JohnSchreimann: I honestly know next to nothing about Bob Barr. The libertarian party has always been a bore to me. You'd think since they know they'll never win that they'd at least run someone more ballsy or at least use the platform to mock politics in general. I've always liked Ralph Nader for doing that (I think even he giggles if he imagines himself being president).
I honestly know next to nothing about Bob Barr. The libertarian party has always been a bore to me. You'd think since they know they'll never win that they'd at least run someone more ballsy or at least use the platform to mock politics in general. I've always liked Ralph Nader for doing that (I think even he giggles if he imagines himself being president).
It's sad that even Ralph Nader is more libertarian than the "Libertarian" Party's candidate.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Niccolò: ChaseCola: I am an exception to the Rule as well give me a medal too. Did you wake up one morning and become an Anarchist? Or was it a long process? I think it is evolution for 99% of Anarcho Capitalists, ussualy starting with Rand, and now Paul, and in the future Barr. First, I'm an Anarchist, not an "anarcho-capitalist" - which I take to be an oxymoron. Second, I never started in that line of thought. I came from a syndicalist standpoint and moved further to Individualist Anarchism from there. Third, Barr is the farthest thing from an Anarchist (i.e. a libertarian).
ChaseCola: I am an exception to the Rule as well give me a medal too. Did you wake up one morning and become an Anarchist? Or was it a long process? I think it is evolution for 99% of Anarcho Capitalists, ussualy starting with Rand, and now Paul, and in the future Barr.
I am an exception to the Rule as well give me a medal too. Did you wake up one morning and become an Anarchist? Or was it a long process? I think it is evolution for 99% of Anarcho Capitalists, ussualy starting with Rand, and now Paul, and in the future Barr.
First, I'm an Anarchist, not an "anarcho-capitalist" - which I take to be an oxymoron. Second, I never started in that line of thought. I came from a syndicalist standpoint and moved further to Individualist Anarchism from there.
Third, Barr is the farthest thing from an Anarchist (i.e. a libertarian).
My pet peeve is people playing the definition game with Capitalism when you know damn well what I mean. Just because you need to hold your hate of the term "capitalist" from your commy days does not mean you need to hate it now. How is a libertarian the furthest from an anarchist? Most anarcho-capitalists(you know what I mean) consider themselves to be libertarians. If you are speaking of the Libertarian Party then I still dont get your point. Libertarians are less anarchist than Democrats, Republicans, Greens ect..?
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
ChaseCola: Niccolò: ChaseCola: I am an exception to the Rule as well give me a medal too. Did you wake up one morning and become an Anarchist? Or was it a long process? I think it is evolution for 99% of Anarcho Capitalists, ussualy starting with Rand, and now Paul, and in the future Barr. First, I'm an Anarchist, not an "anarcho-capitalist" - which I take to be an oxymoron. Second, I never started in that line of thought. I came from a syndicalist standpoint and moved further to Individualist Anarchism from there. Third, Barr is the farthest thing from an Anarchist (i.e. a libertarian). My pet peeve is people playing the definition game with Capitalism when you know damn well what I mean. Just because you need to hold your hate of the term "capitalist" from your commy days does not mean you need to hate it now. How is a libertarian the furthest from an anarchist? Most anarcho-capitalists(you know what I mean) consider themselves to be libertarians. If you are speaking of the Libertarian Party then I still dont get your point. Libertarians are less anarchist than Democrats, Republicans, Greens ect..?
I thought his point was more or less: If Bob Barr is considered a libertarian, than a libertarian is the furtherest thing from an anarchist. The same can be said of Barr's supporters. However, if a given libertarian supports the notion of government/state, then they would not be an anarchist.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
I don't consider Bob Barr a libertarian. I don't think he even qualifies as a minarchist, if we are to use a generally big tent definition of libertarianism that includes them. His recent past indicates a highly conservative position and I don't trust that he has truly changed his position like that in a flash. The fact that he is supposed to be a representative of libertarianism frankly angers me.
