feel
like less of a necessary option for women, it will just make it more
dangerous. But making it harder for women to access affordable birth
control will certainly drive the number of abortions — and public
assistance requests — higher.
Or so say I.
— Theresa
Response from Mike Denny of SF LP:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GrassrootsLibertarians/message/893
Dear Theresa,
Personally I believe we would improve this situation the ridiculous laws against prostitution were repealed. This could provide more professional options for those inclined towards otherwise more irresponsible sexual activity. But we may just have to agree to disagree on the issue of abortion. Every crime against humanity begins with a strong person taking the position that the weak and defenseless are somehow inferior and that it doesn’t matter if their humanity is violated.
Best regards,
Mike
Theresa continues….
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GrassrootsLibertarians/message/892
FWIW, I am a self-employed woman with no insurance. I visited Planned
Parenthood yesterday so I could get some much needed medical attention
and was pleased to learn about various programs that could have helped
with the cost… had I not already had my tubes tied.
While we may or may not support government programs in any number of
areas, I believe that misrepresenting the importance of family planning
services, especially in the lives of low income citizens, is a huge
mistake — and one that we’ve had to suffer under for 8 long years.
With unemployment and lack of insurance climbing, insulting women and
those who want to help them minimize pregnancies, protect themselves
against fertility related illnesses and ensure that their born children
can receive a better life is not in our best interest… not that it
ever is.
— Theresa
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GrassrootsLibertarians/message/891
I got an email today from the LP raking Nancy Pelosi over the coals for
saying that helping hold down the cost of unplanned pregnancy was
fiscally wise.
WTF?
Instead of acknowledging that helping low-income women avoid unwanted
pregnancies is a wise course of action for everyone, this foaming at the
mouth Fox-News style rant insisted that Pelosi’s words meant she
believes that “the poor and suffering are parasites feeding off a body
designed to deliver votes and preserve political power.”
Am I the only one who finds that twisting insane?
Where I see compassionate assistance to women who want to take greater
control of their lives, the LP sees some kind of vote-based eugenics
program. Donny Ferguson even tries to bolster his lame ass argument by
saying he’s never heard a private care worker complain about the number
of people an organization is helping.
Maybe Donny Ferguson should actually talk to his fellow volunteers, cuz
every organization I know feels unable to keep up with the influx of
people needing assistance. Many of the non-profits I help are running on
empty and desperate for ideas on how to make their few loaves and fishes
feed a multitude.
Is this another example of the influx of disillusioned ex-GOP members or
have I totally misunderstood the Libertarian philosophy? Given how the
GOP has gutted family planning services not just nationally but
internationally, I am thrilled that Pelosi understands how important
changing course is, especially for the men and women negatively affected
by those policies.
Harrumph, etc.
— Theresa
I was thinking about this Pelosi comment this morning, and it occurs to me that what she should have added was, “And everyone should smoke more cigarettes.”
See, the state and federal governments get lots of tax dollars from cigarettes (and alcohol and other things they think they can hit with excise). So, clearly, the country would be better off if everyone smoked more and used birth control. Indeed, smoking tends to reduce fertility (and performance) so it should be added to her little booklet of things to do for Chairman Mao. Er, chairwoman Pelosi. Sorry, Speaker Pelosi. Whatever claptrap hooligan title she has.
Commenting on news flow DOES seem to have its downside. I’m sure that – regardless of an L’s views on life/choice – funding contraception is an inappropriate use of tax funds, and hardly stimulative.
I also don’t buy the idea that ALL welfare spending is simply a vote-buying scheme. Pols are surely calculating, but I don’t believe that’s their only consideration.
They aren’t “principled” in the sense that many Ls use the term, but I’d avoid such overstatements.
Russia appears to be a reemerging one-party police state.
Unfortunately, yes. After many centuries of absolute monarchy and communist tyranny, western style liberal democracy was quite foreign to Russia, and appears not to have taken root.
…will collapse of its own weight…
Russia appears to be a reemerging one-party police state.
he same folks who gave us credit default swaps, sub-prime mortgages, financial melt-downs, ponzi schemes and bail-outs for the rich and powerful.
That would be the government.
If you’re right the whole authoritarian system will collapse of its own weight, like the Soviet Union built on a house of cards. When that happens governments will collapse, anarchy will reign supreme, and everyone will live happily ever after in a libertarian utopia.
I don’t know about utopia – eutopia, perhaps. After a chaotic transition period. Yes, I think that will happen eventually, but I’m hoping to negotiate a soft landing rather than a crash, if possible.
Regardless of eventual improvements, a lot of people will get hurt and killed in a crash, and it might be avoidable if we make a concerted effort.
“The voluntary exchange of goods, services and charitable giving creates a country where health care and education are shared for the right reasons – because we love and respect our neighbors.”
IOW, let’s leave those who cannot help themselves to the mercy of the same folks who gave us credit default swaps, sub-prime mortgages, financial melt-downs, ponzi schemes and bail-outs for the rich and powerful.
“From a party whose outreach to the socially libertarian leaves much to be desired, this seems to be a poor launch point.”
My sentiments exactly. The Party of Principle and Liberty has become nothing more than a regurgitation of nineteenth-century social and economic Darwinism.
“Socialism doesn’t work, never has worked, and cannot work.”
If that is the case you’ve got nothing to worry about. If you’re right the whole authoritarian system will collapse of its own weight, like the Soviet Union built on a house of cards. When that happens governments will collapse, anarchy will reign supreme, and everyone will live happily ever after in a libertarian utopia.
One of the difficult consequences of expecting the government to care for children and the sick and the elderly and provide education for children and provide free meals for children and provide every other kind of individual “need” from cradle to grave is that the government gets to the point where it cannot afford to do the same thing for more people. That’s generally when genocide begins.
This experiment with socialism has failed. It ran wild in places like Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Does anyone have any positive news from any socialist country in the world? Lousy health care from Canada and Britain, lousy education in the USA and every other socialist education country, genocide everywhere people let their guns get taken away. It is dismal that people haven’t gotten the news. Socialism doesn’t work, never has worked, and cannot work.
“…a lot of the poor ones should never have been born….”
Pelosi says nothing of the kind.
In particular, contraception most obviously replaces the more expensive abortion services, which have precisely the same final outcome in terms of population, and less obviously can depress the spread of HIV and oterh extremely expensive-to-treat-no-matter-who-pays-for-it conditions.
From a party whose outreach to the socially libertarian leaves much to be desired, this seems to be a poor launch point.