When you look at spending habits - what people choose to do with their
money - that goes down to the individual level. Countries spend money
too of course; or rather, politicians spend people's money "for" them.
The question is what fraction of economy is driven by these different
types of spending. Clearly the former.
Here's a quick thought experiment. A well-known politician from South
has come out publicly against Bush's Patriot Act, Medicare drug
benefit, and Iraq war. He's for individual privacy rights (except in
the bedroom, of course, since Roe must be overturned), he's against
taxes, and he's about as isolationist as one can get. He's a member
of a major party, but he has repeatedly called himself a
"libertarian." His only major drawbacks are being anti-immigrant and
in favor of laws that make roughly ten percent of the population
second-class citizens by way of "separate but equal" public
accommodations.
Do you support his campaign for President?
One quick note: his name is not Ron Paul, but rather David Duke, and
his separate but equal treatment is for blacks, not gays.
Do you still support his campaign for President?
Your answer to this question will display once and for all which of us
is more out of touch with the electorate.
Rob
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
<thebrokenladder@...> wrote:
An overturning of Roe has nothing to do with personal privacy and
everything to do with recognizing that it's the States, not the
Federal government that have jurisdiction over criminal cases.
Here's a quick thought experiment. A well-known politician from
South
has come out publicly against Bush's Patriot Act, Medicare drug
benefit, and Iraq war. He's for individual privacy rights (except
in
the bedroom, of course, since Roe must be overturned), he's against
taxes, and he's about as isolationist as one can get. He's a member
of a major party, but he has repeatedly called himself a
"libertarian." His only major drawbacks are being anti-immigrant
and
in favor of laws that make roughly ten percent of the population
second-class citizens by way of "separate but equal" public
accommodations.Do you support his campaign for President?
One quick note: his name is not Ron Paul, but rather David Duke,
and
his separate but equal treatment is for blacks, not gays.
Do you still support his campaign for President?
Your answer to this question will display once and for all which of
us
is more out of touch with the electorate.
Rob
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
<thebrokenladder@> wrote:
>
> > If Ron Paul would get over his fear of Mexicans and gays, I'd
vote
> > Republican for the first time in more than ten years. But,
sadly,
> > just like the socialist regimes he mentioned, his own vision of
a
> > walled-off Ozzie and Harriet version of the United States is
doomed to
> > failure. I only hope most Libertarians realize this and
support our
> > own party's candidates instead.
>
> That would be about as counterproductive to libertarian ideals as
you
> could possibly get. This "all or nothing" approach is impotent,
and
> suicidal. This is what Bruce Bartlett was talking about when he
said
> the Libertarians should stop running candidates altogether,
because
> it's counterproductive to their goals.
>
> Helping Ron Paul make as big a splash as possible, and giving him
> every last spare dime you have to give, should be every sensible
> Libertarian's number one goal. And I mean NUMBER ONE. Voting for
> your own party's candidate is like stomping your feet and holding
your
This would be a reasonable argument if it weren't for the order-of-
magnitude difference in the severity of their respective positions on
the contingent that they want to be separate but equal. I don't see
Ron Paul lynching any gays, but I wouldn't put it past David Duke for a
moment.
On Saturday morning I was at a workshop with Constitutional Law
professor Jesse Choper from Berkeley on the topic of "The future of
the Roberts Court". I asked him how we can best understand the split
between Thomas and Scalia in Raich vs. Ashcroft. He said that as
much as he tries to read the minds of the various justices, he will
never understand Scalia's vote in that case. Nor will I. Small
comfort that it was 6-3, so his vote really didn't decide anything.
It was lost regardless.
I believe it would be a step forward if the states were given
exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases rather than the Feds --
local governance being preferable to distant governance, all else
being
equal -- but it will take much more than overturning Roe v. Wade to
accomplish such a result.Of course bringing back some measure of federalism won't
change
anything about the basic nature of the debate on abortion, medical
marijuana, or other issues where states and the Feds may be at
odds --
if something is morally wrong for the U.S. federal government to
do,
it's also morally wrong for a state government to do.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>P.S. - Rob, great analogy with Ron Paul & David Duke! I'm not sure
Duke
is really as libertarian on other issues as Paul is, but
nevertheless.
> An overturning of Roe has nothing to do with personal privacy and
> everything to do with recognizing that it's the States, not the
> Federal government that have jurisdiction over criminal cases.
>
> >
> > Here's a quick thought experiment. A well-known politician from
> South
> > has come out publicly against Bush's Patriot Act, Medicare drug
> > benefit, and Iraq war. He's for individual privacy rights
(except
> in
> > the bedroom, of course, since Roe must be overturned), he's
against
> > taxes, and he's about as isolationist as one can get. He's a
member
> > of a major party, but he has repeatedly called himself a
> > "libertarian." His only major drawbacks are being anti-immigrant
> and
> > in favor of laws that make roughly ten percent of the population
> > second-class citizens by way of "separate but equal" public
> > accommodations.
> >
> > Do you support his campaign for President?
> >
> > One quick note: his name is not Ron Paul, but rather David Duke,
> and
> > his separate but equal treatment is for blacks, not gays.
> >
> > Do you still support his campaign for President?
> >
> > Your answer to this question will display once and for all
which of
> us
> > is more out of touch with the electorate.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
> > <thebrokenladder@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If Ron Paul would get over his fear of Mexicans and gays,
I'd
> vote
> > > > Republican for the first time in more than ten years. But,
> sadly,
> > > > just like the socialist regimes he mentioned, his own
vision of
> a
> > > > walled-off Ozzie and Harriet version of the United States is
> doomed to
> > > > failure. I only hope most Libertarians realize this and
> support our
> > > > own party's candidates instead.
