SC) those things haven't been major issues in the past (SCAll the evidence I have suggests that, ever since the Platform was radicalized in 1974, Ruwart would be the first LP presidential candidate to have a written record that is more radical than that of the Platform she ran on. (If you think the Children's Rights plank is coming back in Denver, you're nuts.)
In fact, it's doubtful that any post-Dallas candidate besides Bergland has had a written record equally as radical as the Platform he ran on. Of the the nine LP presidential tickets, at least seven were headed by men who conceded (then or later) that coercive taxation will be necessary indefinitely -- rejecting the pre-Portland Platform's call for abolition of all taxation and immediate non-enforcement of tax laws. Andre Marrou may merely have opposed "excessive taxation", which would make it 8 out of 9. And while David Bergland was a Rothbardian radical when nominated in 1984, by 2000 he was managing the campaign of Harry Browne, who wrote at the time that "until we find a way to finance government without taxes or a way to assure our safety without any government, some form of taxation will be necessary". So it might actually be 9 out of 9.
SC) It seems to me that some people are suddenly trying to make hay out of a minor passage in Mary's book as a way to not only sabotage her campaign, but to try to make it politically incorrect to be an anarchist in the LP. (SCYes, some are, and that's wrong. However, my goal is different. I want to make it politically incorrect to be an avowedly anarchist LP presidential candidate who says
MR) The person who should lead our party should be someone who of course knows the philosophy. Now, I've listened to some of the other candidates and it's clear to me that they haven't quite gotten the whole picture yet. That's OK, they will one day. But they don't want to be running as President when they really can't see the full picture [...]I'll say it again: if Ruwart were running to be ONLY the chief spokesperson and salesman for consensus libertarianism, and would explicitly disavow her apparent claim to represent the best and most authentic form of libertarianism, then she would be my #3 choice behind some ordering of Phillies and Root. Her skill at presenting watered-down feel-good gauzy libertarianism are SO good that I'm willing to not make her alleged purity be an issue if she is.
I would like to talk a little bit about the danger to our party, because you know there's going to be a temptation here, I'm afraid, and the temptation is that if someone comes with a lot of past history, if they're a well-known name, the tendency is going to be perhaps consider that it would be better to embrace someone like that who really may not be yet fully attuned to the Libertarian philosophy instead of a candidate that really can explain to the American people what we truly are all about. And the reason this is important is not just for our presidential candidate, but after the election our presidential candidate is the de facto leader of the party. And so if we have someone who really doesn't have the full picture yet, who is in a leadership position in the Party, I think that could take us down the wrong road. And that's something that I think all the delegates need to consider when they look at the candidates. Because we're not just talking about who is the best spokesperson for liberty and who can attract the most media attention, we're also talking about who is going to take the Party in the direction we want to go. (MR
But instead of doing this, she went on offense yesterday and basically said that delegates don't "believe in liberty" if they don't agree with her that the state should have the same role in policing aggression against minors as it does in policing the adult possession of firearms and psychotropic substances -- i.e. none.
She is thus apparently making her nomination campaign a referendum on the purity of her libertarianism, and that makes it easy -- and very big-tent -- to oppose her divisive more-libertarian-than-thou candidacy.
1 comment:
Okay, I wasn’t sure where I stood. But I’m clear. I don’t like you and wish you’d go make to the Republicans or whatever swamp you came from.
Wait a minute? Now I remember. I’ve seen you arguing for statists positions before. I don’t mean moderate libertarian positions but openly conservative positions. And rather badly so in my opinion as well as rather arrogantly so -- informing all that you were smarter than any one who disagreed.
But let me get to the main fallacy of your Right-wing rants. The question is not whether one should be an anarchist or not or can’t be an anarchist or not. I don’t care. I’m no anarchist myself. But I am a libertarian.What I feel is happening is that some conservatives are now claiming that being libertarian on issues like gay rights, sex laws, immigration, etc. is really just being “anarchist” and that no “anarchist” should be allowed in the party.
You are playing a game of bait and switch. You define moderate by being conservative and anarchist by being libertarian -- which explains why you think Root is so peachy. He is a neo-con who donated to Joe Lieberman and publicly said that he had wished the GOP had run a McCain/Lieberman ticket. There are things I disagree with Mary about. But at least I know she is Libertarian. The disagreements are not over major issues. The problem with conservatives like Barr and Root is that they simply aren’t libertarians.
A libertarian is not a different version of conservative anymore than its a different version of socialist. It means free markets, social liberalism and non-interventionist foreign policy. Your type seems to equate libertarian with being conservative. You want free markets (just don’t go too far), you want a tiny bit of social tolerance (not much really), and your kind tends to support war making. Sounds like what George Bush said he was for. Please join the Republicans again -- if you ever really left them.
Post a Comment