Libertarianism is NOT A SUICIDE PACT

This makes me sad, and angry because I think of myself as a "Libertarian Conservative". And statements like this from Ron Paul Institute remind people how some Libertarian ideas, taken too far, lead to stupidity.

The Ron Paul Institute published a column on Friday arguing that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “played the Holocaust card” in an effort to manipulate the U.S. government into starting a war with Iran.

The column, written by Gareth Porter, also claimed that the Israeli Prime Minister’s recent address to congress greatly exaggerated the threat of a nuclear Iran and “served Netanyahu’s political interest in manipulating the policy of the US government and other other world powers.”

Is Mr. Porter kidding?

"Greatly exaggerated the threat of a nuclear Iran..."

?

Is that even possible?

Dear Ron Paul Institute:  STFU.  Please!

You are seriously destroying the Libertarian brand.

/gun


Read the column here.

Libertarian Logic

Brain Power

Comments in a conversation considering the contrast between Conservatism and Libertarianism.

You don't find THIS level of discussion on Democratic Underground!

_______________________________________

Stuart Koehl| 2.28.13 @ 7:44AM

Libertarianism is an ideology; conservatism is a "disposition". Libertarians live according to a set of abstract ideals (as do all ideologues) and build sandcastles in the air. Real conservatism, on the other hand, recognizes human society as a messy organic construct and are loathe to interfere with long-standing social institutions that have withstood the test of time. Libertarians trust to their own wisdom in all things, while conservatives defer to the wisdom of our ancestors. True conservatives do not mindlessly imitate the past, nor do they worship the past, but they recognize continuity with the past and are not willing to sever those connections in the name of an untested intellectual construct that does not take cognizance of the frailty of human nature.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.28.13 @ 9:37AM

Can't say I agree with the idea of contrasting "abstract ideals" with concrete life. America was founded on abstract ideas as opposed to status quo traditionalism. However, the fathers would no doubt agree with Locke that one doesn't change things on the basis of light and transient causes, so they would also accept the value of continuity.
I think we have to distinguish among libertarians. Many libertarians are okay with public morality while others are little more than anarchists (cf. Lew Rockwell et al.). Mises would not have agreed with Rothbard's anarchism and even said Rothbard's mind had gone to pot on foreign policy issues. Hayek definitely would not have agreed with the Rothbard or Rockwell versions of libertarianism.
Lincoln spoke of the abstract truths of the Declaration. By that he meant the truths of the Declaration were universal, applicable to all for all time. In touting continuity, tradition, and concrete life, we should never forget that without abstract truths, ancestralism can often be the basis of much oppression, as Lincoln well knew.


http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/28/are-libertarianspansies#commentcontainer


________________________________________

I THOUGHT I was a libertarian. But I might be a Libertarian Conservative...

/Gunslinger

Labels of Defeat

Do Republicans need another lesson, a refresher on what "Conservative" means?

Sigh.

Rick Santorum wants to use the power of the State to banish pornography from the Internet.

How is it possible that he thinks that is a "Conservative" position?

Oh, yeah...because idiots like him, every Liberal, "journalist"—and most English dictionaries—define "conservative" as...

"straight-laced"
"intolerant"
"boring"
"traditional"
"repressed"
"uninspired"
"old-fashioned"
"hide-bound"
"unadventurous"
"stick-in-the-mud"
"restrained"
"plain"
"low-key"
"demure"
"moderate"
"buttoned-down"
"understated"
"cautious"
"conventional"
"conformist"
"reactionary"

You can't fix that. That's why we need another word for it. "Libertarian", as much as it is tainted by some pretty silly notions about foreign policy, etc. is still a better word for what "Conservatives" actually are: Believers in small, limited government and maximum liberty for the individual.

It's going to be a lot easier to rehabilitate the term Libertarian than redefine Conservative, trust me.

When I tell people I'm a Conservative, they almost always assume I'm a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, a hardcore Christian believer in Creationism who wants to reinstitute Slavery and force all women to get pregnant every time they have sex. They further assume I play golf at the country club, and would walk over starving children on the street to get to my limousine.

They are conditioned to hate me immediately. (I live on the San Francisco Peninsula).