Nitroadict: ChaseCola: Niccolò: ChaseCola: I am an exception to the Rule as well give me a medal too. Did you wake up one morning and become an Anarchist? Or was it a long process? I think it is evolution for 99% of Anarcho Capitalists, ussualy starting with Rand, and now Paul, and in the future Barr. First, I'm an Anarchist, not an "anarcho-capitalist" - which I take to be an oxymoron. Second, I never started in that line of thought. I came from a syndicalist standpoint and moved further to Individualist Anarchism from there. Third, Barr is the farthest thing from an Anarchist (i.e. a libertarian). My pet peeve is people playing the definition game with Capitalism when you know damn well what I mean. Just because you need to hold your hate of the term "capitalist" from your commy days does not mean you need to hate it now. How is a libertarian the furthest from an anarchist? Most anarcho-capitalists(you know what I mean) consider themselves to be libertarians. If you are speaking of the Libertarian Party then I still dont get your point. Libertarians are less anarchist than Democrats, Republicans, Greens ect..? I thought his point was more or less: If Bob Barr is considered a libertarian, than a libertarian is the furtherest thing from an anarchist. The same can be said of Barr's supporters. However, if a given libertarian supports the notion of government/state, then they would not be an anarchist.
Barr is obviously not an Anarchist but some people(like myself) think he is a good way to spread the message of smaller government and thus support him.
I am very interested in how the Green Socialist Nader is more libertarian than Barr.
ChaseCola: Nitroadict: ChaseCola: Niccolò: ChaseCola: I am an exception to the Rule as well give me a medal too. Did you wake up one morning and become an Anarchist? Or was it a long process? I think it is evolution for 99% of Anarcho Capitalists, ussualy starting with Rand, and now Paul, and in the future Barr. First, I'm an Anarchist, not an "anarcho-capitalist" - which I take to be an oxymoron. Second, I never started in that line of thought. I came from a syndicalist standpoint and moved further to Individualist Anarchism from there. Third, Barr is the farthest thing from an Anarchist (i.e. a libertarian). My pet peeve is people playing the definition game with Capitalism when you know damn well what I mean. Just because you need to hold your hate of the term "capitalist" from your commy days does not mean you need to hate it now. How is a libertarian the furthest from an anarchist? Most anarcho-capitalists(you know what I mean) consider themselves to be libertarians. If you are speaking of the Libertarian Party then I still dont get your point. Libertarians are less anarchist than Democrats, Republicans, Greens ect..? I thought his point was more or less: If Bob Barr is considered a libertarian, than a libertarian is the furtherest thing from an anarchist. The same can be said of Barr's supporters. However, if a given libertarian supports the notion of government/state, then they would not be an anarchist. Barr is obviously not an Anarchist but some people(like myself) think he is a good way to spread the message of smaller government and thus support him. I am very interested in how the Green Socialist Nader is more libertarian than Barr.
If Niccolo was being literal (I don't think he is; it's pretty ridiculous how Barr is considered to represent libertarianism at all), then I would disagree completly with such a statement.I think he was merley exagerting how libertarianism via the Libertarian Party seems to be the hot new "in" thing for statists who have no home with either the republicans or democrats, want to get headlines, and possibly power if they can actually get elected.
ChaseCola: My pet peeve is people playing the definition game with Capitalism when you know damn well what I mean. Just because you need to hold your hate of the term "capitalist" from your commy days does not mean you need to hate it now. How is a libertarian the furthest from an anarchist? Most anarcho-capitalists(you know what I mean) consider themselves to be libertarians. If you are speaking of the Libertarian Party then I still dont get your point. Libertarians are less anarchist than Democrats, Republicans, Greens
My pet peeve is people playing the definition game with Capitalism when you know damn well what I mean. Just because you need to hold your hate of the term "capitalist" from your commy days does not mean you need to hate it now. How is a libertarian the furthest from an anarchist? Most anarcho-capitalists(you know what I mean) consider themselves to be libertarians. If you are speaking of the Libertarian Party then I still dont get your point. Libertarians are less anarchist than Democrats, Republicans, Greens
You misunderstood.
I did not mean that Bob Barr was a libertarian or that libertarian was the furthest thing from an Anarchist, on the contrary, I meant to say that Bob Barr is the furthest thing from an Anarchist (another word for libertarian). That is, that Anarchist and libertarian are perfectly synonymous.
Furthermore, my issue with the idea of capitalism is one of historical perspective. Historically, all states called capitalist have been capitalist, but have they been libertarian? No! In fact, I would argue that from the historical definition, capitalist has always meant "mercantilist" or "corporatist" and that the difference is merely one of rhetoric.
