The Shotgun Blog

« Commander-in-Chief announces the creation of a new military medal: Sacrifice Medal | Main | Hug a capitalist worker this Labour Day »

Friday, August 29, 2008

Is Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin a libertarian?

There’s talk on the blogs...

“Sarah Palin has long been considered to be a libertarian-leaning Republican. As Mayor of Wasila (Anchorage suburb), Palin was friends with local libertarian Republican elected officials, and worked closely with them on tax cut proposals.

“She is known to have spoken to two Libertarian Party meetings in 2004/05. She was endorsed by the Libertarian Party of Alaska in the final days of her race for Governor in 2006, even though the LP had it’s [sic] own candidate. On election night, Ms. Palin at the Egan Center, went out of her way to acknowledge the Libertarian Party’s support in her victory speech.” -- Eric Dondero, Libertarian Republican blog

“Governor Palin was not endorsed by the RLC in 2006, but is somewhat allied with libertarian Republicans in Alaska. The RLC recently endorsed her closely allied Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell, in his race against Don ‘Pork-barrel’ Young, a race in which the results are too close to call at this time.

“McCain’s choice is an indicator that perhaps his campaign is interested in receiving votes from libertarian Republicans.” – Aaron, Republican Liberty Caucus

“For Republican nominee John McCain, there are a numerous potential political downsides and upsides to choosing a relative unknown for VP. But stepping outside the horserace aspects of 2008, Palin is the most libertarian Republican that’s been on a major ticket for a long time. This ideological storyline should appeal to many Western voters.” – David Harsanyi, Denver Post blog

“I found myself falling in love with Sarah Palin. Any Libertarian has to love a woman who said no to pork she was being spoon-fed, who took on the Good Old Boys and won, who is a lifetime NRA member, and who gave back "excess" state revenue. And I found myself-- not crying this time-- but at least getting goosebumps. History again. More cracks in the glass ceiling. You have to love it.” -- John Wingspread Howell, Nolan Chart

And here’s a detractor...

“She's not a libertarian folks. She's a ‘conservative Republican.’ She's a pro-war, pro-tyranny, and anti-freedom vice presidential pick. There's nothing consistently libertarian about her.” -- Todd Andrew Barnett, Let Liberty Ring blog

And here’s a little something for the pro-lifers...

“This development is so radically unexpected that it is hard to understand how it could have happened, but I gather all solidly pro-life Americans are thrilled beyond measure about it. I just saw Pat Buchanan on NBC's Hardball go on and on with such enthusiasm I thought he was going to have a stroke. That is how excited Palin has made social conservative Americans.” -- Steve Jalsevac, LifeSiteNews.com

Posted by Matthew Johnston on August 29, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e554d94aba8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin a libertarian?:

Comments

Whether Palin is more libertarian or conservative should be easy enough to tell by looking at the issues where those two philosophies most clearly divide. Palin does not support legalization of marijuana, but has smoked it (she says she stopped because she didn't like it). It seems she supports the Iraq war, although two weeks ago she seemed to have no idea what the plan for proceeding in Iraq was. She also used eminent domain while Mayor of Wasilla to get land to build a sports facility (resulting in the unhappy dispossesed owner suing). So I don't know how libertarian she really is, but it does not sound like she has walked a libertarian walk.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-08-29 11:09:00 PM

Desparate Llibertarian kooks trying to kidnap charisma is all this is.

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-08-29 11:40:58 PM

The majority of libertarians are in favor of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Libertarians oppose Islamo-Fascism which seeks to destroy our civil liberties.

Palin is solidly Pro-Defense. Thus, she is solidly libertarian on foreign policy.

It is a myth promulgated by Leftist media types that libertarians are soft on Defense issues.