When I say I am a Libertarian, they don't blink an eye, they nod and smile, because they seem somehow to know that Libertarians don't want to use the power of government to control them.

They feel we can peacefully co-exist...they're response is mild and open. We can talk. I have a chance to convince them of the righteousness of small, limited government. They will listen to me.

This may not be true everywhere, I really am in the Belly of the Beast...but with the persistent and ubiquitous biased MSM reportage, it must eventually get just as confusing elsewhere.

Of course it's stupid, wrong, erroneous and ridiculous. But it is what it is. And we can spend all our time pushing that rock up the hill trying to change everyone's perception of "Conservative"...or we can start identifying ourselves with a term that more properly defines who we are, and what we stand for, and what we believe in.

We really have to get a handle on this, because it limits our ability to get our message across...one that Liberals are actually open to as long as they don't think we are like them—prepared to use the guns of the State to force our diktats down the throats of our fellow citizens.

Rick Santorum calls himself a Conservative, but when he talks of banning pornography...he's just a Liberal in a grey suit.

And I don't trust him.

The Gunslinger

Liberty & Libertarianism

I've been trying to get my "conservative" friends to understand this point for some time. I don't think I'm a Conservative. And I don't think the Tea Party movement is a Conservative one. I think, like Reagan, that what we call libertarianism is at the heart of our politics...and at the root of the Founders' vision.

“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals…The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

—President Ronald Reagan

The Gunslinger

We're ALL Libertarians Now

Great article in the Washington Examiner:

Hating the government finally goes mainstream by: Chris Stirewalt

He ends with:

"Libertarian sentiment has finally gone mainstream.

A movement that said that people should do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't hurt anyone else couldn't compete during the culture wars that began in the 1960s.

But after two wars, a $12 trillion debt, a financial crisis and the most politically tone-deaf president in modern history, Americans may have finally given up on big government.

I sure hope he's right.

 'Bout damn time.

The Gunslinger
(emphasis mine)

LLP

I believe I mentioned having seen a discussion of Libertarianism on Stossel the other day. It was quite enlightening.

What I found most interesting was how people came to different conclusions using the same "Libertarian" principles.

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about Natural Rights, that arise from our humanness, or from "Nature's God"...as you prefer, rights that government does not confer, thus may not may take away. They are "unalienable rights".

Libertarians all believe in the primacy of the individual. They believe in the individual's right to Life, Liberty and Property.

And while that sounds simple, it can cause a certain tension among them (the principles, not the people) when applying them to issues.

Abortion, for example.

I think that the common expectation is that Libertarians are Pro-Choice.

But it turns out, there is an alternative Libertarian interpretation: That in "Life, Liberty and Property", Life comes first and must be protected. That human beings have, foremost,  the right to Life. And it is their Libertarian position that it must be defended for all human beings, including those not yet born.

I was surprised to hear this argument, but when I did, it made perfect sense. And among the Libertarians participating, there was no hot-headed debate or name-calling. They each respected the logical process through which the other came to his conclusion.

The one emphasized LIFE (for the baby), the other LIBERTY (for the mother). And both points of view could be logically defended based on Libertarian principles.

And that really appealed to me. Because, since becoming a "Conservative" I have been conflicted over the issue for exactly the reason that both arguments have merit.

I have said that Liberty is the highest human value.  But, Liberty doesn't mean much if you're dead. Then again, what's Life without Liberty?

It's a conundrum, alright.

In the end, I think the thoughtful discussion  - that included equally various opinions on war, the border and other issues about which I had always assumed monolithic agreement among Libertarians, has rather encouraged me to identify myself more as a Libertarian than I was willing to before.

The Gunslinger
LLP (LifeLibetyProperty)

Names Matter

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." - Ronald Reagan

I'm glad to see this quote. It's what I keep trying to tell my friends...we have to discard the label "Conservative". It gives a completely wrong impression to those who don't already know what we mean by it.

It communicates boring conformism to those who are not intimately familiar with the "nuances" of political labels. It conjures up uptight, sour "church-ladies", gray-suited pod-people, dead-eyed humans without flare or style or creativity or humor.

If that's not a description of Marxist Intellectuals and Progressive Statists....I've never heard one.

But it sure doesn't fit any of the risk-taking, crazy, innovative, hilarious, eccentric individualists I know...

