Libertarian Follies

[ICONOCLAST420]

And the 2008 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate is.....


http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2002/08/07/image517785x.jpg
Bob "Are You Fuckin' Kidding Me?" Barr

After beating out Dr. Mary Ruwart in the 6th round of voting with 54% of the vote today at the LP national convention in Denver, Bob Barr will be the party's nominee.

I first met Dr. Mary Ruwart in 1996 when we ran a booth at the pro pot-decrim/harvest festival at Fountain Square, handing out brochures for Harry Browne. She has been a long time Libertarian Party member and author of the book Healing Our World. Her sister Marty, who was terminally ill, was one of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's first assisted suicide patients.

Former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) had only been a member of the LP for two years, his sudden flip-flop on the drug issue is suspect, to say the very least. I suppose this was seen as an opportunity to reach out to disenfranchised conservatives.

Now who will reach out to disenfranchised Libertarians?

[Shlep]

A shrewd, canny move if you ask me.

Let's not kid ourselves, though I don't think we are: the LIbertarians ain't winnin' shit as far as any Presidential election this year. I vote Libertarian and even I know this to be true; I suspect the party leadership does too. So instead, they're going to get some mileage out of the election by nominating an absolute pant-load like Bob Barr, for what I believe would be one or more of the following purposes:


Draw attention and major media news coverage to the party, if only briefly. This is critical for a party like the Libertarians, whose current level of attention by major media outlets is generally insufficient to make most of the public aware they exist in an era when constant, unrelenting attention of this sort is invaluable in winning high office.
Announce their arrival as a serious force in American politics by giving the appearance of being every bit as willing *AND* able as the Democrats and the Republicans to offer up a candidate for a position of high elected office who has no business actually holding it but who does have name recognition and a politically-polarizing career in Washington.
Spend any political capital earned by #1 and/or #2 by nominating someone in 2012 who will surely look great by comparison (which will be easy).


The downside, of course, being that some of us who actually are willing to voe for a Libertarian and be serious about it (not just "protest voting") may not have anyone to vote for. But hey, no plan is perfect.

[ICONOCLAST420]

The downside, of course, being that some of us who actually are willing to vote for a Libertarian and be serious about it (not just "protest voting") may not have anyone to vote for. But hey, no plan is perfect.

Another downside is when the fundraising letters go out unanswered and no one cares enough to gather petition signatures to get him on the ballot. I know I have better things to do with my time and money than put another neo-con on the ballot.

At this point I could just vote for McBush.

[Marlowe]

i have an instinctual dislike of anyone who wears an unironic moustache, except for tom selleck. but, i have always liked bob barr, who has always taken principled positions, no matter how unpopular. something very rare in washington.

but, i never have voted for the libertarian party, despite being a libertarian through and through. something about the party has always screamed "amateur hour" and "wild-eyed nutters", and so i've never been able to bring myself to join their cause. same thing goes for all of the ron paul nut-jobs. i have heard that someone bought a huge parcel of land in the middle of nowhere in tejas and a bunch of ron paul supporters are all moving there to to form a ron paul-values-based community. i give those whack-jobs about 1 week fewer than the biolab people at being able to live in a sustained way without either killing each other or dying out like roanoke island.

[Shlep]

Another downside is when the fundraising letters go out unanswered and no one cares enough to gather petition signatures to get him on the ballot. I know I have better things to do with my time and money than put another neo-con on the ballot.

At this point I could just vote for McBush.

Indeed. Of course, I could just vote for Barr anyway and tell myself that I'm making the principled decision to support "my party," right or wrong, even if they nominate someone who I readily concede is a total chucklehead who has little to no appeal to me other than he's not from one of the other parties.

Though since the Libertarian Party has been quite clear and adamant of late in making it known that they believe this attitude among voters is one of the biggest, most pervasive, and fundamental problems affecting contemporary American politics-- and since I happen to wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment-- that would create a mildly ironic state of affairs.

[the happy prole]

If you believe Bob Barr has genuinely had a change of heart, he's fairly Libertarian now. But I can also see Iconoclast420's point. I mean, if you just want a guy with libertarian sympathies in some but not all matters and who may not follow through... you could just vote McCain. The whole point of a third party is that you aren't willing to compromise much with the existing two.