Libertarianism is such that requires no state. In capitalism, however, a state is required.
ChaseCola: Barr is obviously not an Anarchist but some people(like myself) think he is a good way to spread the message of smaller government and thus support him. I am very interested in how the Green Socialist Nader is more libertarian than Barr.
Also, Ralph Nader is no more "socialist" than Bob Barr.
Nitroadict: If Niccolo was being literal (I don't think he is; it's pretty ridiculous how Barr is considered to represent libertarianism at all), then I would disagree completly with such a statement.I think he was merley exagerting how libertarianism via the Libertarian Party seems to be the hot new "in" thing for statists who have no home with either the republicans or democrats, want to get headlines, and possibly power if they can actually get elected.
Eh... I don't think I conveyed it properly.
What was meant was that Bob Barr is not an Anarchist (i.e. a Libertarian). Or better put, Bob Barr is not a Libertarian (another word for Anarchist).
Niccolò: Throw people that sell and use cocaine, heroin, or unperscribed Effexor (someone on this board does that very thing so that he doesn't have to go through worst withdrawals known to any drug of its kind), move to the relatively wealthy US from the Latin American regions, or just burn the US flag in anti-Imperial demonstrations away to jail; yes, Bob Barr is very pro-liberties.... Also, Ralph Nader is no more "socialist" than Bob Barr.
Throw people that sell and use cocaine, heroin, or unperscribed Effexor (someone on this board does that very thing so that he doesn't have to go through worst withdrawals known to any drug of its kind), move to the relatively wealthy US from the Latin American regions, or just burn the US flag in anti-Imperial demonstrations away to jail; yes, Bob Barr is very pro-liberties....
Barr has said that he would end the federal War on Drugs, and since he is running for a federal position that is good enough for me. If you define Socialism as "advocating state run programs" then I do think Nader is far more socialist than Barr.
ChaseCola: Barr has said that he would end the federal War on Drugs, and since he is running for a federal position that is good enough for me. If you define Socialism as "advocating state run programs" then I do think Nader is far more socialist than Barr.
No he hasn't! He's expressed some anamosity towards the one government being able to decide whether the other governments have the ability to allow or outlaw medicinal marijuana - ooooooooooohhhhhh how edgy! - and the only thing I can find about him expressing any other questions about the drug war is a Colbert interview where he says that the war on drugs isn't efficient enough...
Jesus Christ! This guy would have me in jail because I don't want to go through the hassle of going to a doctor to get a single perscription for something I need to merely function!
Bob Barr does advocate state run programs. So yes, he's just as socialist - if not more - than Nader.
In this video Barr says it should be up to the states http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q
Barr is against the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services ect.. Nader is for expanding all of those departments except the Department of Homeland sercurity. What am I missing here?
Niccolò: That is, that Anarchist and libertarian are perfectly synonymous.
That is, that Anarchist and libertarian are perfectly synonymous.
While I am an anarchist, your definition would exclude the man this institute was named for, Ludwig von Mises, from libertarianism.
ChaseCola:I am not saying listening to Barr will automatically make you an-cap. But it takes people from "how will the government solve this problem to "get the hell out of the way." It get's a person interested in liberty to further their research and perhaps becom an-cap. A debate will be extremely hard to present to a person if it is not in the media. That is why we need to send a watered it down version as well, so people can at least see an arguement that is liberty leaning. At best they will continue down the road to an-cap, at worst they will question the government just that much more. I am not saying we do not educate people about an-cap, but I am saying that if we want a large amount of people moving in our direction we will have to spread a watered down version as well.
Just how is this supposed to happen with Barr? What does he say that will get someone interested, or get them thinking on a libertarian path, instead of "that right-wing craziness is what libertarians stand for? Screw that - I like privacy, civil liberties, and rights for gays, not that libertarian totalitarianism."
Barr gave us the sunset clauses in the Patriot act, and said it was a mistake to vote for it and has worked ro repeal it ever since. He also said he would repeal the not so libertarian part of DOMA. He has also lobbied fot the Marijuania Policy Project and said he would end the War on Drugs.