Eric Dondero, USN Veteran
Houston, Texas, USA

Posted by: Eric Dondero | 2008-08-30 6:01:24 AM

Ok, Eric. But before you blame those convenient "leftists" (the Emmanuel Goldstein of all "right" thinkers), take note that Ron Paul opposed the Iraq war from the start and the Libertarian Party in the US says "the invasion and occupation of Iraq were two separate mistakes which collectively have cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars". So if the most prominent self-described "libertarian" politicians are saying they are against the war, it seems more than just a "leftist" conspiracy to spread lies about libertarians to say so.

But more importantly then, just what *IS* the difference between libertarians and conservatives? What issues do they disagree on and on which of those issues does Palin take the libertarian position, not the conservative one? Surely Eminent domain is one (unless conservatives want to jump forward and claim that actually they are against it, too). Furthermore, a so-called "libertarian" who is against pot legalization makes nonsense of the label.

So until someone can show any examples of issues (1) where libertarians and conservatives disagree and (2) where Palin sides with libertarians and against conservatives, there seems no reason to buy the "Palin is a libertarian" claim.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-08-30 6:57:10 AM

Desparate Llibertarian kooks trying to kidnap charisma is all this is.

Posted by: epsilon | 29-Aug-08 11:40:58 PM

Get back on your ward epsilon its madication time again.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-30 9:00:33 AM

She's going to hear a lot about herself, a lot she doesn't even know about herself will be spewing forth from all the usual sources.

She's a great choice and it appears she'll handle anything they toss at her.
Big letdown for all the prognosticators.

What's this great new interest in labeling people Libertarian? Is there a Libertarian movement happening?

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-08-30 9:13:25 AM

FC: The distinction you may have missed is the difference between "defense" and "intervention / invasion". Libertarians are strong on defense and oppose foreign intervention . A fact which flies in the face of "globalism" and the US governments role of "World Cop". Which is in itself a thin veil to cover US business interests. Note also that the comment you are referring to comes from a US Navy veteran. Ron Paul recieved more campaign donation money from the armed forces than all of the other candidates combined...ask yourself why?

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-30 9:45:11 AM

What's this great new interest in labeling people Libertarian? Is there a Libertarian movement happening?

Posted by: Liz J | 30-Aug-08 9:13:25 AM

Liz, there has been a Libertarian movement sinse about 1776. The Conctitution is basically a Libertarian document. A foundation of freedom.
And it has started to reappear in numbers mostly due (I think) to the rising influence of fascism / socialism in the west where we have always valued freedom. The concept of individual responsibility and personal freedom is repulsive to those who have been raised to believe that our governments are benevolent and always act in the interests of the people. They do not. And those of us who call ourselves Libertarians (liberty) are acting in opposition to greater government control. And believe me...its an uphill battle all the way. But there seems to be a general awareness coming and its going in our direction.
Let freedom reign. :)

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-30 9:53:33 AM

JC,

Your point is right, but if I may quibble it seems it is Eric who has missed a difference here, not me. I only said that libertarians don't support the Iraq war. It is Eric who said that they do support it as well as the war in Afghanistan and that they are "Pro-Defense". I said nothing at all about support for the Afghan war or about defence generally, and certainly did not say that libertarians are weak on defence.

"Libertarians are strong on defense and oppose foreign intervention."

I agree with that, but then that means Eric must be wrong that it is "Leftist media types" who "promulgated" the "myth" that libertarians oppose the Iraq war. Libertarians - including Ron Paul and Bob Barr - certainly do oppose it.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-08-30 9:53:57 AM

FC: Point taken. I must have missed the contradiction in Eric's statement.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-30 10:12:02 AM

Purist Libertarians believe that there should be no government. No social structure. They're anarchists.

Palin, it appears to me, is a strict constitutionalist. She believes that there should be a limited government with limited powers. Hence her non-opposition to gay marriage while being a devout Christian... Within that framework, one of the chores of a "limited government" is to provide defense for it's citizens. Hence her policies on terrorism which has proved itself a clear and present danger to the USA.

