TheAgitator.com
Meet Bob Barr: Your 2008 LP Nominee for President
Sunday, May 25th, 2008It’s the first time the LP has nominated a serious candidate in a long time. I’ve become rather fond of Barr over his 5-year conversion to libertarianism. Second place went to nutjob Mary Ruwart, who would have continued the party’s long history of kook-ism.
Barr has the potential to win more votes than any LP nominee in history. If he helps the GOP learn that it’s time to boot the neocons and pay more attention to its limited government wing, all the better.
This is a good thing.
Put me down as, well, ambivalent. He’s certainly the most well-known, and probably the most articulate, presidential candidate the LP has ever had. I just have qualms about seeing a former prosecutor, drug warrior, and congressman who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, as our standard bearer.
Of course, I come from the radical wing of the party. What do I know.
I agree with your remarks. I was starting to worry that I was going to have to support the Constitution Party guy - hey at least he stole Ron Paul’s R[love]ution thing.
This would be a great time for people who support liberty to give a few bucks to Bob Barr. I just donated a few more dollars and put in a link to his site on the top of my blog. We need to organize some sort of money bomb - maybe on the 4th of July?
“…Barr has the potential to win more votes than any LP nominee in history….”
And the only down side is that he’ll steal votes from McCain, which is no downside at all.
Once again Libertarians prove their critics right- they really are just Republicans who like pot.
Mary Ruwart, kook? What Mary Ruwart are you talking about?
Surely not the same one whose press secretary wears the Guy Fawkes mask ALL THE TIME.
I can’t vote for Barr, because he’s a religious zealot/homophobe. But he’d surely be better than McCain.
In my best Miss Bitters (of Invader Zim fame) voice:
DOOM DOOM DOOM
DOOM DOOM DOOM
http://www.nostate.com/71/libertarians-for-statism/
At least “nutjob Mary Ruwart” is sane enough to NOT choose neoconman Wayne Allyn Root as a running mate.
I like Barr, but Root is the kiss of death.
What’s wrong with Ruwart? Dylan Waco at Left Conservative says Gravel gave a better performance, but didn’t mention anything kooky. At least Root didn’t get it!
Mary Ruwart:
“Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
I’m sure that would have gone over well with those on the fence about libertarians.
I really do get surprised at how many libertarians, who are usually rabid converts from other political philosophies, think that they could convert completely, but that Barr is just faking it. And yeah, maybe there are some things that he differs on, but isn’t the point of the libertarian mindset that it doesn’t matter what you think, as long as you understand what the limits of government power should be?
Bob Barr as a congressamn violated his oath of office in trying to establish a state religion and bar practicioners of certain religion from military service. The man should be permenantly barred from any political office for such treasonous behavior but instead he has become the standard bearer for a party that used to stand for something.
The Libertarian Party completes its slide into irrelevance by picking the LEAST libertarian candidate available. I could have voted in good conscience for a legitimate, principled libertarian like Ruwart. I can’t even hold my nose to vote for Barr, a drug warrior and advocate for intervention in South America. The LP is going to be disappointed when they don’t even get a decent electoral turnout for selling out their principles.
#13 –
You think nominating a candidate who thinks children can consent to having sex with adults, who flirts with 9/11 truthers, and whose press secretary walks around in a Guy Fawkes mask would have halted the party’s slide into irrelevance?
Barr has quite a bit to atone for. But I believe him when he says he has come around. Really, do you think he’s going to change all of his positions once the campaign starts?
1. If Bob Barr is libertarian enough for Radley Balko, he’s libertarian enough for me.**
2. Why are we using the phrase “slide into irrelevance” as if the LP has been a political powerhouse all these years?
**the true test for a presidential candidate should be “libertarian enough for Gene Healy,” but Balko is a good enough proxy.
I refuse to vote for Barr. I will write in Ron Paul since the LP couldn’t muster up a real Libertarian.
The Constitution Party’s nominee, Chuck Baldwin, is more Libertarian than Bob Barf.