Yeah, on the Barr/Root website under issues:
"Cut spending" -- replace income tax with more sales and consumption taxes.
Americans should be allowed to choose foods and lightbulbs they buy.
US was formed to ensure property protection and giving people liberties. More of that.
Wow. I'm excited. There's even a link to send these important policy ideas to a friend to share!
I think a larger point here is the difference between Lew Rockwell saying that Buchanan, while wrong on economics, is often right on foreign policy, and the LP nominating Barr for President. Lew Rockwell is in no way suggesting that Buchanan is libertarian or that, far worse, libertarians should move themselves to meet Buchanan. Instead, he's pointing out what Buchanan is good at. The LP, on the other hand, is allowing Barr to set the, well, the bar for what a libertarian is, and holding him out as a standard-bearer in general. These are quite different.
I think our educational tactics are quite important. At present, 5% of the population, to be quite generous, would identify at all with libertarianism as a whole. Maybe 10-15% can be brought around with solid education, the Mises Institute, FEE, and so on. This latter number would include all the people brought in by Ron Paul campaigns. If we accomplish what we can, we still, in the short to medium term, cannot exert enough power to make changes. What we can do is be a pressure block. I suggest that libertarians stop acting as if the real dangers weren't present, and start realizing we need to be in defensive mode. We do have large enough numbers that, when non-libertarians pop up talking about the largest current dangers, we can assure them that we bring something to the table. When Kucinich risks losing his career by standing against the war, libertarians ought to acknowledge that. So, I suggest that libertarians do not need to support only pure libertarians, but rather can and should acknowledge others when they make the most important current points. As times change, the people making these points will change. Right now, the most serious concerns are foreign policy and civil liberties, and we would do well to lend our support to anyone who stands with us on these. That includes Buchanan, Kucinich, and Nader, but not Barr.
On the other hand, we would be quite unwise to try to "claim" these folks as libertarians, and thereby dilute what libertarianism means. That is unfortunately what is happening with Barr. We're in defensive mode, and helping these people because they are fighting what we are most worried about. We are not thereby promoting libertarianism, but using our libertarian perspective to press against the most serious dangers to liberty. In the long-term, we also need to build our numbers and press for libertarianism, but that long-term perspective, which I believe is important, should not mean that we do nothing short-term strategically while real things are happening. What we should not do, though, is a short-term attempt to short-circuit the necessary steps by forcibly implementing libertarianism - as by latching onto celebrities to run as Libertarians and attempt to win the election.
ChaseCola:Barr gave us the sunset clauses in the Patriot act, and said it was a mistake to vote for it and has worked ro repeal it ever since. He also said he would repeal the not so libertarian part of DOMA. He has also lobbied fot the Marijuania Policy Project and said he would end the War on Drugs.
Ever since? He testified in support of reauthorization, which makes me wonder why I should care that he got the sunset clause since he didn't think it should be used. His argument about the Patriot Act has been that it's been misused, not that it was a bad idea - I specifically have not heard him say it was a mistake to vote for it, but instead heard him engage in gymnastics to defend his vote. Medical Marijuana is not a libertarian issue - the libertarian issue is getting government out of decisions about what I put into my body. When did he say he would end the war on drugs? Just a few weeks ago on Hannity he said he would not legalize hard drugs if he had the power to do so.
ChaseCola: In this video Barr says it should be up to the states http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q Barr is against the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services ect.. Nader is for expanding all of those departments except the Department of Homeland sercurity. What am I missing here?
What?!? Where did Barr say that? His position was clearly in reference to "soft" drugs like marijuana - specifically medicinal. And appealing to "federalism" is a clear cut and run when trying to play down your drug warrior credo. You've got to do better than that. At best, it was ambiguous. He didn't say he was against the federal government's war on drugs, he said "it may be better handled on a state level." No, he even stated "no, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack."Just because Pinnochio wished upon a star, doesn't mean that your cognitive bias will prove true.
Barr isn't against any of these things; Barr may be critical of them, but for different reasons. Nader is also against the drug war. Is Bob Barr?In any case, I'm not going to get into the discussion of why Nader is more libertarian than Bob Barr. I think the comparative record is clear enough - though marginal.
