Libertarian Spirit Shared By Everyone

What is the real definition of "libertarian?" Congressman Ron Paul's campaign to become the Republican nominee for U.S. President has attracted substantial interest in libertarianism while at the same time causing many libertarians to look outside of their mental boxes and either: 1) question Paul's adherence to libertarian principles, 2) question the value of the Libertarian Party who are thought of in many minds as "losers," or 3) question the standard shaky and hard-to-defend definition of libertarianism. Regarding Ron Paul's libertarian litmus test, it seems that when someone else is willing to step forward and run for president on a major party ticket and gather significant media attention and spur an interest in researching libertarianism in thousands of new people, then we can have a comparison debate. As to the value of the Libertarian Party.... But maybe it is time for a better definition of libertarianism. The current definition, which relies

"Miracle working" and "libertarian": two expressions of open-mindedness! Strangely, many libertarians find the candidacy of Mitt Romney to be repugnant. This may be because they haven't looked into the man deeply enough, so they probably see him with hidden temptation to closed-minded off-hand dismissal ... "just another government-worshipping statist." What is weird about this surface-level perception is that the actually proven government-worshipping statists, Democrats who love the ideals of socialism and favor dictatorship "for the common good," ( their idea of common good) are scared to death of facing Mitt Romney in the next general election, as evidenced by their frenzied attacks on him and their underhanded attempts to belittle him early in the game. So if a libertarian wants to claim open-mindedness, there is no choice but to ask: "Why are dictatorial Democrats so afraid of Mitt Romney?" After looking more deeply at the ov

"Dishonesty is the root of all evil." True or False? Listen inside. On April 30 and May 1 PBS aired a special documentary entitled "The Mormons." It was billed as "a four-hour exploration into the richness, the complexities and the controversies of the Mormons' story as told through interviews with members of the church, leading writers and historians, and supporters and critics of the Mormon faith." It should have been billed as a four-hour exercise in journalistic deception, otherwise known as a "hatchet job." Although pretending to be about Mormonism, the documentary was really a survey of opinion about Mormonism, much of it from disgruntled former Mormons, anti-Mormon members of other religions, and intellectual skeptics ... all aimed at obscuring the spiritual earnestness and sincerity which exists within the Mormon religion. The end goal of this journalistic dishonesty was clearly an attempt to leave viewers with the impression that

"Political power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." True or False? If you answered "true," you might be tempted to call yourself "libertarian-leaning," "liberal," "conservative," or "independent." If you answered "false," maybe you are one who thinks political power doesn't have to corrupt. This is the correct answer. A Course in Miracles teaches us that not only is total honesty possible but it is required for peace of mind and for maximum service to oneself and others: "Honesty does not apply only to what you say. The term actually means consistency. There is nothing you say that contradicts what you think or do; no thought opposes any other thought; no act belies your word; and no word lacks agreement with another. Such are the truly honest. At no level are they in conflict with themselves. Therefore it is impossible for them to be in conflict with anyone or anything. The peace of mind whi