No, apparently nominating an ex-drug warrior, hypocrite moralist will.
Ruwart is infinitely better than Barr, for the simple fact that she’s actually a libertarian. Now that we’ve established that the LP is GOP Lite, though, I’m looking forward to libertarians finally abandoning the statist process and returning to their radical anti-state, extra-electoral roots. That should work out well for Cato and Reason.
You do wonderful work. But libertarianism is, at its heart, a radical ideology. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not really for you.
Radley,
It seems pretty clear to me that Ruwart’s position on Children’s Rights is not the caricature that some have made it out to be. Roderick Long has an interesting post on the subject here: http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/04/25/ruwart-on-childrens-rights/#comments
Broadly speaking, I think Ruwart is on the right side of the children’s rights issue.
As for “flirting” with 9/11 Truthers - well, I’m not sure what “flirting” suggests, so I have no idea if what she’s said on the issue is right, wrong, supported, or not supported.
As for the Guy Fawkes mask - well, that’s a little kooky.
But what it comes down to is that it’s better to be RIGHT than to be in power - because the consequence of being WRONG and in power, and Barr is profoundly wrong on numerous important issues, is that you actively participate in harming others.
Barr has, only a few months ago, made comments suggesting that he would be in favor of military intervention in South America as a part of “shifting resources” from Iraq and Afghanistan to South America: http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/49247.html
I’m always amused by those who join a so-called political party but apparently believe that it would be a disaster if one of their candidates actually got elected to office.
Thanks to Bob Barr, an enormous amount of people will hear about libertarianism. Thanks to Bob Barr, libertarianism will become one of the prime targets of attack on the part of the GOP, which will not only benefit the LP but expose the GOP as completely non-libertarian.
Even if the LP becomes the GOP Lite–that will still be a long way closer to libertarianism than the current GOP can claim to be.
The idea that you have to be a pure libertarian from birth in order to be a libertarian now is dangerous and stupid. Barr has made some mistakes. He admits that and he apologizes for them. He is a serious Libertarian candidate who can do a lot for the party and for limited government.
[i]Thanks to Bob Barr, an enormous amount of people will hear about libertarianism.[/i]
He’ll get no more airtime than Ron Paul did, and probably quite a bit less. If you see him in a debate, it will be with Pastor Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader. I think he’ll do well to get 3% of the vote.
Then maybe he should atone for them. Let’s see him put some elbow grease into getting the people he threw in jail pardoned or otherwise excused. He certainly worked hard enough to put them in jail.
Actually, Radley, you’re right about that.
[...] then there was really no alternative. A fake Libertarian or an utter lunatic–which way do you [...]
Oh, and Root’s not that far from neoconism. And I suspect that Barr is still a drug warrior, as per his support for “aid” to Columbia. I guess that means that Barr isn’t that far from neoconism.
Virtually all the libertarians who actually DO something — work in influential think tanks, write (in respectable/mainstream outlets, with readership and actual influence), litigate (serious cases, not pro se wackiness), debate (not just amongst themselves), and otherwise promote libertarian ideals — call themselves “small l libertarians.”
why “small l?” it’s not for a lack of “purity!”
The LP would greatly benefit from the involvement of such folks, but these are serious, professional people who aren’t going to waste their time and destroy their reputations arguing with “truthers” or debating the age of consent.
In order to get bigger, the LP has to first get smaller — by shedding the lunatics. The Barr/Root ticket is a good first step. Now they need to change the rules to discourage/prevent lunatics from crashing the party, much less running for office. No legitimate party would tolerate a mask on the convention floor — not least by a press secretary for a leading candidate!
It diminishes Barr that he had to go six ballots with a whacko nutjob like Ruwart. Kudos to him for sticking through it. The LP should support him, and anyone else who would support their new candidate, by cleaning up.
[...] gets the LP VP nod. Jesse Walker regrets it. Tim Lee isn’t even that happy about Barr. Radley Balko is happier. Radley’s dogs perform a dramatization of the reaction of the so-called [...]