ChaseCola: Barr gave us the sunset clauses in the Patriot act, and said it was a mistake to vote for it and has worked ro repeal it ever since. He also said he would repeal the not so libertarian part of DOMA. He has also lobbied fot the Marijuania Policy Project and said he would end the War on Drugs.
Please, a little proof would be nice, Pinnochio.
shazam: Niccolò: That is, that Anarchist and libertarian are perfectly synonymous. While I am an anarchist, your definition would exclude the man this institute was named for, Ludwig von Mises, from libertarianism.
I'm not entirely clear on Mises' politics. But if he desired government, then no, he was not a libertarian. He may have been a classical liberal - and that's nice! - but I respect Mises as an economist, not as a political theorist. Just like I respect Hayek, JR Hicks, Schumpeter, Lionel Robbins, Kirzner, Lachmann, and others as economists. That doesn't mean I'm going to ever agree with their politics.
JohnSchreimann: Yeah, on the Barr/Root website under issues: "Cut spending" -- replace income tax with more sales and consumption taxes. Americans should be allowed to choose foods and lightbulbs they buy. US was formed to ensure property protection and giving people liberties. More of that. Wow. I'm excited. There's even a link to send these important policy ideas to a friend to share!
I lol'ed.
Brainpolice:A lot. A hell of a lot. Just look at the historical failure of classical liberalism - and the conservative corruption of libertarianism that already has taken place in more recent years. It seems nonsensical to try the exact same thing over and over again (I.E. engage in the politics of compromise and the game of smoke and mirrors) when it has quite obviously failed. There is a danger of literally becoming one's own enemy, of becoming precisely what one originally set out to oppose.
But your approach is flawed. There are people out there who want to be free, to attain more or absolute liberty, but they have never thought about it, never heard it expressed as being in their best interest.
And you reject them outright, because the minute they hear about it, they don't become SEK3 cultists like Nicky.
Nonsense and silliness. It's time to open the shades and step outside. The world is full of risks and danger, hiding, rejecting and being uncompromising may satisfy you intellectually, but it will not make you free.
Niccolò: shazam: Niccolò: That is, that Anarchist and libertarian are perfectly synonymous. While I am an anarchist, your definition would exclude the man this institute was named for, Ludwig von Mises, from libertarianism. I'm not entirely clear on Mises' politics. But if he desired government, then no, he was not a libertarian. He may have been a classical liberal - and that's nice! - but I respect Mises as an economist, not as a political theorist. Just like I respect Hayek, JR Hicks, Schumpeter, Lionel Robbins, Kirzner, Lachmann, and others as economists. That doesn't mean I'm going to ever agree with their politics.
I never said you had to agree with their politics. I just suggested that you be more inclusive regarding who you consider to be libertarian. After all, minarchists and anarchists both intend on going in the same direction, it is the destination where we differ.
liberty student: The world is full of risks and danger
The world is full of risks and danger
Not for those who simply repeat nonsense which is actually contrary to reality -- which is what most do on a day to day basis.
JohnSchreimann: liberty student: The world is full of risks and danger Not for those who simply repeat nonsense which is actually contrary to reality -- which is what most do on a day to day basis.
Those Who Repeat Nonsense Contrary To Reality: "Oh God, it feels like there's accountants cranking add-machines in my head." :inside person's head, 2 accountants at a desk crunching numbers with add machines: Paul: "Dic*, you ever wonder what's outside those walls?" Dic*: "Say now, that's dangerous thinking Paul, you best stick to your work." Paul: "Okay."
Niccolò: ChaseCola: Barr gave us the sunset clauses in the Patriot act, and said it was a mistake to vote for it and has worked ro repeal it ever since. He also said he would repeal the not so libertarian part of DOMA. He has also lobbied fot the Marijuania Policy Project and said he would end the War on Drugs. Please, a little proof would be nice, Pinnochio.
