As libertarian, I hate hypocrites especially Government officials.
These people, telling us to follow law and pay taxes, and yet they are the first ones who break them.
I didn’t say that Delay created that law that indicted and convicted him.
My point is this: LAW MUST BE APPLIED TO EVERYONE, EQUALLY. IF NOT, THE HELL WITH THE LAW!
He did it ... then let him suffer it.
NOW MOVE ON: Do the same to the shitty Boxer, Rangel, etc.
Why I switched from D to R? Simple. Democrats always love to CREATE A NEW LAW THAT EITHER EXEMPTS THEM OR IS BROKEN FIRST BY THEM.
At least for now, I still find many Republicans to be trustworthy of creating law. I still have high hopes with many honorable Republicans who are truly conservatives and “freedom” lovers.
LIBERTARIAN FIRST POLICY: PUNISH THE HYPOCRITES!
You are clearly NOT a libertarian, if you think that is a first principle -- or any principle -- of the ideology. You've mistaken populism (and a rather knee-jerk version thereof) for libertarianism; a self-misidentification so incoherent that I'm almost too stunned to respond. But only almost.
The first principle of libertarianism is the maximization of individual liberty. Libertarians believe that individuals (and voluntary associations of individuals) ought to have complete freedom of choice so long as their actions do not impinge on the liberties of other individuals. Thus libertarians are all about REFUSING to characterize any valid exercise of liberty as "hypocrisy".
And thus libertarians are also all about distinguishing between just law and unjust law based on whether the principle of liberty is therein protected and furthered, or restricted and usurped. Yet here you are actively defending law which restricts liberty; in this case the use of voluntarily donated private funds in furthering the political advocacy of the donors.
My point is this: LAW MUST BE APPLIED TO EVERYONE, EQUALLY. IF NOT, THE HELL WITH THE LAW!
But you do not choose, "the hell with the law," and instead insist that the law be applied simply because the law managed to make it into the code. IOW you actively refuse to make the distinction between just and unjust, valid and invalid law, which is central to libertarianism. Instead you hold that the law is the law is the law, and must be applied. This is authoritarism; the polar opposite of the ideology you claim for yourself.
In addition you ignore the point I made previously. That not only is the law unjust in the first place but, even were we to grant it valid, it was applied unjustly.
It is central to EVERY philosophy of liberalism (i.e. libertarianism, conservatism and non-radical, center-left liberalism all included) that laws must be predictable. Law must be written and applied such that all citizens can know in advance what actions will be in violation of law. That principle was outrageously violated in this instance. There was no way in hell that any reasonable individual could have predicted in advance that the channeling of these political donations would be considered "money laundering". Even the prosecutors weren't able to predict that, instead changing the charges when the original indictment failed!
If the law can be arbitrarily reconstrued in such fashion to ensnare a targeted individual, then it can potentially envelop in criminality ANY exercise of liberty. When that happens the law, which is supposed to be the guarantor of liberty, instead becomes the servant of tyranny.