All the libertarians who are out there “doing something” ignore the Libertarian Party because ELECTORAL POLITICS IS A SHITTY WAY TO MAKE SOCIETY BETTER. Look at how much money the Ron Paul movement through down the fucking crapper in their Quixotic pursuit of the Glorious Libertarian Electoral Revolution. Imagine how much actual good the tens of millions of dollars his campaign raised could have done if it was spent on, well, anything other than a miserable, failed attempt at a presidential run. The LP is a dinosaur and Barr is the meteor. Thanks for all the cheese.
@JJH2:
But.. I *like* cheese…
*sniff!*
All that’s well and good, but do you think he could win a debate against Jon Stewart?
Christine Smith was right…Bob Barr is nothing moer than a hack, and a neo-con plant sent to destroy the Libertarian Party principles.
He’ll get my vote when hell freezes over.
If the Libs were hoping to capitalize on the Ron Paul movement (of which I am heartily one), they couldn’t have done worse than some asshole who voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War authorization.
I’ll write in “Ron Paul” before I commit that kind of hypocrisy.
Half of the reasons I’ve given for endorsing Ron Paul all along is that he was the only one who hadn’t voted for those things in the two major parties, with the exception of Kucinich, and Obama (who doesn’t count since he clearly doesn’t understand what Liberty even means and would bomb Pakistan if given “actionable intelligence”).
The Libertarian Party just torpedoed itself. Nice job. Morons. You had a read chance to stand on principles this time and shock the world, but you chose the easy way out… In short, you sold out.
#26 - all the Cato/Reason studies in the world are useless until legislation is passed. You need to elect people who will introduce and vote for that legislation. There is no way to get around the need for “shitty” electoral politics. There may be some isolated island where a spontaneous libertarian revolution might occur, but change in the US has always come gradually and will need lots and lots of elected officials supporting it over a long period of time.
I support an LP that not only elects people, but elects anyone that is for smaller govt and more liberty. I’m intellectually a purist, but I don’t let my need for moral superiority or philosophical consistency stop me from embracing positive incremental change and the candidates like Barr that can make it happen. Those who do let the perfect be the enemy of the good deserve what they get (or do not get, as the case may be).
And P.S.
Shame on you Ron Paul supporters who throw your weight behind a con man like Barr.
Congratulations…you’ve just been made victim of a classic bait and switch.
Radley, if you honestly don’t “think children can consent to having sex with adults,” I don’t know where the hell you get off posing as a libertarian.
RWW - You’re serious?
No, really? Because that’s crazy talk, and that litmus test would invalidate the libertarian status of the vast majority of libertarians.
Goddammit, Libertarians are funny! “Libertarian” stands in opposition to “authoritarian”. These folks didn’t even need thirty pieces of silver, just a commitment (whatever that means from a politician) to the bullshit diversion of “medical marijuana”. The LP should change its name to the Less Authoritarian Party. That would at least be honest. Libertarians don’t run for President.
As an Independent voter I would have voted for Kubby.
It is impossible for me to believe in Bob Barr’s conversion. I am not that stupid.
Cynthia McKinney Anti War on Drugs Presidential Candidate
http://aleftindependent.blogspot.com/2008/03/cynthia-mckinney-anti-war-on-drugs.html
People who believe that Bob Barr has somehow converted from his authoritarian past are the same people who believed Hitler when he said there were no death camps.
I’m not religious, but I think there is a Biblical comparison here.
There were many people who disliked and distrusted Saul after his conversion. Saul killed Christians before he became Paul.
Barr says that he is sincere and seems like he is. Give the guy a chance to advance the libertarian agenda.
“… it doesn’t matter what you think, as long as you understand what the limits of government power should be”
Question from a new person here. Bob Barr just said on TV that his DOM was about states rights, so that was being libertarian.
To me, it doesn’t matter a hoot which government is oppressing me. States rights; schmates rights. DOM and all pro-marriage, anti-homo stuff is oppression from no matter which quarter.
