Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

A Brief Note of thanks to the C.P.

rated by 0 users
This post has 12 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 253
Points 4,535
Mark B. Posted: Sat, Apr 26 2008 11:47 AM

Just a quick thank you to the Constitution Party for NOT nominating arch neo-conservative loony bin Alan Keyes.  Thankfully we will be spared his "contribution" to the Presidential race.  By the way, they nominated Chuck Baldwin, for whatever that is worth.

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,205
Points 20,670
JAlanKatz replied on Sat, Apr 26 2008 11:51 AM

I'm not sure what it's worth. It gives right-wing Christian RP supporters an excuse not to consider themselves libertarians. On the one hand, this is good, since it prevents some public confusion. On the other hand, it means that those folks now have a reason not to look into the books Ron recommended, which is a missed opportunity for them to possibly become libertarians. Maybe, just maybe, he'll be another conservative pulling votes away from McCain, and maybe, just maybe, that will help elect Obama - who might, probably not but might, be less of a warmonger. Sad state of affairs. It certainly takes away any chance of the LP attracting the right-wingers to add to vote totals, even if Barr is nominated. I am glad to see, though, that the Constitution Party at least isn't as sold out as the LP.
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 17,125
Ego replied on Sat, Apr 26 2008 11:52 AM

Third parties are a miserable waste of time and votes, in my opinion, But more power to them!

Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.

However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.

Question their motives.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 17,125
Ego replied on Sat, Apr 26 2008 11:52 AM

double-post

Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.

However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.

Question their motives.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 17,125
Ego replied on Sat, Apr 26 2008 12:06 PM

Obama would exactly the same as McCain on foreign policy and infinitely worse on domestic policy. Plus, he'd get away with anything.

Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.

However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.

Question their motives.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 235
Points 5,230
shazam replied on Sun, Apr 27 2008 12:03 AM

Ego:

Obama would exactly the same as McCain on foreign policy and infinitely worse on domestic policy. Plus, he'd get away with anything.

 

 My left hand puppet would be exactly the same as my right hand puppet on foreign policy and infinitely worse on domestic policy. Plus, it'd get away with anything.

Anarcho-capitalism boogeyman

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 17,125
Ego replied on Sun, Apr 27 2008 12:12 AM

Since I'll be forced to shake one of your two hands for the next four years, I'd rather shake your right hand.

Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.

However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.

Question their motives.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

JAlanKatz:
I'm not sure what it's worth. It gives right-wing Christian RP supporters an excuse not to consider themselves libertarians. On the one hand, this is good, since it prevents some public confusion. On the other hand, it means that those folks now have a reason not to look into the books Ron recommended, which is a missed opportunity for them to possibly become libertarians.

Baldwin is a Ron Paul True Believer.  If anything, he may pick up the baton and run with it for awhile.  Not to mention that anyone is better than W.A.R., the corporate libertarian.

 

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
scineram replied on Sun, Apr 27 2008 1:34 PM
McCain would be the worst. I still root for Billary.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 75
Points 1,430
CShirk replied on Mon, Apr 28 2008 9:20 AM

scineram:
McCain would be the worst. I still root for Billary.
 

That would be good only because it might do a lot to convince people how evil government is. People might start remembering the mass murder(s), trampling of property rights, and disregarding of warrant requirements for search and siezure of the last two Billary terms and make the connections.

Edit:

By the way, what is this Constitutional Party I keep hearing about and what is its relationship with the Libertarian Party?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 253
Points 4,535
Mark B. replied on Mon, Apr 28 2008 10:07 AM

CShirk:

By the way, what is this Constitutional Party I keep hearing about and what is its relationship with the Libertarian Party?

 

 It is actually the Constitution Party.  It has no formal relation at all to the Libertarian Party.  Here is the link to main site and platform:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

It is not a libertarian or Austrian leaning party.  They do promote strict adherence to the Constitution, obviously implied by the name of their party.

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 4,532
Points 84,495
Stranger replied on Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:26 AM

JAlanKatz:
I'm not sure what it's worth. It gives right-wing Christian RP supporters an excuse not to consider themselves libertarians.

What is a libertarian if not someone who defends his rights? Building a "pure" Libertarian party is a fantasy. The interests of liberty are general interests, not party interests. It will take a grand confederation of all opposition groups to successfully resist the state. The more opposition parties there are, the better. The problem libertarian activists should be concerned about should not be whom the best candidate for a Libertarian president is, but how to establish a constitution for the confederation of opposition parties.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 235
Points 5,230
shazam replied on Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:55 PM

Mark B.:

CShirk:

By the way, what is this Constitutional Party I keep hearing about and what is its relationship with the Libertarian Party?

 

 It is actually the Constitution Party.  It has no formal relation at all to the Libertarian Party.  Here is the link to main site and platform:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

It is not a libertarian or Austrian leaning party.  They do promote strict adherence to the Constitution, obviously implied by the name of their party.

 

 However, I do see a scenario where Baldwin becomes the small-l libertarian choice if the LP nominates a non-libertarian, which is quite likely this year. So far, the candidates we have are:

*Bob Barr, who advocates a national sales tax

*Wayne Allyn Root, whose support for waging war on "Islamofascism" made Glenn Beck refer to his platform as "conservative porn"

*George Phillies, the "fair" trader who advocates government regulation in marriage, immigration, roads, etc. and has a disdain for states' rights

*Mike Gravel, who advocates world governance and nationalized health insurance

*Christine Smith, who recently endorsed the federal government's war on child pornography

When it comes down to it, there are only two real libertarians running for the nomination (Ruwart and Kubby), both of whom have little chance at the nomination.

Anarcho-capitalism boogeyman

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (13 items) | RSS