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-08-30 11:30:38 AM

Hey Eric Dondero,

You are very wrong! You need to read up on the literature of liberty, my friend. "War is the health of the state." You cannot be pro-liberty and pro-war, as the war machine sucks money from taxpayers, among other things. Please don't soil the ideals of liberty and libertarianism by aligning your neo-con statism with it.

Brandon Harris
Dallas, TX

Posted by: BH | 2008-08-30 11:31:41 AM

I doubt that Palin could have achieved the popular support she enjoys as a pure libertarian. She will however, boost McCain's chances as she is the only major party ticket candidate that actually represents the grass roots of much of America.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-08-30 11:34:54 AM

Purist Libertarians believe that there should be no government. No social structure. They're anarchists.

Posted by: Richard Evans | 30-Aug-08 11:30:38 AM

That's absolute Bull sh*t.

Libertarians understand the need for a state aparatus, an administration. As opposed to what we have now, which is a fascist (look it up) mob rule style of government.
Thing is we believe that this administration has a few basic functions and that's it.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-30 11:44:51 AM

First of all, Eric Dondero has not taken a poll of libertarians. I get the sense that most libertarians are opposed to the war in Iraq, but I haven't taken a poll either.

So neither Eric nor I can speak authoritatively for what libertarians actually think about the war in Iraq, or the threat posed by this or nation or that to the U.S. or Canada.

We might hash it out philosophically, since both Eric and myself are experts on libertarian political philosophy, but this one does, in principle, divide libertarians.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-30 12:11:19 PM

By James Madison:
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad."

This quote captures the essence of the argument against war from a libertarian perspective. To call yourselves "pro-defense" is disingenious and aligns you with a category other than libertarian, not from the Libertarian Party perspective, but from the libertarian intellectual thought perspective. If you and Eric are "experts" on libertarian political philosophy, you may want to read a little deeper into the literature. You just cannot be a classical libertarian and support our current policies of nation building, undeclared wars, and policing the world. I would call your posture "pro-offense," whereas the libertarian is strongly pro-defense in the sense that we want to defend our borders and our country from enemies that attack us.

Posted by: BH | 2008-08-30 12:21:32 PM

"That's absolute Bull sh*t.

Posted by: JC | 30-Aug-08 11:44:51 AM"

Prove me wrong. Start with the definition of libertarian:

"1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian).
–adjective
3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will."

The "doctrine of free will" doesn't include any sort of state infrastructure.

Please, do some reading before you make your next comment...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-08-30 12:41:16 PM

BH; Your quote is from the federalist papers. Not everything from the federalist papers made it into the Constitution. Palin isn't operating based on what 'could have been' in the constitution, she's operating based on what 'is' in the constitution... Hence the term libertarian doesn't fit her where the term constitutionalist does...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-08-30 12:46:01 PM

I wasn't talking about Palin. I was responding to Eric's preposterous statement that most libertarians support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Your statement, however, supports my argument. Just as the term libertarian does not apply to her, nor does it apply to Eric.
For the record, our current regime does not operate within the bounds of the Constitution. After Lincoln's illegal war, the Constitution increasingly became a casualty, and after Wilson and FDR it was game over. The Constitution today is really just iconography and symbolism for the political class when they want to bull**it some voters and make them warm and fuzzy.
Sadly, Ron Paul is the ONLY person in national government that I know of that follows the letter and intent of the document, and therefore the only one that upholds his oath of office. And the voting public waits for promises of more socialism.

Posted by: BH | 2008-08-30 1:01:05 PM

The "doctrine of free will" doesn't include any sort of state infrastructure.

Posted by: Richard Evans | 30-Aug-08 12:41:16 PM

Says who?
The administration we're looking for is in place to "protect" our rights, not tell us what they are. And I didn't develop my views on libertarianism by reading a dictionary, the scope there is far too narrow.

From the LPC Website:http://www.libertarian.ca/

Instead of government dominating the lives of Canadians through taxes and regulations, the Libertarian Party of Canada believes that Canadians should be free to run their own lives.
We believe in a just, voluntary society that does not use government power to confiscate property or interfere with peaceful activities.

