Political Theory

Re: Beltway libertarian?

Brainpolice — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:52:37 GMT

Strange, I don't recall ever defending Roe vs. Wade.

Re: Beltway libertarian?

libertarian — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:33:45 GMT

brainpolice, why do you attack Ron Paul pro-life views? A federally enforced pro-choice legislation is just as bad as a federally enforced pro-life legislation. If Ron Paul was pro-choice, then you would not attack him. It is your personal opinion for abortion.

The Sanctity of Life Act was not a legislation for federal ban of abortion. It lets state judges to decide on abortion. The reason that it defines life at conception is just a marketing strategy to attract pro-life supporters to support the bill. Outlawing a federal decision on abortion (roe v. wade) is better than keeping it.

Stop attacking his vote for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Roe v. Wade is a federal legislation and Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is also a federal legislation, so why don't you attack Roe v. Wade? Abortion is already federally legislated, so supporting Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does not do much effect.

Don't you know that the Roe v. Wade act causes federal funding of abortion? The racist Planned Parenthood program killed most black children. http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does better things because it reduces federal funding.

You always scapegoat abortion as a religious issue. It is not always a religious issue. Private agencies have the right to protect unborn children.

If you support abortion, then you support murder of children and murder of women. Because children and women are weaker, do you have the right to kill them? Do you oppose anti-murder laws? You do oppose them, but why don't you oppose them as the same way as abortion? You cannot logically conclude moral issues. Abortion issues must be defined as an axiom.

Re: Beltway libertarian?

ryanpatgray — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:41:21 GMT

J.C. Hewitt:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/

Thanks,

As long as I have been in the libertarian movement this is the first time I have ever heard of this publication.

Re: Beltway libertarian?

J.C. Hewitt — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:02:09 GMT

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/

Re: Beltway libertarian?

ryanpatgray — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:56:50 GMT

jtucker:

No one at the Mises Institute has used the term paleolibertarian in 15 years. The original point of it was to emphasize the Old Right origins of american libertarianism, particularly its antiwar and decentralist elements. It had NOTHING to do with nationalism, for goodness sake. As for Buchanan, there was briefly promise there, but nothing came of it. Big deal. As for alliances, the only "libertarians" who write for Chronciles these days all come from the Cato Institute.

Any other myths I can clear up?

By "chronicles" do you mean newspapers and magazines? If so you are incorrect.

Re: Beltway libertarian?

jtucker — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:21:28 GMT

No one at the Mises Institute has used the term paleolibertarian in 15 years. The original point of it was to emphasize the Old Right origins of american libertarianism, particularly its antiwar and decentralist elements. It had NOTHING to do with nationalism, for goodness sake. As for Buchanan, there was briefly promise there, but nothing came of it. Big deal. As for alliances, the only "libertarians" who write for Chronciles these days all come from the Cato Institute.

Any other myths I can clear up?

Re: Beltway libertarian?

Brainpolice — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:57:21 GMT

britainland:

Brainpolice:
I know. The question is, then, why did Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard ally with him so strongly in the late 80's and 90's?

As far as I know, the reason Rockwell and Rothbard supported Buchanan was for his foreign policy views, and that they tried and failed to turn him away from trade protectionism. Buchanan was the most influential supporter of non-interventionism at the time, so it was strategic more than anything, I suppose. I can see the logic in allying with other groups on similar issues, although I do worry that it could lead to taking one step forward (in this case foreign policy) and two steps back (in this case trade protectionism and homophobic laws).

That makes sense. But as you seem to suggest yourself, sometimes the baggage that comes with it is counterproductive. It may threaten to pull the libertarian movement towards those other tendencies. In fact I already view the libertarian movement as drifting towards paleoconservative tendencies.

Re: Beltway libertarian?

britainland — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:41:06 GMT

Brainpolice:
I know. The question is, then, why did Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard ally with him so strongly in the late 80's and 90's?

As far as I know, the reason Rockwell and Rothbard supported Buchanan was for his foreign policy views, and that they tried and failed to turn him away from trade protectionism. Buchanan was the most influential supporter of non-interventionism at the time, so it was strategic more than anything, I suppose. I can see the logic in allying with other groups on similar issues, although I do worry that it could lead to taking one step forward (in this case foreign policy) and two steps back (in this case trade protectionism and homophobic laws).

Re: Beltway libertarian?

Brainpolice — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:16:14 GMT

Pat Buchanan is not a libertarian. He does not even claim to be

I know. The question is, then, why did Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard ally with him so strongly in the late 80's and 90's? Because as far as I can tell, Pat Buchannan's brand of "paleoconservatism" is quasi-fascist. This was much more then a few single-issue alliances. This was (and is) a "united front" between libertarians, paleocons and national socialists (and honestly I find very little distinction between the later two). Surely a desire to cut taxes and opposition to public education is not sufficient to constitute a meaningful broad alliance. Why do so many libertarians still form a "united front" with these people?

Re: Beltway libertarian?

ryanpatgray — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:07:25 GMT

Brainpolice:
It's kind of hard to have a rational debate when whenever any libertarian critisizes Ron Paul, they are often knee-jerkedly equated to politically correct neoconservatives or liberals.

I will agree that a majority of the ad hominems seem to come from the pro-Paul camp.

Brainpolice:
And while I don't intend to be engaging in ad hominem attacks, I do not think I am being inaccurate when I characterize the dedicated "paleolibertarians" as being nationalist and conservative, for as far as I can tell this is precisely the type of ideological outlook that they are trumpeting.

I think there is a difference between an ad hominem and a descriptor. It is not an ad hominem to call Stalin a communist if in doing so it is merely your intent to describe his ideological outlook.