Not to mention his anti-choice stance (It’s OK to oppress women? ‘Let the market’ decide is great for business but not for women?).
So how do his views (new or old) = libertarian?
I expect that the people who vote for Barr as their first Libertarian vote will be extremely ephemeral voters; social conservatives who don’t like McCain.
I doubt that they will cast votes for any other Libertarians on their ballots. In 2010 and 2012, I doubt they’ll vote for a single Libertarian at all.
The question is whether Bob Barr will attract more libertarians into the party than he drives away. I expect that in the long term he will drive away more people than he brings in. I could be wrong. Only time will tell.
(l)ibertarians have only three choices:
1) Insurrection
2) Incrementalism
3) Irrelevance
I for one am glad to see the LP make at least an attempt at something other than choice #3….
Bob Barr won’t be president, so it really doesn’t matter what he believes (unless you think the LP is a big circle jerk to see who’s the most “radical” every 4 years).
The only relevance the LP can have is as a spoiler for one of the major parties. Bob Barr represents the best chance for that to happen this year (imagine McCain losing Georgia because Barr pulls 8-10%).
Barr could keep McCain out of the White House, which, if nothing else, sends a signal to the GOP that neoconservative, “national greatness” bullshit ain’t gonna cut it anymore. And that’s a good thing. Hence, Barr is the best choice.
Of course, Ruwart might have drawn votes away from LaRouche, so, maybe it’s a wash…
I cannot call myself a Libertarian anymore. Mary Ruwart Is (was) a Liberatarian. Steve Kubby Is(was) a Libertarian. L Neil Smith Is (was) a Libertarian. Bob Barr is a Neocon Drug Warrior. The party has been hijacked. Reason Magazine has been hijacked.
Mary Ruwart is NOT a nutcase. Ron Paul is neither a 9-11 truther (unless desiring truth makes it so….) nor a nutcase.
It is either time for a new party or give up working withing the system. I thought Mr. Balko had better sense than this.
We’re doomed. God help us.
The more totalitarian the U.S. becomes, the more libertarians will look like a radical fringe group. Maybe as a party we have to worry about irrelevance, but as an individual it’s the voices of the two mainstream parties that daily reinforce my radicalism.
I sincerely appreciate the Libertarian Party. If not for them, it would be pointless for me to vote. Picking between two evils is like choosing whether to have your house torched by someone with a match or someone with a Molotov Cocktail.
But, libertarians are, by their highly independent, always questioning nature, the most non-homogeneous group of people on the planet. A successful political party must be the one thing libertarians can’t be. A mob.
I like the fact that Bob Barr is against the Iraq War.
Dave - you mean after he voted FOR it?
Well, that explains Mr. Balko’s support of him I guess. The old I-am-sort-of-against-the-Iraq-War crowd. Obama in ‘08!
Do you want to support a guy who regrets his support of the Iraq war and who now wants to get the Federal government out of the drug war, or do you want to support one of the two unrepentant authoritarians running?
Bob Barr is a great choice. Give the guy a chance.
People who believe that Bob Barr has somehow converted from his authoritarian past are the same people who believed Hitler when he said there were no death camps.
A bunch of 90-year-olds?
“States Rights” is occasionally useful rhetoric and a mediocre strategy for advancing liberty. I’d rather have a federal government that enforces a woman’s right to choose for all, than for a majority of states to outlaw abortion altogether. I’d rather have federal guns enforcing Lawrence v. Texas than state guns busting into bedrooms across the country to persecute homosexuals. Sometimes a “states rights” position gets you to a better result than the one we currently have - medical marijuana in California being an example. But just as much of the time, States are willing and able to infringe on personal liberty more than the federal government. “States Rights” is a tactic, not a strategy, and certainly not a valuable end in itself.
JJH2 - States rights is a valuable end in itself. Even if it doesn’t increase freedom everywhere, it would increase freedom in some places, and it at least moves the government closer to the people.
