Trent, to be honest, conservatives should not use rights talk. Such talk is inherently liberal. The concept of legal rights is perfectly consistent with conservatism, but not natural rights. Natural rights thinking is leftist. Conservatives have historically opposed such formulations.

Is there a natural right to “privacy?” No. Is there a legal right to “privacy?” No, but there certainly are jurisdictional and other limits on just what the government can do.

Whatever we do, we should not put Enlightenment liberal platitudes into the mouth of God. There is certainly no “God given” right to look at porn. That is hopelessly bad theology.

As for the second paragraph: A gold standard as “interest free”? That needs to be elaborated. Gold standard = asset-backed money vs. fiat debt-based money. New money would be created in a 100% gold-standard economy through the mining and coining of new gold, not through creation of debt with interest. So… I’ll give him a pass on paragraph 2.

Yes, Baldwin is flat-out wrong on trade. It is a matter, not of ideology, but of intellect and education, and one of the other is limited if he opposes free trade.

There most certainly is. The Right to privacy covers such a right,until it tramples upon the various rigths of others.

What the hell is “celebrating vice?”

Seems to me that the real distinction between the LP and other parties is that the LP recognizes reality and the human experience, while other parties (like the CP) cling to a set of medieval superstitions that they themselves don’t live.

For example, many Libertarians recognize that there are drug users out there. We don’t “celebrate” it, but we do recognize it — and defend their natural right to do so.

While at the same time, there are plenty of thrice-divorced CP “activists” who are willing to talk about the “sanctity of marriage” — celebrating a value that they clearly don’t live themselves.

“No system of “debt money” should ever again be imposed on the people of the United States. We will work to restore a debt free, interest free money system that works for the people of this country and not for the benefit of the international banking cartel.”

I suppose a 100% reserve gold standard would be consistent with being “debt free” and “interest free.” A gold standard with free banking would almost certainly not be debt and intererest free. (I am looking forward to earning interest on the currency I use.)

In doing research on the conspiracy theory, I saw this language in many contexts were the goal was “greenbacks.” It is’t clear to me why he didn’t say “gold standard,” if that is what he meant. Perhaps he is just pandering to those who understand the code words. (Russo believed the conspiracy theory and supported a gold standard.)

“A tariff on foreign imports, based on the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States, would be a Constitutional step toward a fair trade policy that would protect American jobs and, at the same time, raise revenue for our national government.”

_Fair trade_ aimed to _protect American jobs._ And, as I said, the tariffs is based upon destroying any cost advantage for foreign goods. It is destroying the rationale of free trade and the international division of labor.

http://baldwin2008.com/issues/independenc/

“I oppose all international trade agreements which have the effect of diminishing America’s economic self-sufficiency and of exporting jobs, the loss of which impoverishes American families, undermines American communities, and diminishes America’s capacity for economic self-reliance, and the provision of national defense.’”

“economic self-sufficincy” and “capacity for economic self-reliance.”

“A Chuck Baldwin Presidency would signal the end to the stranglehold that the modern day moneychangers have over our economy and and provide the opportunity for a rebirth of the American dream.”

This bothers me. There is an article below.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin431.htm

There is a very early court decision where the display of nude paintings for lascivious purposes was ruled not to be protected by the First Amendment. Porn was regulated in this country quite vigorously until relatively recently. Porn prohibitions do not necessarily require snooping on individuals. They could be aimed at prohibiting the sale and distribution.

Let’s say I lived in Conservative Christian Smallville, USA, and some libertine, godless interloper from the city came to town and wanted to set up his Porn Mega Store. It would most certainly be conservative for the residents of CCS to attempt to prevent that from happening. Conservatives conserve. They don’t elevate philosophical abstractions to the point of ideology. Let’s let our libertarian dogmatist friends deal in ideological abstractions. They have just about cornered the market on them anyway.

Pfizer would be a better fit for Satan, in that scenario.

I have never bought the distinction that the LP is not a party that celebrates vice. Not all elements, mind you, but some. Ron Paul does not celebrate vice, which is why many conservatives could support him, but there are substantial elements of your party that do and the “suits” are constantly trying to moderate that perception. Murray Rothbard even recognized this and it is one reason he left the Party.

The LP is the party of Satan in the Garden of Eden when he asks Eve “Hath God said?” Well yes indeed God hath said, and the LP is in perpetual rebellion against that. All in the name of “liberty,” of course.

It is not “conservative” in the slightest to want to pry into the lives of people via drug and pronography prohibition. It recquires the monitering of one’s body in private time and space.