The Gunslinger

P.S. Here's another smart RR quote:  "Don't be afraid to see what you see." And I'd like to add: "Don't be afraid to SAY what you see!" - the Gunslinger

Libertarian Conservatives?

The coalition between Conservatives and Libertarians may prove, it if can hold, the salvation of the country from the ravages of the Marxists dirtbags now running the joint.

Republican/Libertarian Alliance by James Aalan Bernsen has written about it in Texas Republic News, October 27, 2009

Something unprecedented happened in America on April 15, 2009, and the implications for the political landscape of Texas and America could turn out to be profound. A tenuous alliance between two political groups was formed that, if maintained, could reverse years of conservative losses and portend ill news for liberals.

What is happening is a gradual meeting of minds between conservatives and their distant cousins, the Libertarians.

“We’ll work with anybody that we feel is in agreement with our core beliefs,” said Pat Dixon, Libertarian Party of Texas chairman said of the growing alliance between the groups represented by the Tea Parties. “I think when there are ideas of economic freedom” the alliance makes sense.

Bryan Preston, a spokesman for the Texas GOP, said Republicans are reaching out and finding lots of common ground with Libertarians. That common ground traces its roots to opposition to President Obama’s agenda.

“I’m encouraged by the reaction that Obama is spawning among pretty much everyone who doesn’t want government controlling their lives,” Preston said. Pointing to a recent Gallup poll that shows 40 percent of Americans identifying themselves as conservatives, Preston said that Washington is growing increasingly “out of touch.”

The Gunslinger, EOTIS
Para Bellum

Holy Crap!

Palin is quitting.

Is she running for Prez??

God, I hope so.

My fantasy of a Palin/Bachmann ticket just inched a little further into the sunlight.

The Gunslinger

Time to Go

You know those Islamic "no-go" zones in major European cities?

We need some.

Libertarian No-Go Zones where the government and its agents fear to tread.

Our very own "Bartertown".

Call me Auntie Entity.

The Gunslinger

Freedom vs Serfdom

"he favors letting convicted criminals keep their guns, wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and just like Sarah Palin believes global warming isn't man-made.”

The quote above is a random rant against a Republican. I just ran across it this morning. It doesn't matter who it's about. The reason I quote it here is that this is the sort of thing that we face in political discussions. It doesn't matter whether the statements here are true or total lies. They're minutiae. They're unimportant details. Indeed even major policies are unimportant. They, too, are just details in a larger picture. And the larger picture is this:

Small government equals Freedom; a BIG STATE equals Serfdom.

When we engage political opponents, this is how we must frame the debate. Every time; everywhere. We can't allow ourselves to be sucked into fruitless discussions over meaningless details and specific policies.

The policies of a small government will be few & limited. The policies of a BIG STATE will be beyond the control of The People.

The critical question is: Do you want a state that is small and limited, or a BIG one that will impose policies over which you have no control, and about which you have no choice?

Who cares what the policy is? The policy is not the point here. The critical issue is the ability of a BIG STATE to impose its will whether we like it or not

And if we have policy differences with our opponents, all the better. Getting them to understand that a BIG STATE can impose policies they hate as well as those they love, if they have half a brain, just might shine a tiny beam on the path to understanding.

But it will only work if we stay away from policies, minutiae and wonky details—not to be deceitful—but because they are really, truly, beside the point.

What BIG STATE proponents always assume is that the BIG STATE will impose on others what they themselves support. It never occurs to them, until it is too late, that the BIG STATE can just as easily, and historically always does...oppress them!

It's time we did our best to teach the lesson. It's still not too late. I'm fairly convinced we'll have free elections in two years. Mostly.

The Gunslinger

Wolf Call

"Moderation in war is imbecility." --British Admiral John Fisher

I don't need to actually say we're at war with the Left, do I?

I bring this up, among other reasons, because I was just reading a commentary on Peggy Noonan's mewlings against Sarah Palin. Apparently, Gov. Palin did not go to the correct finishing school, and is therefore unacceptable among the grandiloquent Apes-in-Lace in Washington. A group whose admiration and acceptance Miss Noonan apparently desperately desires.