But you know, the whole idea of Libertarians running for office is problematic anyway. I've said it before, but it's kind of like "Government is bad. Everyone who runs is corrupt or will become corrupt. By the way, vote for me for President!" It's kind of a mixed message. Beyond that, forcing libertarianism policies on people by virtue of having majority control of the government... well that's kind of un-libertarian in the first place.

If it's going to happen, it has to happen mostly outside the government. But I also don't disagree with Shlep that you can use the publicity to plant the seeds. If you really wanted to drive the point home, maybe part of your platform could be "If elected, I will not serve."

[Shlep]

but, i never have voted for the libertarian party, despite being a libertarian through and through. something about the party has always screamed "amateur hour" and "wild-eyed nutters", and so i've never been able to bring myself to join their cause.

Well, these are valid criticisms, in my opinion.

While Libertarian opinion and philosophy makes loads of sense and has a lot of cogent and lucis basis supported by thoughtful and intelligent people (H.L. Mencken and PJ O'Rourke spring readily to my mind) it can be troublesome in application, at least as far as political reality. One needn't be possessed of any rare political savvy to see how it can be tough to make the message "Vote for us, so we can give you nothing, and maybe even take some stuff away!" sound less than absurd, never mind attractive, in a soundbite context, or that this state of affairs is not at all helped by their determination to eschew the trappings of such politics (such as bazillion-dollar campaigns run by James Carville) which might make doing so possible.

same thing goes for all of the ron paul nut-jobs. i have heard that someone bought a huge parcel of land in the middle of nowhere in tejas and a bunch of ron paul supporters are all moving there to to form a ron paul-values-based community. i give those whack-jobs about 1 week fewer than the biolab people at being able to live in a sustained way without either killing each other or dying out like roanoke island.

Ol' Ron was an interesting case for me, as it was perhaps the first time I gave up on a prospective candidate not because I did not like him, his platform, or record in office if he had one, but because I loathed the idea of having to self-identify as a Ron Paul supporter.

Specifically: I never bothered to take the time to learn enough about him to make a well-informed decision because the folks among his small but dedicated legion of grassroots supporters I encountered were such total assclowns that if nothing else, I feared that being a fellow Ron Paul supporter would either turn me into a fellow total assclown or worse, force me to acknowledge the ugly truth that I'm already a total assclown and didn't yet realize it.

Seriously...what the hell kind of campaign street team goes around telling you to use "alternate methods" of "getting the message out" such as hanging up "RON PAUL IN '08" banners from your apartment balcony, or plastering signs in public places where such signs are not likely allowed (or worse, on private property without first asking the owner if they mind) with the notion that if it's not allowed or a violation of the law (or your tenant lease) then...well, fuck it, forgiveness is easier to get than permission, and you'll probably get off at least the first time with a warning, and this is *REALLY* important? Sorry, Mr. Ron Paul Groupie, but I am automatically deeply troubled by the idea that the validity of things like laws and legally-binding agreements begins and ends with whether or not you have the requisite courage of your convictions to be willing to break or ignore them (a bad idea routinely couched in idealism that has caused lots of the worst kinds of trouble in history). Moreover, but there's plenty of this shit rampant in politics already, and Ron Paul is supposed to be the alternative to "politics as usual."

P.S. If you can't quit talking about the fucking "NAFTA Superhighway" as though the DOT is already paving it straight through a million peoples' living rooms from Nogales to Toronto when, in fact, no real evidence exists that anyone plans to build anything like what you describe (or back it with a made-up currency) than I should be forced to do what is reasonably necessary to ignore you and pretend you are not here.

[the happy prole]

If you think the government has no right to own any property, nor any right to control your use of said property, then of course you're going to feel no need to obey the law. In fact, it's kind of your duty to disobey it.

People are all hopped up on Ayn Rand is the problem. She said something once like "compromise is evil." And she wrote horribly contrived fictional stories where the government was evil and the heroes triumphed in the end by sticking it to the government bastards after first delivering inspiring flowery speeches.