Government should act only as our servant and never as our master.
Government should exist only to provide a framework that defends individual rights.

We believe that Canada needs a major reduction in the size and power of government.

We need a system that addresses the power imbalance between a centrally planned society and individuals.

We need a system that empowers individuals to defend their lives, health, and property.

Will that do? because I could on...

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-30 1:10:45 PM

Sarah Palin may turn out to be exactly what has been missing in Washington for decades ... Unless something bad turns up, I am all for this dynamic principled woman.

If she is Libertarian ... so much the better.

Posted by: John V | 2008-08-30 1:15:09 PM

Sarah Palin may turn out to be exactly what has been missing in Washington for decades ... Unless something bad turns up, I am all for this dynamic principled woman.

If she is Libertarian ... so much the better.

Posted by: John V | 30-Aug-08 1:15:09 PM

I'm with you John, while no one is perfect, she seems to be the only thing to hit DC in a long time that is going in the right direction.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-30 1:54:57 PM

JC, I wasn't referring to the history of Libertarianism, I'm wondering why so much banter about it here and now?

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-08-30 2:17:46 PM

Mr. Evans,

"The "doctrine of free will" doesn't include any sort of state infrastructure."

That's because the definition you cited describes two vastly different meanings of the word "libertarian."

The believer in the doctrine of free will is a metaphysical libertarian, i.e. someone who is not a determinist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)

Metaphysical libertarianism has no necessary political implications as far as I know. But it certainly doesn't require one to be an anarchist.

Maybe political libertarians must be anarchists, but I kind of doubt it. In any event, your definition doesn't decide the matter one way or the other.

Now about that reading you were suggesting others do...

Best,

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-30 2:32:02 PM

JC, I wasn't referring to the history of Libertarianism, I'm wondering why so much banter about it here and now?

Posted by: Liz J | 30-Aug-08 2:17:46 PM

Liz J: Why so much banter here and now? Well I'm sure there as many opinions as there are people, but my "opinion" would go like this.
I think that people are becoming more aware "en masse" that our system is no longer "our" system but rather the system of the financially and politically powerful. And that we as individuals have little if any say in the direction of our future and most especially our childrens future.
Having a vote in a two party system isn't effecting anything. No matter which party you vote for, nothing changes. We still see rapidly expanding government in our lives and we have fewer rights and liberties either way you go.
So! People are looking for alternatives and possibly a return to moral (natural) values as opposed to the ones we are "told" we should have.

Your question is a good one and I wish I could better express myself on the matter. But in a nutshell, I think folks are getting tired of the same old song and dance.

And Thank You Terrence for making that distinction.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-30 2:50:19 PM

"Sadly, Ron Paul is the ONLY person in national government that I know of that follows the letter and intent of the document, and therefore the only one that upholds his oath of office. And the voting public waits for promises of more socialism."

We agree...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-08-30 3:10:29 PM

"Says who?"

The dictionary...

"And I didn't develop my views on libertarianism by reading a dictionary, the scope there is far too narrow."

Words have meaning. Those meanings are cataloged in dictionaries. You can't expropriate a word and state that it means something else. Maybe there's a different word to express your views... You can start your search here:
www.dictionary.com

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-08-30 3:15:57 PM

Terrence;

Do you seriously use wikipedia as reference material? Really? Wow...

The only time I use wikipedia is when I want to use left-wing propaganda against the moonbats... It's like the crane technique... they have no defense because they wrote the damned crap to begin with...

"Maybe political libertarians must be anarchists, but I kind of doubt it. In any event, your definition doesn't decide the matter one way or the other."