Repeal Patriot Act: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBMirWOR3JY&feature=related
End Federal War on Drugs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q
Marijuania Policy project: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/479/bob_barr_joins_mpp
Repeal Doma: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz-VZgVTJdQ
liberty student: Brainpolice:A lot. A hell of a lot. Just look at the historical failure of classical liberalism - and the conservative corruption of libertarianism that already has taken place in more recent years. It seems nonsensical to try the exact same thing over and over again (I.E. engage in the politics of compromise and the game of smoke and mirrors) when it has quite obviously failed. There is a danger of literally becoming one's own enemy, of becoming precisely what one originally set out to oppose. But your approach is flawed. There are people out there who want to be free, to attain more or absolute liberty, but they have never thought about it, never heard it expressed as being in their best interest. And you reject them outright, because the minute they hear about it, they don't become SEK3 cultists like Nicky. Nonsense and silliness. It's time to open the shades and step outside. The world is full of risks and danger, hiding, rejecting and being uncompromising may satisfy you intellectually, but it will not make you free.
Again, you're mischaracterizing the position.
Niccolò: ChaseCola: In this video Barr says it should be up to the states http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q Barr is against the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services ect.. Nader is for expanding all of those departments except the Department of Homeland sercurity. What am I missing here? What?!? Where did Barr say that? His position was clearly in reference to "soft" drugs like marijuana - specifically medicinal. And appealing to "federalism" is a clear cut and run when trying to play down your drug warrior credo. You've got to do better than that. At best, it was ambiguous. He didn't say he was against the federal government's war on drugs, he said "it may be better handled on a state level." No, he even stated "no, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack."Just because Pinnochio wished upon a star, doesn't mean that your cognitive bias will prove true. Barr isn't against any of these things; Barr may be critical of them, but for different reasons. Nader is also against the drug war. Is Bob Barr?In any case, I'm not going to get into the discussion of why Nader is more libertarian than Bob Barr. I think the comparative record is clear enough - though marginal.
The question was if he had it his way and it was left up to the states how would he vote. That is what what is being referenced by federalism, leaving it up to the states, which would mean ending the federal war on drugs.
ChaseCola: The question was if he had it his way and it was left up to the states how would he vote. That is what what is being referenced by federalism, leaving it up to the states, which would mean ending the federal war on drugs.
No. That particular point was not specicified.
Colmes: You don't believe the federal government should be involved in the war on drugs? Have you reversed your position on that? BB: This should be an issue based on the *stutter* continued failure of our drug laws to really stem the tide or change the style of behavior that would probably be much better handled on the state level...
BB: This should be an issue based on the *stutter* continued failure of our drug laws to really stem the tide or change the style of behavior that would probably be much better handled on the state level...
Ok... And why couldn't he just say, "Yes, I have,"? Oh... That's right, because he's not a libertarian!
By the way, no libertarian would want to just "limit" them to the state, especially not one that wants to do it to increase the efficiency at which black fathers are stolen from their families!
SH: Let me see if I'm clear here, if a state wants to legalize heroin and crack are you ok with that?BB: What I'm saying Sean (another diversion) and you keep coming back to heroin and crack... SH: Yes, it's an epidemic. BB: What I would think would be in accord with your views of federalism. You don't believe that the people should be able to vote on these things in the state level?SH: But I didn't ask that. I asked what would your vote be. Woul you vote to legalize heroin and crack?BB: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean; we talked about this before and you keep coming back to it. SH: Ok, so you're against legalizing drugs if you had to vote for it? BB: Sean, I've answered it on the radio recently and I've answered it here. But Sean, do we not agree, do you not see merit in returning powers to the people of the state...?
SH: Yes, it's an epidemic.
BB: What I would think would be in accord with your views of federalism. You don't believe that the people should be able to vote on these things in the state level?SH: But I didn't ask that. I asked what would your vote be. Woul you vote to legalize heroin and crack?BB: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean; we talked about this before and you keep coming back to it.
SH: Ok, so you're against legalizing drugs if you had to vote for it?
BB: Sean, I've answered it on the radio recently and I've answered it here. But Sean, do we not agree, do you not see merit in returning powers to the people of the state...?
Again, where does he commit to being against the war on black families drugs.
