The anti-war libertarian flirtation with the Democratic party may be even shorter than I expected. Definitely so, if Hillary Clinton is the presidential nominee.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
There's literally dozens of votes down the drain. And all to appease maybe a few million people who believe Congressmen shouldn't behave like jerks.
I have no idea who Jim Henley is, but since he's presumably a libertarian -- given that Stark's comments were, besides being obnoxious and deranged, made in support of increased social spending (SCHIP, IIRC), doesn't this seem like an odd incident to rally behind?
Why did you link to that guy? He's nuts... the comments go even further into deranged conspiracy theory nuttiness. This isn't anti-war libertarianism, it's nutty conspiracy theory libertarianism. Or are they the same?
EI
Indeed - what if Hillary becomes the presidential nominee? What if Ron Paul does not make it on the other side of the river? What should libertarians do?
PS:
Dear Ron,
I am a big fan of yours... I have only two issues with your campaign:
1. the gold standard is not any different than any other monetary standard. both are virtual and both cannot be eaten.
2. Given that we have a government and laws as well as law enforcement in place - it does not make much sense to support the NRA?
You can think of Greenspan's and Rand's libertarianism as you like - but they made good points in the 60s regarding a monopoly of violence by the state. In any case - being able to defend oneself has rarely been about weapons but about guts, standing up and cooperating with others peacefully.
Although a few people with armor and weapons can control a group - that rarely works in the long run (one can force people to work but not to think and without this... Gandhi?)
You are right that the Civil War could have been prevented as it had in other nations in order to abolish slavery. In fact - slavery was only abolished in the US in the 1960s when the constitution changed and no longer listed blacks as 2/3s of a human.
Dear Barak,
I am a big fan of yours... I have only two issues with your environmental campaign:
1. nuclear energy will get us nowhere at best and in trouble at worst. Your climate change program is a fine one otherwise but I also do not know where you stand on farm subsidies?
2. ethics and spirituality exist outside the realm of religion (first). what would you do to make sure the 15-20% agnostic Americans are more fairly represented in government? Agnostics are a larger group than even blacks and yet there are fewer public officials than of any other minority? Why?
Yours sincerely and faithfully,
Hugo
Sorry - I meant to address both Ron and Barack with my agnostic question...
While not taking issue with the substantive point, the historical one is incorrect:
This was later amended by Section 2 of the 14th Amend.:
"Blacks" were never listed 3/5 of a person. Those who were slaves (the vast majority) were deemed such for purposes of apportioning Representatives, but that was applied to any people who were not "free Persons". Indeed, some blacks were free Persons, and also owned slaves. The "3/5" language was effectively removed in 1868 with the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Again, as I said before, it doesn't change the substantive point of your comment. It was just an historical nit.
Hugo,
I think you mean the 1860s. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, effectively ended the 2/3rds definition.
Which, to be clear, applied only to slaves. Free blacks never fell under the revolting 2/3rds rule.
also overlooked is that the 3/5 rule was put in to prevent the South from having more power.
seats in Congress were determined by population. Population included slaves and others who could not vote.
the South, the EVIL SLAVE OWNERS, wanted pure population to determine seats in Congress. that would have made the South more powerful, with more seats.
the North, wanting to curb Southern power, wanted to restrict population measures for congressional seats to only voting population. that would have stripped the South of several seats in Congress and allowed the North to move more quickly towards (among other things) federal civil rights reforms.
there is a reason why it is called the "3/5 compromise."
something they don't go into detail about when the people today are outraged over blacks only being 3/5 of a person back in the days of our oppressive white male founders...
gullyborg,
Stop making sense. Little nuggets like that only get in the way of the polemicists.
HP
Kindly explain to me how ... never mind. I guess we all wear our hair shirts to keep warm in the winter after your "great leap forward" energy plan fails for lack of output.
You remember the great leap forward? Mao order the Chinese peasants to melt down their hand farm implements, hoes, etc to make modern plows? Did they ever get modern plows? No, they starved to death in huge numbers.
@Hugo Pottisch
"one can force people to work but not to think and without this... Gandhi?"
Yeah, fantastic. Send Gandhi into Myanmar and see how he does. Or North Korea. Or Nazi Germany. Peaceful resistance works when it's done against humane people in power, like the British. The guy was an idiot, and faults Jews for fighting back. He's not a good example for anyone.
The right to defend yourself is as fundamental a right as exists. I am not willing to turn over my personal defense to any group, and I think it's an insane position. How close do you want law enforcement to be to you at any given time to be able to protect you, as opposed to capturing those that harm you?
Those commenters at the linked site are out of their minds.
They'd honestly believe the government threatened to kill a congressman (or his children) for opposing a silly expansion of a children's health program, and that this is what caused him to apologize rather than perhaps him actually feeling bad about saying the troops were dying for the president's amusement.
