Economics Questions

Re: Buchanan and Barr

scineram — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:03:14 GMT

First, this is how mainstream, beltway libertarians think. Second, Block confirmed the conservatoid takeover of the party.

Re: Buchanan and Barr

Niccolò — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:54:33 GMT

Hm... I definitely share your sentiments there. I remember Brad Spangler was doing something along those lines. A "Death to the Party" type campaign.

I'll ask him about it.

Re: Buchanan and Barr

Nitroadict — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:50:21 GMT

Niccolò:

I just don't get it...

Why are they even paying attention to the "L"P? Why should Bob Barr even be relevant?

Slap the word libertarian on it and suddenly it becomes so?

Give me a break. Hmm

The entire thing is an exercise in marketing under political means of change, and it looks like at this point, until the LP somehow just simply runs out of money (probably won't happen with their new "ex-conservative" & "ex-liberal" politicians without a home recently joining), I doubt it will stop anytime soon. They have so much more pandering & drifting towards conservatism and/or utilitarianism to do before they can be viewed as a total failure, it seems.

I do think that if Ruwart had won nomination, though, and went the distance & ran (& subsequently lost), maybe more LP members would've woken up to the possibility that political means might not be the answer, as she was their most radical candidate (I think).

However, since the LP chose Barr, they're going to keep wondering if only they had the "perfect" candidate, and this will motivate them for another "shot" at trying to get something done next time around.

Some are even advocating voting McCain as a rationalization of "I love my country, but I hate McCain", over voting for Barr or anyone else!

The option of op'ing out (instead of voting for McCain or Barr or Ronald McDonald, etc.) being viewed as nuts is beyond me; it's almost as if some libertarians have been brainwashed into thinking they have to pull a lever, any lever, in order to get something done?

Personally, I would welcome any future fund raisers at getting the LP to just stop it, because at this point, I think the LP would seriously consider hiring the guy who sells Oxy-Clean, to do their marketing:

Re: Buchanan and Barr

Niccolò — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:35:41 GMT

I just don't get it...

Why are they even paying attention to the "L"P? Why should Bob Barr even be relevant?

Slap the word libertarian on it and suddenly it becomes so?

Give me a break.

Re: Buchanan and Barr

Nitroadict — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:33:11 GMT

Niccolò:

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?

They do so in the name of being "realistic", so they can play along in the political process with the Statists in hopes of somehow becoming head of the baseball team & then disbanding it as soon as they have power. The Liberty Papers is a good source of this type of wishful thinking.

I point to that site especially now, because the amount of rationalization over Barr is rather pathetic & disgusting.

Re: Buchanan and Barr

Niccolò — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:06:00 GMT

ChaseCola:

I was done with this debate but this is gold.

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?

Re: Buchanan and Barr

JAlanKatz — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:19:11 GMT

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.

Re: Buchanan and Barr

JohnSchreimann — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:08:49 GMT

Btw, Bob Barr: if you and David D. Friedman are in a room together right now reading this... I mean no disrespect, honestly.

Re: Buchanan and Barr

JohnSchreimann — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:27:24 GMT

Bob Barr actually seems like a genius compared to the reader responses in that link.

Re: Buchanan and Barr

Nitroadict — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:22:22 GMT

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.

Re: Buchanan and Barr

ChaseCola — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:53:49 GMT

I was done with this debate but this is gold.

Re: Buchanan and Barr

ChaseCola — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:54:31 GMT

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.

Re: Buchanan and Barr

Niccolò — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:52:50 GMT

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.

Re: Buchanan and Barr

ChaseCola — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:10:03 GMT

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.

Re: Buchanan and Barr

Niccolò — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:03:40 GMT

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.