New Voices: Are Libertarians The True Defenders Of Freedom?

—

Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, “United States of Socialism,” reveals how the Left uses the Venezuelan formula for socialism, decisively refutes this new face of socialism, chillingly documents the full range of the Left’s gangster tendencies, and provocatively exposes the tactics of the socialist Left.

Who is behind it, why is it evil, and how can we stop it?

Don’t get left in the dark—order Dinesh D’Souza’s powerful new book today.

—

Want to connect with Dinesh D'Souza online for more hard-hitting analysis of current events in America? Here’s how:

[Snoglobe]

The further back in American history you go the more libertarian.

[waltseher]

restoring my faith in this generation!! good job, kid

[kevingray]

When somebody ask me why I'm a libertarian, I'm just going to send them this video. Perfectly sums it up.

[azrael]

I love her such a power house for us libertarians

[aliksteel]

Take the worst of both sides roll it into a ball, And you have libertarians.

[RavenRP]

Where have you been all my --- um week. well done young lady well done.

[CodeineRadick]

you are well informed. please help others reach your level. <3

[jeremyallen]

Anarchy is only one more step away, and really, it's the only fully moral and non-contradictory position that a man can hold about himself and other men.

[YTPartyTonight]

Dinesh D'Souza merging with Wedler, speschul. I’m picking up a strong Rubinesque (Dave, not Peter Paul) vibe.

[doesitmatter]

She has some points, but there are times were the government *had* to regulate business practices because business policies were so corrupt and hurting the public. During the industrial revolution there was laissez-faire policies where massive worker rights were violated, no regulation for quality products (i.e. "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair), and corporate monopolies abounded.

It's not just the corruptibility of government that's the problem, it's the fact that politicians are more interested in self-serving their careers rather than putting the interests of their own community first, and because so, the public has become so frustrated and cynical to the point of not caring what direction the nation goes to.

[jimhurst]

why does the audio quality fluctuate so erratically? different mic settings?

[SuPeRGiBbS]

I completely and fullheartedly agree. It pees me off that Neo-Conservatives are too blind to see that their beliefs of small government and religious liberty ring true with libertarianism, and that liberals want to pursue very anti-liberty policies to protect "equality". Also their ignorance of economics and the favoring of socialistic policies gets on my nerves to no end.

[jonlanier_]

To answer the question:  Do I agree with Carey?  NO!

[jimwheeler]

I typoed and should have said:

Overall it is hard to argue for movement and an ideology that has been so ineffective at presenting its ideas and winning the day and does not seem to offer the correct solution in the whole because of the failure to get the American people to embrace the ideology, its confusion of ideology in presentation and debate historically, its failed political track record, the atheist roots problem in Libertarian ideology, and most importantly its world view or more seemingly its lack there of as evidenced in the recent decades of Libertarian writing.

[averagejoe]

Libertarian philosophy is as simple as one word, "Individualism." Any acts of aggression on breaking the rights to our freedoms and liberty is what's the enemy to our free society. people living how they choose, not the government choosing how we live for us. Anything seen as an act against our constitution will be seen as against freedom. No wars are justified unless it's to protect the freedoms of the United States.That simple, but to simple for most to understand.

[JRBUISEXCAVATING]

In a civilized society, we require law and order. The question is who determines the difference in right and wrong, as with anything, our perspective guides our beliefs. How can man (or women) come to a reasonable conclusion of right and wrong when we ourselves don't have a definitive answer to these questions? Yes, we can make assumptions based on what we were taught, but are those assumptions based on truth? We live in a fallen world, we have many opinions on the best way to live our lives. What if there was an instruction manual for life? Would you read it? Or do you already have all the answers?

[gary_beniford]

libertarian is exactly what the founding fathers envisioned the US to become. they wanted a small government that stayed out of people's private lives. they wanted individual rights to protect people from the state. and because the government was small it had relatively low operations costs allowing taxes to be low as well. we fought wars when we had to and finished them quickly. low taxes and economic freedom helped the US get ahead of the European powers by 1900. then the socialists appeared and demanded welfare and that the US force it's will on other countries these ideas spread to both parties and lead to our involvement in 2 world wars and a cold war that destabilized the world. it's drained the US productivity and upset the economy. it's obvious a back to basics libertarian government would be a major improvement to government we have now.

[ReallyEpicPerson]

I believe in limited government involvement. Taxes probably should be enforced, or else there would be problems getting people to pay them. Although, you could try to argue that people already get around their taxes. I'd agree, but, I believe that this isn't the fault of the conservative - I believe tax prices require a sort of equilibrium to acquire the optimum profit for the government's comfort. Socialism, according to its raw, ideological core would create disincentives to anyone desiring to achieve more than the man/women next to him/her.

I believe taxes are necessary for military strength, and that gun ownership will counter your statement that the police have too much power, making them misplaced in a democracy such as ours. This is the very point of guns. I believe anyone should be able to own fully-automatic firearms. I am undecided on grenades and explosives. On the one hand, you have the government, who has a surplus of these items, against a public that would be armed (hopefully, at least) with fully-automatic weapons. It is a great question to be asked, "how well would we hold up against them?"

Well, of course, there are more American Citizens than soldiers. So, theoretically, you could argue that the government has lots of tanks and RPG's, but, they would probably get creamed by a wave-after-wave of armed citizens.

On the other hand, you could argue that explosives are very difficult to defend against, with a mass shooting. So, let's say that someone shoots up a theater. If I toss in a smoke grenade and a frag following that, I'm not sure any gun-wielder could do much. Also, grenades have a large radius, meaning that if I toss a grenade at something, I don't care about whether what I destroy around where I aim is decimated. Grenades wouldn't be a great option to toss at genocidal maniacs in dense, close-quarter combat scenarios, as you want to protect everyone around you, who's likely to all be within close proximity (even immediate proximity).

[candyohara]

Dear Carey Wedler...I have three 'Spirit-Divas'...Jody Miller...Michelle Malkin...and yourself.

[LeviPaladin]

Liberty as an idol becomes licentiousness.