Brainpolice:
I see no compelling reason to ally with the likes of Pat Buchanan. In fact I find such an alliance counterproductive and rather dangerous.

Pat Buchanan is not a libertarian. He does not even claim to be.

Brainpolice:
In particular, I find the old libertarian-paleoconservative alliance to be troubling.

When it comes to alliances with non-libertarians of (almost) any flavor I have no problem so long as the alliance is issue specific. For example, there is a great deal I disagree with the Green movement on but I would have no problem supporting them on legalizing industrial hemp. This would be a plus for liberty. I would NOT want to ally myself with racists or Maoists. There are some groups that are so despicable that I would not want to associate myself with them at all.

Re: Beltway libertarian?

ryanpatgray — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:14:17 GMT

IrishOutlaw:
It would be the first government in history to do it as far as I know. The nature of government is to get bigger or as Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." They never voluntarily get smaller.

I find it interesting that you quote someone who helped establish a government. He also served as a president. In any case, just because something has never been done does not mean it cannot be done. Every event in history had a "first". If we established a lasting anarchy that would also be a "first."

IrishOutlaw:
"What is the minarchist plan for achieving their goal? Try to gain control of the machine and use it to do their bidding. Against the wishes of the citizens at large I might add."

Do you care more about liberty or about the "wishes of the citizens at large"? I do care about the wishes of the citizens at large so long as they are peaceful and voluntary. If they are not peaceful and voluntary I do not care about the wishes of the citizens at large.

IrishOutlaw:
They all want the exact same thing the minarchists want, to gain control and use it to do their bidding.

Here is where you are mistaken. The "bidding" if you want to call it that which minarchists want is for government to do far less that it currently does. You and I may disagree with that but if that goal is reached people will be able to see how they can do the vast majority of things on their own. It will be far easier to convince most people of anarcho-capitalism with minarchy in place than it is now. We will also be living in a much better world than we are now. Even just for that, very pragmatic reason, anarcho-capitalists should support the immediate goals of minarchists.

IrishOutlaw:
I think people have a right to institute any government they want and I think that is what the political process is about. What I want is to be separate from that process.

If it is truly a government and not a DRO, you cannot by definition "separate from that process". You are part of the process whether you want to be or not.

Re: Beltway libertarian?

Brainpolice — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:07:10 GMT

ryanpatgray:

Brainpolice:

Are you suggesting that debate on such issues should be post-poned until the goals that we agree on are met?

Debate? Debate in and of itself in healthy. For some, it seems to have gone beyond mere debate and entered the realm of childish name calling. Libertarians are few enough in number that we cannot afford to not work together. Whether you work in Auburn, DC, London or wherever we need to work together. Petty name calling accomplishes nothing but alienating potential allies

It's kind of hard to have a rational debate when whenever any libertarian critisizes Ron Paul, they are often knee-jerkedly equated to politically correct neoconservatives or liberals. It seems to me that we are being present with a false "package deal", since it is implied that if you don't support Ron Paul, this inevitably means you must be for war, federal action over decentralization and government-enforced cultural leftism. Or, alternatively, you are presented with a false dychotomy of "defeatism" and "inaction" or supporting the Ron Paul "revolution". And while I don't intend to be engaging in ad hominem attacks, I do not think I am being inaccurate when I characterize the dedicated "paleolibertarians" as being nationalist and conservative, for as far as I can tell this is precisely the type of ideological outlook that they are trumpeting.

There are some people that I do not wish to be allies with, who I think would constitute an inflitration and a watering down of the libertarian creed, causing confusion in the eyes of the lay public as to what libertarianism really stands for. I see no compelling reason to ally with the likes of Pat Buchanan. In fact I find such an alliance counterproductive and rather dangerous. I suppose I am not nearly as "big tent" of a libertarian as someone like Walter Block is. In particular, I find the old libertarian-paleoconservative alliance to be troubling. I don't think that most American libertarians have broken away from the old false paradime of thinking of ourselves as being natural "rightists" in alliance with conservatives in opposition to socialism. I had thought that "Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty" had cleared that confusion up for libertarians but I suppose not.

Re: Beltway libertarian?

ryanpatgray — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:49:03 GMT

Brainpolice:

Are you suggesting that debate on such issues should be post-poned until the goals that we agree on are met?

Debate? Debate in and of itself in healthy. For some, it seems to have gone beyond mere debate and entered the realm of childish name calling. Libertarians are few enough in number that we cannot afford to not work together. Whether you work in Auburn, DC, London or wherever we need to work together. Petty name calling accomplishes nothing but alienating potential allies

Re: Beltway libertarian?

IrishOutlaw — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:42:40 GMT

ryanpatgray:
but if the government does get smaller

It would be the first government in history to do it as far as I know. The nature of government is to get bigger or as Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." They never voluntarily get smaller.

ryanpatgray:
I would say that it is in the best interests of anarchists to work with minarchists. It is also in the best interests of minarchists to work with anarchists (at least until a state of minarchy is reached.)

What is the minarchist plan for achieving their goal? Try to gain control of the machine and use it to do their bidding. Against the wishes of the citizens at large I might add. People do not want smaller government, if they did the candidate that is talking about getting rid of large portions of it would be the front runner on both sides. They all want the exact same thing the minarchists want, to gain control and use it to do their bidding. Speaking only for myself, I don't want to control it or force anyone else to live how I say they should live. I think people have a right to institute any government they want and I think that is what the political process is about. What I want is to be seperate from that process. I know they don't allow that and will continue to use force against me, no matter which group has control. So why would I add my time or talents to that goal?

Re: Beltway libertarian?

Brainpolice — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:42:33 GMT

Are you suggesting that debate on such issues should be post-poned until the goals that we agree on are met?