And if you don’t like the laws in your state, you can always move. It’s not ideal, but it’s better than what we’ve got now.
Oh, and it will also provide valuable lessons in the utility of freedom. When the states that stop prosecuting the drug war (just as an example) show positive results other states will take their lead.
Like I said, it’s not ideal, but it’s a good place to start. As someone further up the thread said, we can either be happy with incremental changes, or foment a real revolution, or be irrelevant. Incrementalism seems the only realistic goal right now.
Let Bob Barr work with the LP and other freedom organizations for a few years and prove himself. Not jump in as the presidential candidate with all the credibility of a federal drug enforcement/TSA/fill-in-the-blank thug.
As I recall, Ross Perot’s people approached the LP shortly before his presidential run looking for a party they could acquire. Back then the LP had enough integrity to not take the bait.
At one time, the LP was nearly as radical as the “founding fathers” and actually stood for liberty. Now they’re just another group of wanna-be tyrants seeking power at any price.
Reason Magazine has been accused from many sources recently of shifting to left-liberalism. I thought Balko was an exception, but no more. We need more “radical nut-jobs” who actually believe in liberty and won’t compromise at the first opportunity.
But Bob Barr HAS worked with the LP and other freedom organizations for a few years.
Bob Barr will be the first Libertarian Party candidate that does not get my vote for President since I voted for Jerry Ford (gag) in 1976. Barr is not a libertarian. He may attract more voters to the LP and will probably get more votes than any previous LP candidate. But he will cost the party its soul. Why settle for Republican Lite?
#51 Matt:
Were abortion issue to be kicked back for the States to decide, the result would most assuredly NOT be “increasing freedom in some places” - rather it would result in a massive decrease in real freedom for women in the majority of States in the US.
There is no virtue in “mov[ing] government closer to the people” because the “closeness” of people and government has _absolutely nothing at all_ to do with how just any particular governmental action is. The narrower and more parochial the group given a monopoly on the effective use of force in a heterogenous society, the MORE likely they are to act capriciously to enforce their will onto nonconforming persons.
“States Rights” is a suckers game, and anybody who recognizes the substantive content of what it means to have Liberty knows it.
I’ve found myself wondering why people make the state’s rights argument, too. While there may be reasons for moving government authority from the federal level to the more local state level, I honestly don’t believe it leads to greater liberty.
I don’t much like the term “state’s rights”. Too many state governments take it as a grant of jurisdiction to control the lives of individuals. And, if there’s one thing state legislators have impressed upon me, it’s that they can make even the dumbest federal legislators look like geniuses.
#5 “Once again Libertarians prove their critics right- they really are just Republicans who like pot.”
LMAO!!!! I guess that’s a hell of a lot better than being a Hypocrite Republican who snorts coke, or buys illegal drugs from his maid, or who looks for sex in airport bathrroms with other men…but then…who am I to judge a party full of hypocrites….
I’ll talk about the hypocrite Democrats at the next available opportunity.
I’ll take an honest pothead over an alcohoic, lying hypocrite (regardless of party) anyday…I guess that’s just me.
It’s not “state’s rights” that’s the issue, but federalism and the recognition that the federal government’s powers are “few and defined,” and that proper application of constitutional principles recognizes that the majority or power that can rightly be exercised must be exercised at the state, not federal, level.
Of course, protecting individual rights is paramount, and if states are routinely violating the rights of its citizens (e.g., the Jim Crow South), then the federal government has an obligation to step in and stop that (not all libertarians agree on that last point). The Constitution limits federal authority, and also limits state authority. The ultimate objective in all of its instruments is the protection of individual rights.
I think this quote from Tertullian seems relevant:
“I blush not at an error which I have ceased to hold, because I am delighted at having ceased to hold it, because I recognise myself to be better and more modest. No one blushes at his own improvement.”