Those commenters at the linked site are out of their minds.
Yep.
They'd honestly believe the government threatened to kill a congressman (or his children) for opposing a silly expansion of a children's health program, and that this is what caused him to apologize rather than perhaps him actually feeling bad about saying the troops were dying for the president's amusement.
Mostly I agree with you, but I don't think Fortney Hillman Stark Jr. actually felt bad about his over-the-top comments. I think Nancy Pelosi and others in the Dem leadership realized quickly that Fortney Hillman Stark Jr.'s over-the-top comments were a political liability and a propaganda gold mine for their political opponents, and ordered him to pretend to feel bad in the interests of damage control.
Surely, it's clear that the commentators at that site have all been threatened (sniper bullet hits tree two inches to the right of person, neighbor's dog disappears, tv reception bad: you get the idea). They realized that unless they made it appear that libertarians are complete nut cases that BushCo would cause further...difficulties for them.
Seriously, I hope that site is not standard libertarian fare.
"Although a few people with armor and weapons can control a group - that rarely works in the long run (one can force people to work but not to think and without this... Gandhi?)"
I have never understood this point of view. Just how long of a run is acceptable to you How many thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions are you willing to sacrifice? Remember that guy that stood down the tanks in China? How's he doing these days? How's the Chinese government doing? Wonder if the people in Africa and Asia are glad they have no NRA there.
Precisely why I stay as far away from any Libertarian Party members as space allows.
Them folks is nuts.
I, for one, do not intend to sell my birthright for a mess of Pottisch.
mojo: Libertarianism isn't half bad - read some PJ O'Rourke if you haven't already. The Libertarian Party, on the other hand...
On the "peaceful resistance" thing: Though I believe it's overkill to say Gandhi shouldn't be a role model for anyone (just because what he did was only possible because India was ruled by the British and not some more autocratic power doesn't mean what he did wasn't great), I agree in essence with Mr buzz and Mr Morgan. Peaceful resistance only works as long as the government is willing to let you get away with it. Myanmar is a telling example of what happens when it isn't. In 1988 (or was it '89?) and today, the peaceful protests have resulted in government-orchestrated bloodbaths. Sorry, but that's not exactly a textbook example of how to rein in government power.
And to those who say "well, America doesn't have that problem, why do we need guns?", do we want to throw away the solution just because the problem hasn't materialized yet? And I find it interesting (but not encouraging) that the loudest calls for gun control come from the same direction as the Bush = Hitler catcalls.
So if libertarians are all conspiratorial nutjobs, where does a small-government free-market minarchist like myself go? Both (modern) liberals and (modern) conservatives love big government. I'm supporting Ron Paul despite his supporters, because he's the only one in the race that wants to reduce the size of government. Everyone else is just arguing over how far to lower the rate of growth.
If there's a good synonym for "libertarian" that doesn't include conspiratorial truther whackjobs, that's me. But surely I can't be the only one.
Wow, you guys sure managed to have fun burning that strawman.
Now, if you have serious responses to anything over at Jim's place, we'd love to hear it.
Oh, and just so you know, we don't say Bush = Hitler. We are libertarians, so we say that Stalin is the ultimate evil, and being moonbats we prefer the term Chimpler McHalliburton. So it's "Chimpler McHalliburton = Stalin."
Get it straight.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get away from the computer so the nurse doesn't find me and try to make me take the meds. They make me feel funny.
Just to be clear, thoreau and his buddies are libertarians who support national health insurance.
Wait, I support national health insurance?
Shit, I have got to stop taking those pills that wipe out my memory. If only the nurse would....
Gotta go.
seats in Congress were determined by population. Population included slaves and others who could not vote.
You're only telling half the story, gullyborg. The other half was that, originally, states paid taxes to the federal government based on their population. The south, being already poorer than the north, couldn't afford to pay taxes based on 100% of their slave population. The South had originally proposed having it both ways; slaves counted at 100% for political representation and 0% for tax purposes. That obviously wasn't going to fly. And yet neither the 100% or 0% figures worked either, for the reasons above. So the famed 3/5 compromise was born, a number which was both affordable by the south and gave them the political power to ... keep slavery going.
Bo: very interesting. So it wasn't a compromise between north and south, but between the south's greed for money and its desire to keep as many slaves as possible?
Well, the ironic thing is that the tax issue turned out not to really matter. Although it was generally expected that population-based levies from state governments would fund the government, the government almost immediately imposed a wide variety of protectionist tariffs that provided the bulk of federal revenue. Because these tariffs were mostly on imported manufactured goods, they tended to help the more industrialized North, which produced these goods, and hurt the South and West, which had to buy these items at more expensive prices. So the South got screwed on taxes any way, just by a different method.
buy get online prescription viagra
buy line viagra where http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy online uk viagra