So everyone thinks they are Hank Reardon when in fact they are probably the peons who should learn to subjugate themselves to Reardon because he is ten times smarter than they are.

It's painted as such a black-or-white philosophy. Basically there are a set of rights in which case no one has the right to take them away from you. And then there's a group of non-rights which means you can do whatever you want and it should not be restricted.

So if I'm Bob Barr and I think gay marriage is not a right, then fuck you. You are expecting the government to create new rights and a nanny state. OTOH, if I think pro-life IS a right, then fuck you again. Don't be taking away people's rights.

I'm not shitting on libertarianism here, but I wonder how come so many libertarians don't see that they are doing an awful job of getting out the right message?

What they should be stressing is personal responsibility. That people are capable of not acting like dicks without government intervention. And that the free market is perfectly capable of weeding out dicks, so don't try it. Instead of challenging people to handle their junk on their own like grown-ups, they are instead fostering the attitude that you can do whatever you want.

[yoshomon]

It should also be noted that Ron Paul is an anti-semetic idiot who thinks the world is controlled by "powerful banking interests" (guess what that means?). He's been published by the American Free Press*, who push holocaust denial (in addition to giving advertising space to neo-nazi groups), and his ranks are swelled by open white supremacists.

He is a mainstream white power candidate. It baffles me that nobody ever brings this up, but I guess in a country where crude racialism is considered legitimate political discourse, why not give racist nutjobs a pass?

*http://www.americanfreepress<dot>net/html/global_taxes.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html (I don't agree with all the politics in this, but it maps out Paul's connections to neo-nazis pretty well).

[dannyboy]

What they should be stressing is personal responsibility. That people are capable of not acting like dicks without government intervention. And that the free market is perfectly capable of weeding out dicks, so don't try it. Instead of challenging people to handle their junk on their own like grown-ups, they are instead fostering the attitude that you can do whatever you want.

That is exactly the kind of Libertarianism that I personally subscribe to. I also think the LP is doing a terrible job of getting the message out. Libertarianism is not about no government. It's about self government, but still looking out for everyone else's rights.

[the happy prole]

So the Libertarian Party is a political organization with a political philosophy... and you're pissed because the had the gall to nominate a politician.

You don't see the contradiction there?

[Tweak Tweak]

Two quotes to demonstrate where the GOP has gone wrong:

Ronald Reagan:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... 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.


Rick Santorum:

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. ... This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

[the happy prole]

There is no contradiction as I am not a card carrying libertarian or anything. They have put up some good people though.

Of course you're not. Because that would mean you'd be part of a political party and an organized group that would piss you off.

[markalot]

Two quotes to demonstrate where the GOP has gone wrong:

Ronald Reagan:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... 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.


Rick Santorum:

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. ... This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.


The republican party has been taken over by what used to be called the moral majority. It's sickening but there you have it. Democrats want a nanny state, republicans want a church state. We need to start over.

If I had to identify a politic that most represents me, today, I'd have to go with the conservative democrats. Maybe issue by issue a republican might be a closer fit but I find myself deathly allergic to anything religious in politics.

[Tweak Tweak]

The republican party has been taken over by what used to be called the moral majority. It's sickening but there you have it. Democrats want a nanny state, republicans want a church state. We need to start over.

If I had to identify a politic that most represents me, today, I'd have to go with the conservative democrats. Maybe issue by issue a republican might be a closer fit but I find myself deathly allergic to anything religious in politics.

The new term is "Beltway Libertarian." You're a Cato/Reason type, as opposed to a CEI/Freeper type.

[Buzzstein]

Interesting. I think I identify most with the socialist libertarians myself. I am deathly allergic to making any sense. :D

Haha! That's a nice oxymoron you have there. ;)

[yoshomon]

And despite apparently being an evil antisemitic, racist with truthers as supporters, Ron Paul is a badass.

I hear the Michigan Militia and Aryan Nation are badass too.

[juggles]

Is it my imagination or are the Libertarians getting a lot more mainstream attention this year?

If there was ever a year for them to get a foothold, this is it. It seems like I know a lot of very disgruntled Republicans.