Give Bob Barr a chance to prove that he is a true libertarian. What is the worse thing that could happen? We elect him and he turns out to be an authoritarian neo-con drug warrior? We already have that if McCain gets elected.
ps. I and many libertarians agree with Ron Paul on the life issue. The government is supposed to protect people from murder.
I believe in abortion, but only until the kid is 18 tears old.
I’ve found myself wondering why people make the state’s rights argument, too.
My guess is that is has something to do with having read the Tenth Amendment.
Um, who cares about the 10th Amendment? Who cares about the Constitution? Never mind that the Constitution itself has been, well, as predicted, a “parchment barrier” to the violation of our rights. It’s just irrelevant. A government action isn’t right or wrong because it’s authorized or not authorized by the Constitution - it’s right or wrong because it violates or doesn’t violate a right which people hold independently of any long-ignored piece of yellowed paper. The Constitution has no binding moral force on anybody - never has, never will.
I cannot support Bob Barr. Which means I am sitting this election out. Unfortunately, it seems quite likely to me that Bob Barr is a stalking horse for social conservatives who want to take over the ballot access and creaky machinery of the Libertarian Party in order to replace the Republican Party — which means any dream of using the LP as a tool for constructive change is gone . So it goes.
If Bob Barr really had a conversion, he could have spent the next decade working in the background to undo the dreadful legislation he sponsored, rather than “I was so, so horribly wrong — so now I will lead you!”. I think no.
JJH2,
Put down that copy of the collected works of Lysander Spooner before you hurt yourself.
B & Greg,
You’re clearly missing JJH2’s point. He is right that liberty is the goal, and that in the end, those policies which increase liberty are a Good Thing regardless of whether they come from states or federal sources.
People often point to “states rights” or the Constitution as if that is what validates or invalidates an action as Good. It is viewing a means (states rights, constitutionality test) as if it’s an end, when liberty is the end.
To those taking the time to debate or defend JJH2, I should point out that he recently said that a woman has a right to abort a baby because it is parasitic and has no cognitive abilities . . . until it’s three years old. I’m glad democracy beat whatever hell’s spawn ideology thought that up.
Radley: You had a lot of respect from me until this. What crap! People are twisting and distorting Ruwarts views and ignoring the views that Barr is still promoting. He has not repudiate the war on drugs at all. He says he wants it fought at the state level because the state’s would be more efficient at it. He said that on TV before the nomination and he said during the Q&A at the convention although he was careful about spending most his time on the failure of the fed’s war on drugs and then only briefly mentioned turning it over to the states.
I find your comments pathetic and uninformed and totally out of sync with the view I had of you until today.
We are very fortunate in the choice of our enemies. We may quit but they will not.
US of A - fighting jihad since 1785.
Brad–Actually I understand JJH2’s point quite well. I’m even rather sympathetic to it. I get and agree with your delineation of means and ends here exactly.
But the “state’s rights argument” is rooted in the Constitution, which was really my only point. It isn’t pulled out of the air, justified by some nice philosophical abstractions, or “given to us by God”.
The Constitution has the decided advantage of actually existing, and while certainly not perfect or sacrosanct, is vastly preferable to the system of government that we have.
blockquote>#63 B
My guess is that is has something to do with having read the Tenth Amendment.
Have you read it? The Tenth Amendment also mentions “the people”.
The problem with the State’s Rights movement is that it’s not about liberty. It’s about which government has jurisdiction over something. Liberty is when no government has jurisdiction.
Tyranny closer to home is still tyranny.
Have you read it? The Tenth Amendment also mentions “the people”.
The problem with the State’s Rights movement is that it’s not about liberty. It’s about which government has jurisdiction over something. Liberty is when no government has jurisdiction.
Tyranny closer to home is still tyranny.
“Put down that copy of the collected works of Lysander Spooner before you hurt yourself.” –Greg N.
It’s very nice of you to protect us all from such dangerous literature. Do you have a comprehensive list of books you think we, the ignorant children, should not touch? Do you do library inspection house calls? If so, what’s your rate? I must have my library purged of dangerous books that aren’t approved by the libertarian nomenklatura immediately!