It's not 'my' definition... you'll have to blame "Random House"... You can go all psycho-babble if you want but the fact remains that purist libertarians don't believe that there should be any laws whatsoever and that their own 'free will' should be able to dictate their actions...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-08-30 3:24:32 PM

Posted by: Richard Evans | 30-Aug-08 3:15:57 PM

Richard, I appreciate your efforts to enlighten, I truly do.
But if we're going to disect certain words...lets throw in Liberal and Conservative, Republican and Democrat. We might as well point out that their literal translations have no connection whatsoever to the Political Party's of the same names.
It really doesn't matter anyway. We know who they are and what they really do stand for and I personally find them appalling.
In the case of Libertarians, we identify ourselves with a word and it is generally acknowleded that we are who we are. The problem it seems is getting the message of what it is we stand for through to people despite all the slanderous labeling and harrassment campaigns of the main stream. And I think its cxalled the main "stream" because its so shallow. :)

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-30 3:30:19 PM

Thank goodness for Terrence.

Pure libertarians believe in a small government based on either the doctrine of natural rights (eg. Robert Nozick or Ayn Rand), modified utilitarianism (eg. Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman), contractualism (Jan Narveson, James Buchanan, Rawlsian libertarians); some see the Constitution of the U.S. as somehow normatively primitive (maybe Ron Paul, although he may have a theory of natural rights that justifies the content of the Constitution working in the background).

There is no definitive answer that flows directly from libertarianism as a political philosophy on issues like what to do with foreign dictators (competent and authoritative libertarians like Randy Barnett think the Iraq war is justified for example), or abortion (there are pro-life and pro-choice libertarians out there, and it mostly depends on when you believe we have something that counts as a person deserving of protection. But both Narveson & Judith Jarvis Thomson have libertarian arguments for the pro-choice position even if an unborn child counts as a person).

Pure libertarians are not anarchists, otherwise they would not be called libertarians.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-30 3:32:44 PM

Richard: I mean no offense but you don't know what you're talking about. Wikipedia has a good definition and account of libertarianism as a political philosophy. If you don't like it, please look it up on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Political philosophers determine the meaning of philosophical terms, not dictionaries.

While Terrence and I might be wrong, one reason to take our word for it is because we're both PhD students in philosophy specializing in political philosophy. We also teach undergrads on this subject.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-30 3:40:54 PM

Mr. Evans,

Actually, I'm a philosopher. I was already familiar with the difference between metaphysical and political libertarianism. But I wanted to find something that would be easy for you to read so you could understand the difference, too.

Face it: you didn't know what you were talking about, and I called you on it. Just own up to it. Everyone here knows that, including you.

Unless you have some evidence that Wikipedia's description of "metaphysical libertarianism" is marred by left-wing bias?

But what kind of evidence could you have? You didn't even know there was such a thing as metaphysical libertarianism until a couple of hours ago.

Kind regards,

Terrence

P.S.

Pete, isn't it amusing when non-philosophers go to standard dictionaries for definitions of philosophical terms? Reminds me of reading undergraduate essays, heh.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-30 4:12:01 PM

Pete,

"While Terrence and I might be wrong, one reason to take our word for it is because we're both PhD students in philosophy specializing in political philosophy. We also teach undergrads on this subject."

Well, you don't even have to go that far. Robert Kane (who I remember reading in Shoemaker's class) is a metaphysical libertarian because he believes quantum indeterminacy opens the door for human free will.

But quantum indeterminacy is a little ways from political anarchism, to put it mildly. I'm kind of with Narveson on this: I don't see how debates on free will vs. determinism have much relevance to political questions at all.

Of course, to Evans, this is all "psycho-babble" (I had no idea I was talking about psychology!) but that's because he's willfully ignorant.

Best,

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-30 4:28:55 PM

What amazes me is that you both think your 'philosophy creds' have any standing out here in the real world... They don't... Now, had you said you were engineers or physicians or even astrophysicists, I'd give your ideas a little more attention...

You have a problem with the definitions, call Rand McNally, quit whining to me... While you're at it, look up the definition of anarchy:

"1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith."