> > >
> > > That would be about as counterproductive to libertarian
ideals as
> you
> > > could possibly get. This "all or nothing" approach is
impotent,
> and
> > > suicidal. This is what Bruce Bartlett was talking about when
he
> said
> > > the Libertarians should stop running candidates altogether,
> because
> > > it's counterproductive to their goals.
> > >
> > > Helping Ron Paul make as big a splash as possible, and giving
him
> > > every last spare dime you have to give, should be every
sensible
> > > Libertarian's number one goal. And I mean NUMBER ONE. Voting
for
> > > your own party's candidate is like stomping your feet and
holding
Starchild:
Agreed, except on the case of abortion of course.
This leads to a much longer discussion on whether one should support
legislation or initiatives that increase freedom on net, but don't go
all the way to Libertopia. I think you know my position.
-Derek
I believe it would be a step forward if the states were given
exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases rather than the Feds --
local governance being preferable to distant governance, all else
being
equal -- but it will take much more than overturning Roe v. Wade to
accomplish such a result.Of course bringing back some measure of federalism won't
change
anything about the basic nature of the debate on abortion, medical
marijuana, or other issues where states and the Feds may be at
odds --
if something is morally wrong for the U.S. federal government to
do,
it's also morally wrong for a state government to do.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>P.S. - Rob, great analogy with Ron Paul & David Duke! I'm not sure
Duke
is really as libertarian on other issues as Paul is, but
nevertheless.
> An overturning of Roe has nothing to do with personal privacy and
> everything to do with recognizing that it's the States, not the
> Federal government that have jurisdiction over criminal cases.
>
> >
> > Here's a quick thought experiment. A well-known politician from
> South
> > has come out publicly against Bush's Patriot Act, Medicare drug
> > benefit, and Iraq war. He's for individual privacy rights
(except
> in
> > the bedroom, of course, since Roe must be overturned), he's
against
> > taxes, and he's about as isolationist as one can get. He's a
member
> > of a major party, but he has repeatedly called himself a
> > "libertarian." His only major drawbacks are being anti-immigrant
> and
> > in favor of laws that make roughly ten percent of the population
> > second-class citizens by way of "separate but equal" public
> > accommodations.
> >
> > Do you support his campaign for President?
> >
> > One quick note: his name is not Ron Paul, but rather David Duke,
> and
> > his separate but equal treatment is for blacks, not gays.
> >
> > Do you still support his campaign for President?
> >
> > Your answer to this question will display once and for all
which of
> us
> > is more out of touch with the electorate.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
> > <thebrokenladder@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If Ron Paul would get over his fear of Mexicans and gays,
I'd
> vote
> > > > Republican for the first time in more than ten years. But,
> sadly,
> > > > just like the socialist regimes he mentioned, his own
vision of
> a
> > > > walled-off Ozzie and Harriet version of the United States is
> doomed to
> > > > failure. I only hope most Libertarians realize this and
> support our
> > > > own party's candidates instead.
> > >
> > > That would be about as counterproductive to libertarian
ideals as
> you
> > > could possibly get. This "all or nothing" approach is
impotent,
> and
> > > suicidal. This is what Bruce Bartlett was talking about when
he
> said
> > > the Libertarians should stop running candidates altogether,
> because
> > > it's counterproductive to their goals.
> > >
> > > Helping Ron Paul make as big a splash as possible, and giving
him
> > > every last spare dime you have to give, should be every
sensible
> > > Libertarian's number one goal. And I mean NUMBER ONE. Voting
for
> > > your own party's candidate is like stomping your feet and
holding
I believe it would be a step forward if the states were given exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases rather than the Feds -- local governance being preferable to distant governance, all else being equal -- but it will take much more than overturning Roe v. Wade to accomplish such a result.
Of course bringing back some measure of federalism won't change anything about the basic nature of the debate on abortion, medical marijuana, or other issues where states and the Feds may be at odds -- if something is morally wrong for the U.S. federal government to do, it's also morally wrong for a state government to do.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
P.S. - Rob, great analogy with Ron Paul & David Duke! I'm not sure Duke is really as libertarian on other issues as Paul is, but nevertheless.
I'm with David Nolan on this one, in the excellent speech which
Starchild posted to the list (I incorrectly thanked Phil, who was merely
responding to it). Although Nolan didn't put it exactly this way, the
truth is that a true libertarian is currently unelectable in almost any
venue. Put another way, you have to be at least partly nonlibertarian
to get elected, and the more so the higher the office. You, along with
many others, write that there is no point in running candidates except
to win. That's the premise Nolan, along with many others, has rejected
all along. We won't have the votes without a pretty massive cultural
shift. Political campaigns are one educational tool in that effort,
though perhaps not the most effective. There will be differences among
reasonable libertarians in the amount of compromise they are comfortable
with. I expect I would be quite as delighted as you to see Ron Paul
elected President--or even getting the nomination. And, short of that,
I think even his campaigning for the nomination can do a lot of good.
But my sense is that he's coming ultimately from a conservative rather
than a libertarian attitude, and consequently I think Steve Kubby can do
a more effective job as a spokesperson for libertarianism. If Ron Paul
wins the election, or even the nomination, then I'm wrong in my
assessment of the current state of the culture. Otherwise, I think
Kubby's message is what we need in the longer run.