Just as an aside, which of the volumes of JJH2’s ‘copy’ should he put down? Was he reading all six of them at once?
#67:
Go back and read my comment at #60. We don’t disagree on those points.
Brian,
I wish everyone would read Spooner. I make all of my students read “Vices are Not Crimes” as well as “The Constitution of No Authority” (then we read excerpts from Randy Barnett’s latest, and then debate about whether/how government can be just and/or legitimate without universal consent).
Surely, Spooner is among the greatest champions of liberty, but that doesn’t mean it’s useful in modern political debates to argue his point about the Constitution’s irrelevance. Doing so just makes us look more like the kooks many people already assume we are (rightly so in some of your cases). My point wasn’t that people shouldn’t read Spooner, but rather to know when and where it’s appropriate to use his arguments (hence “before you hurt yourself”).
Arguing about the Constitution’s legitimacy is fine in an academic setting, or in a dorm room at midnight, but it has no place in modern politics, particularly libertarian politics. The sooner we learn that lesson, the better.
All of that said, if you’d like a list of books to catch you up to speed, I’d be happy to provide it (Tom Palmer’s “Literature of Liberty” in Boaz’s “Libertarian Reader” is the best and most comprehensive list; it’s also available here, I think: http://www.libertyguide.com/repository/docLib/20060919_The_Literature_of_Liberty.pdf).
All I do to look like a kook is to advocate the elimination of public school system. Normal people immediately roll their eyes, scoff, and walk off. I find it to be an excellent strategy for politely and speedily ending an unwelcome conversation.
I don’t see looking like a kook to be that much of a problem. I mean, isn’t everyone in favor of diversity these days?
#76
If the only way you can engage in “modern political debates” is by deliberately obfuscating your position, genuflecting in bad faith to the idea of constitutional legitimacy and the moral significance of Constitutional arguments, or trying as hard as possible to ignore the issue altogether — well, maybe that’s a pretty big strike against engaging in “modern political debates” in the first place. If you can’t stand up to a government action and say that it’s wrong because it violates some independent principle of Justice, _regardless_ of what any yellowed piece of parchment paper says, then what’s the use in even talking?
As I’ve said before, electoral politics is a shitty way to get things done. Radical libertarianism should be more concerned with building alternative institutions and direct-action, market-based efforts to undermine the Statist Quo.
As for effectiveness: which has been more effective at increasing liberty for migrants? 50 years of “immigration reform” is moving us again in the WRONG direction. Yet astoundingly, market-based direct action has allowed an estimated 20 million “illegal” immigrants move heroically into the US, despite the unjust attempts by La Migra to prevent them from doing so. 50 years of “drug reform” has absolutely moved us in the direction of less liberty, yet in that same 50 years, market-based direct action has allowed marijuana use to skyrocket, and illegal narcotics are more available than ever before.
Seems pretty clear to me which method has the best return on your investment.
After the convention I started looking around at blogs to see what the take was on Barr. I had listened to Christine when the camera covered her conversation on the convention floor. I had to agree with her at the time and two days later, having read more of Barr’s history and having listened to him respond to call-in questions on Monday morning… I doubly agree with her. Barr has not changed. He is still anti-abortion, anti-GLBT, anti-pot, neocon. I’ve enjoyed reading the opinions here and understand some of the conditional support for Barr but my sentiments lie with those opposed to him. My voter registration card says LIBERTARIAN but incremental change or not, I will not vote for Bob Barr. Maybe I’ll write in Ron Paul or maybe I just won’t vote for president. Basically I’m just dismayed.
Eat well, stay fit, Die Anyway.
For those of you interested in supporting the only libertarian (even if not perfect) in the race, I have started a July 12 money bomb page - digg it at http://digg.com/political_opinion/Bob_Barr_12th_of_July_Money_Bomb/
Donate today. Donate on July 4th. Donate on July 12th.
Thanks.