Like I said earlier, you can't just go and change the meanings of words to reflect your own world view...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-08-30 5:05:54 PM

Of all the definitions provided for the word anarchy above, not once is the true meaning given.
Anarchy is merely the opposite of Heirarchy. Which makes perfect sense to me.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-30 5:16:15 PM

If you want to take glimpse into the life and work of one of America's leading Libertarians ...
http://www.harrybrowne.org/

If you want more and deeper ... check out http://www.aynrand.org/

The word Libertarian is being adulterated, trashed and misused. In reality it is the most natural way for humans to live in a free society. It is the most economical and peaceful as well.

It has humans taking care of and minding their own business. The opposite (Socialism) has everyone minding everyone else's business and just doesn't work.

Posted by: John V | 2008-08-30 5:27:12 PM

Pat Buchanan likes someone other than himself, Vladmir Putin or Adolph Hilter? Don't know if Palin should like that endorsement or not.

Posted by: Faramir | 2008-08-31 4:32:41 PM

Meh. I suppose she's better than Obama's pick, but that's *really* not saying much, if anything, at all. She might not be bad for a conservative, but I'm not convinced that she's libertarian. Typical politician. Smart of McCain to pick a woman with all the Hillary support he's racking up.

Posted by: Janet | 2008-08-31 10:31:45 PM

Dondero is part of a movement of US conservatives in leaugue with government agents and religious groups attempting to out-flank Libertarianism by identifying it with right-wing extremism. He feeds false information to the article, then quotes it widely in the US as proof that reputable media share his view.

At the same time people in this movement have infiltrated the US Libertarian Party, seeking to change its respect for rights pledge, platform, and draining its resources under color of pragmatism and being 'mainstream' or big-tent Libertarians. Many of these 'libertarians' were doing the same thing to the Green movement a few years ago and were unmasked as police informants or undercover by US newspaper or came forward with their own confessions.

Canadian Libertarians, beware.

Posted by: ken | 2008-08-31 11:09:40 PM

Terrence;

Amuse me for a minute... What exactly does a philosopher contribute to society? Does he; heal the sick? Nope. They sit around wondering what the 'meaning' of 'sick' is... ...fight fires? Nope. They sit around wondering if the red flame is really red... ...combat crime? Nope. They sit around wondering what the word 'crime' really means... ...raise livestock? Nope. They ask if the sheep really exists... ...create computers or cars? Nope. They wonder if cars and computers make noise when no one is listening... ...build bridges? Nope. They sit around and question if we really need to get to the other side...

In all practical sense, philosophers have no value at all. All they do is tell other people that they're smarter because they're philosophers.

I'm sorry Terrence but if you think your field of study makes you smarter, in spite of your lack of logical thought, you're sorely mistaken. You, and your comrade, have no practical value out here in the real world.

Have you ever held a job that hasn't required you to handle fries or tell the customers that their movies are due back in "two nights"? C'mon, do tell the group exactly what real world experience qualifies you as interpreter of all dictionary definitions... Here's another question; What sort of mental deficiency do you have that makes you think that wikipedia is actually factually accurate?

We're waiting...

(I know this seems out of place but comrade Terrance has been whining about [and linking to] this thread on other blogs where I'm not afforded the chance to respond to his self-proclaimed supremacy.)

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-09-01 9:41:44 PM

[cue dramatic music]

RE: RE vs. TW: Get ready to rumble!

I don't even know why I'm doing this. Neither one of you will listen to a word I say, merely labeling me as "enemy" and spewing the usual retort to such inhuman beings. But I must anyway.

Both of you are perfect examples as to why the libertarians aren't taken seriously. Most of us are incapable of working together in a goal-oriented fashion long enough to institute meaningful change in our government (wince) because we are too beholden to the exactitude of our definitions and finicky details. Shame on you.

Ayn Rand, save us from your followers! It's time for you to take a deep breath and repeat after Cherryh: "Do not follow rules (or rulers, even philosophical ones) off cliffs."