Niccolò: ChaseCola: The question was if he had it his way and it was left up to the states how would he vote. That is what what is being referenced by federalism, leaving it up to the states, which would mean ending the federal war on drugs. No. That particular point was not specicified. Colmes: You don't believe the federal government should be involved in the war on drugs? Have you reversed your position on that? BB: This should be an issue based on the *stutter* continued failure of our drug laws to really stem the tide or change the style of behavior that would probably be much better handled on the state level... Ok... And why couldn't he just say, "Yes, I have,"? Oh... That's right, because he's not a libertarian! By the way, no libertarian would want to just "limit" them to the state, especially not one that wants to do it to increase the efficiency at which black fathers are stolen from their families! SH: Let me see if I'm clear here, if a state wants to legalize heroin and crack are you ok with that?BB: What I'm saying Sean (another diversion) and you keep coming back to heroin and crack... SH: Yes, it's an epidemic. BB: What I would think would be in accord with your views of federalism. You don't believe that the people should be able to vote on these things in the state level?SH: But I didn't ask that. I asked what would your vote be. Woul you vote to legalize heroin and crack?BB: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean; we talked about this before and you keep coming back to it. SH: Ok, so you're against legalizing drugs if you had to vote for it? BB: Sean, I've answered it on the radio recently and I've answered it here. But Sean, do we not agree, do you not see merit in returning powers to the people of the state...? Again, where does he commit to being against the war on black families drugs.
He is pandering to conservatives that is why he is being so unclear. "probably be much better handled on the state level" I believe that means he wants to end it on the federal level. That is the only logical conclusion.
ChaseCola: He is pandering to conservatives that is why he is being so unclear. "probably be much better handled on the state level" I believe that means he wants to end it on the federal level. That is the only logical conclusion.
Except your logical conclusion is just a logical fallacy... Wishful thinking.
Niccolò: ChaseCola: He is pandering to conservatives that is why he is being so unclear. "probably be much better handled on the state level" I believe that means he wants to end it on the federal level. That is the only logical conclusion. Except your logical conclusion is just a logical fallacy... Wishful thinking.
you are right he just says it would probably be much better handled on the state level because he wants it to be handled on the federal level.
ChaseCola: Niccolò: ChaseCola: He is pandering to conservatives that is why he is being so unclear. "probably be much better handled on the state level" I believe that means he wants to end it on the federal level. That is the only logical conclusion. Except your logical conclusion is just a logical fallacy... Wishful thinking. you are right he just says it would probably be much better handled on the state level because he wants it to be handled on the federal level.
And now your pulling it out of context.
Well, whatever. I'm bored. I've successfuly shown that Barr isn't a libertarian, he supports the drug war, and anyone that wants to point to his *erm* reforms should probably take a second look.
Have the last word.
Niccolò: ChaseCola: Niccolò: ChaseCola: He is pandering to conservatives that is why he is being so unclear. "probably be much better handled on the state level" I believe that means he wants to end it on the federal level. That is the only logical conclusion. Except your logical conclusion is just a logical fallacy... Wishful thinking. you are right he just says it would probably be much better handled on the state level because he wants it to be handled on the federal level. And now your pulling it out of context. Well, whatever. I'm bored. I've successfuly shown that Barr isn't a libertarian, he supports the drug war, and anyone that wants to point to his *erm* reforms should probably take a second look. Have the last word.
I agree he is not a libertarian but he would reduce the federal governments role in almost everything it does and I think that is a step in our direction as opposed to Obama or Mccain which is a clear step in the other direction.
I was done with this debate but this is gold.
ChaseCola: I was done with this debate but this is gold.
What is this HuffPo? I thought they died out after printing one too many articles on Angelina Jolie.
Bob Barr actually seems like a genius compared to the reader responses in that link.
Btw, Bob Barr: if you and David D. Friedman are in a room together right now reading this... I mean no disrespect, honestly.
ChaseCola:I agree he is not a libertarian but he would reduce the federal governments role in almost everything it does and I think that is a step in our direction as opposed to Obama or Mccain which is a clear step in the other direction.
Fine, this is a good argument that Barr would be a good nominee if the nominee had a chance in hell win. However, he doesn't, so the issue is not "is he a better President than McCain/Obama?" Rather, the question is what the campaign can accomplish in terms of education.
Uh huh...
I'm more or less looking for a direct plain quote from Bob Barr that says that if he were president, he would disband the War on Drugs and all regulations pertaining to them, as well as forcing states to comply with the same measures.
Until I see that, he's still a drug warrior. Mind you, this isn't the only issue that makes him a slimy, sleazy serpent, but it is one of the most noticeable.
What does Barr mean by freedom anyways? State control? A different method for the federal government? How do some libertarians find it so easy to trust a politician?