I have admired Miss Noonan in the past. But I have found her increasingly out of touch with my brand of conservatism for some time. My hard, uncompromising (approaching radical) libertarian conservatism. It's as though the worse things get, the more timid she gets.

She is another Republican casualty of pride. Her own standing among the power-elite is more important than whatever principles she once pretended to have.

As things get worse, as they will if Obama is elected, there will be a culling of weak-kneed "conservatives" from the pack. We will be fewer, but we will be stronger.

Better a small, tough wolf-pack than a big, tremulous sheep herd. If you would rather be a fêted sheep than a despised wolf, perhaps you should join Miss Noonan on the "down" escalator.

We have been warned.

The Gunslinger

Economic First Principles

Henry Hazlitt wrote a little book called Economics in One Lesson. I happened to buy that book recently, and just began reading it.

Lo...what do I find on Mises website?

This very book being used to explain what we should and should not be doing in this financial meltdown. You can read the article here.

I recommend the book. It's short and written in layman's language, not economists' jargon. And when you're done, you'll know more about economics than Treasure Secretary Henry Paulson seems to. Which, actually, may be a little disturbing, if you think about it.

The Gunslinger

I'm Sorta Getting it

Did I mention I'm reading Radicals for Capitalism? Of course I did. Several times.

The interesting thing about the experience is that I keep coming across idea that seem to be very Left-Wing. Naturally, I don't like them. Then I realize that they only bother me because of the current Statism that is intimately connected with them. If you remove the Government Tyranny from the equation, the ideas themselves are not necessarily offensive or dangerous.

Open borders is an example. Now, I'm not convinced that I can be talked into supporting it. But if you take it to its logical libertarian conclusions, libertarian Open Borders are quite different from Left-Wing ones.

Currently, Progressive Open Border policy "invites" millions of Mexicans into our country and then supports them with special privileges like "in-state" tuition, free education, free health care, unemployment, direct welfare payments, food stamps, affordable housing and free legal aid. They are encouraged to "keep their culture" and to "speak their language" by the true-believers in multi-culturalism.

On the other hand, libertarian Open Borders would "allow" Mexicans to enter the country. The end. A libertarian society would provide no education, health-care, food stamps, housing, welfare checks, legal aid, or anything else. If the Mexicans found work to support themselves, fine. If not, presumably they'd go home.

In a libertarian world, there would be no taxpayer funded bi-lingual ballots, no affirmative action hiring mandates, no required bi-lingual education.

So many of the things we resent about the Mexican Invasion would be eliminated. Without a government big and powerful enough to force these things down our throats, pressure and lobby groups would cease to exist. Who would they lobby? Who could enforce their demands?

In a libertarian world, each person is free to find his own way; but not free to force his way on anyone else. Mexicans could come here and try to make it just like everybody else. They'd find, without tribal minority communities supported largely by government largess, they'd have to learn English, embrace our ways, assimilate—in order to prosper. The ones who could cut it would succeed and stay, becoming our neighbors and friends. And who among us would mind that?

Okay, this is a "perfect" scenario, I admit. But the point is, a lot of what seems contrary to my current politics in libertarianism has to be considered in light of the entire libertarian world-view for it to be understood correctly.

Do not doubt that my first reaction to the idea that some libertarians (not all) support Open Borders nearly made me throw the book on the ground and stomp on it. But when it's woven into the tapestry of a fully libertarian society the perspective changes.

One would not despise Progressives nearly so much if there was no big government for them to use against us. I'd be happy for them to create all the collectives they wanted, on their own, supported by themselves, weaving baskets or running around naked in the snow. Whatevs.

They could open "alternative" schools and teach their own children whatever they liked, and we could make sure our children never came within a mile of them.

Without the government hammer, most of the Kumbaya crowd's ideas wouldn't get beyond tattered newsletters printed for each other (on recycled paper). It's never been about the efficacy of their ideas. It's always been about them using government power to force them down unwilling gullets. Without the guns of government, they're impotent.

If we had the sort of government libertarians want, an Obie presidency wouldn't matter much, because he couldn't do much. (Actually, I don't think he'd bother running for president of that sort of government. It wouldn't bring sufficient prestige or glory.)

And if that's not a good argument for VERY limited government, I don't know what is.

The Gunslinger