No government at all is just as non-functional as socialism! Name me one stable anarchy in history. No? Got it in one! They only exist in Heinlein novels. At least Communist countries exist(ed) (in misery) long enough to be remarked upon by history, even if the majority looses the significance of their collapse in less than a generation.

As far as I can see we have two choices: 1. Give the government a gradual close shave down to a reasonable, minimally functional level; OR 2. keep arguing amongst ourselves until the People decide they've had it with taxation without (real!) representation and foment a bloody revolution... and GoK what happens in the fallout. I *like* to think that sane and reasonable people will shake out on top to re-institute the government of our forefathers, but I'm not actually that much of an optimist.

Why do I support our military? because I'd like to have a place to have this lovely government the Founders saw fit to bring fourth. Without a place to do so, free of outside interference, it's not likely to happen. Like it or not, we have quite a lot of the world's wealth stored between our fair shores, and there are many who have the desire and theoretical means to seek it out by force. Why don't they? Our military scares them, and for good reason.

I have no love for war and it's effects; yes it's expensive, people die, (even non-combatants) sickness incurs, even with our modern medicine and so on. Let's not forget the billions of dollars it inevitably costs to clean up after such an operation (even if you win).

But, let's face it, let's finally admit to ourselves in public that we do not pick up arms to stroke our egos, nor do we do it because we love killing people. It's cost in lives of our self selected soldiers/loved ones as well as our enemies (who will hopefully choose peace in the future) are too valuable for finance alone to be the prime motivator.

Why? Tyranny is a cost too dear, even for as valuable commodity as peace. See how well it worked for Chamberlain. When those you are forced to share a world with those who will not play fair, one must take extreme action to defend one's freedom. To put one's life where one's mouth is. For if one will not defend one's freedom, well... insert handy, oft used quote from old Ben Franklin... which not so coincidentally was later coined by Churchill.

Honestly, I think Ron Paul has a strong support from the military despite his foreign policy, not because of it. He is the only one out there talking sense on the financial front, and he won't be selling out civil-liberties like some other politicians I could name.

I don't even support the gold standard, but at least he's doing what a politician should and *explaining* what needs to happen on a path to financial sanity, by explaining why our current financial upheavals are happening with real economic science, not some trumped up platitudes and blame games designed to garner votes.

Then there's his foreign policy... or rather lack of it.

But putting one's head in the sand is an invitation to anyone who sees us as slightly past our prime, weak, yet still fat and ready for slaughter. See how well isolationism worked for our country in the 1930's (during the depression) and how it perked up the economy for the ancient Chinese.

The only reason why isolationism worked on a security level for as long as it did in our history is that most of the people with the means to overthrow us a. didn't see us as a threat, and b. didn't see us to be 'of any sort of consequence whatever' in their world. In other words, we were able to maintain our autonomy throughout most of our history because they thought we were irrelevant, run out of money and die from our supreme arrogance and lack of kings, state churches, and what not. Now days, a great many powerful people hate us, and threaten us every day, and have even taken steps to make moves against us.

I think things would look very different for us if there weren't a large military looking over our shoulders right now. Lower taxes, and, perhaps, larger potholes, and a need for our remaining citizens to use Geiger counters. Who knows?

Close our borders and we kill our vitality.

Dismantle our arms and we call in the hyenas.

Wolves at least have honor. Compared to any other currently existing example we treat our enemies well. It may not live up to our ideals, but it's better than any other alternative out there.

Like my father used to say, "Capitalism is a terrible form of government, but it's better than anything else we've got."

Our ideals steer us in a particular direction, but we will never meet them. It only behooves us to try.

It would please me to see you two (or more involved in this discussion) actually come up with some things you actually could agree on as a next step to help solve this crisis, rather than keep sniping at each other relishing your familiar and boring dissent.

You know, besides that I'm full of it. ;-)

Let's show off some positives about the libertarians for a change?

Posted by: V | 2008-10-06 9:03:14 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Friday, August 29, 2008

Is Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin a libertarian?

TrackBack

Comments