We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The race for the Republican ticket Here is an interesting take on the two mainly libertarian-leaning candidates for the Republican presidential ticket: Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. Our own Brian Micklethwait has thoughts on Johnson (he’s a fan); I certainly would be more inclined, if I were a US voter, to go for GJ rather than Ron Paul. Mr Paul is sound on issues like the Federal Reserve but on a lot of stuff, his classical liberal credentials strike me as a bit suspect, although people whom I respect, like Brian Doherty of Reason magazine, say nice things about him.
Of course, the fact that such persons can have a crack at a presidential nomination is in itself a fact that separates the US from the UK. I cannot at the moment think of a single major UK Conservative politician who comes close. And as for continental Europe…….oh dear…..Silvio Berlusconi? (That was a joke).
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
To beat the establishment candidate (“Mitt” Romney) a person must win the Iowa Caucus events. Only then can the struggle go on to New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Gary Johnson has no hope in Iowa (his position on abortion and recent PAC troubles in Utah indicate this). This is unfortunate as he was a very good Governor of New Mexico – although memory of this is fading (it was some time ago now).
Ron Paul has a habit of shooting himself in the foot – most recently over Bin Laden. And is now an old man (not a crime – I am no spring chicken myself, but I do not see Ron Paul getting there).
Iowa will, most likely, be won by one of the Minnesota candidates – either T.P. or (if she runs) M.B. (who was born in Iowa).
Which ever one of them wins becomes the challenger to Romney.
As this stand Ron Paul and Gary Johnson will just serve the role of putting certain issues on the agenda in the debates.
Not a small role – for example Pawlenty often says he opposed TARP, but if one opposes TARP (and so on) then one must accept that the present “finance economy” (as Stuart Varney calls it – and he supports the freaking thing) will come to an end. It would be an end to the “age of the Federal Reserve” and the magic circle of business enterprises (not just banks) that depend upon it.
Ron Paul has thought about what happens then more than anyone in politics.
So, although he has not got a hope of winning, Republicans who do have a hope of winning would be wise to listen to what he has to say.
“Bottom line”.
Neither of the two libertarians is going to win the Republican nomination in 2012, but that does not mean that an establishment principle-free-zone has to win.
There are actual and potential candidates who are open to some some libertarian economic ideas.
John Redwood has some sound instincts, but is light years away from a chance of leading the Conservative party.
I like Johnson too, but I like Cain better. He’s my favorite, until/if Buchman jumps in.
Mr Cain can speak – which (oddly enough) a lot of professional politicians can not do.
However – he has no record at all.
Other than being a successful businessman (and business people can have all sorts of political beliefs) there is nothing but his speeches to judge him on.
And speeches are not enough – not for Republican Iowa Caucus goers.
Still he may prove me wrong.
M.B. – I like Buchman, the lady has the same contempt for the left that I do. For example, the utter contempt she shows when being interviewed by them is wonderful to see.
However, the hate goes both ways.
The msm will smear any Republican candidate – but against Buchman they will go nuts (even more than they did, and do, against Palin).
They will make stuff up – plant fake evidence (of who knows what….) and so on.
I am not using empty words – I really believe that the msm (and the rest of the establishment) will respond in this way to Buchman.
With Pawlenty the main line of attack will be “he is very boring”.
I don’t really know enough about Cain to have a firm judgment about him, although he does speak very well. (The recent “debate” in South Carolina is my only real exposure to him, but I was impressed.) His business record is strong, and the fact that he is black goes a very long way toward removing the “race card” from the table (not all the way, however: far too many blacks and liberals will shriek that he is “unauthentic” and “not really black” because of his conservative views.) However, I do have some reservations.
First, in the 1990s Cain was a governor and then Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. While that suggests that he should know better than most the internal workings of the Federal Reserve System, and its shortcomings, it also suggests that he isn’t opposed to governmental control of the monetary system and isn’t likely to champion real reform. This feeling is confirmed (to me, anyway) by his support of TARP, which he has never repudiated. With mainstream economists now beginning to publicly question the wisdom or efficacy of government “stimulus” (which is now being blamed for wiping out a million private-sector jobs) I’d like to see him backtracking on that position. Hasn’t happened yet, though.
I also have a problem with his long-time and very vocal support of the “Fair Tax”. This isn’t the place for me to launch into a diatribe about why I oppose it (briefly, I don’t understand how anyone who has taken the trouble to actually read the text of that bill could support it; however salutary the concept of a consumption-based tax might be this approach to it is fatally flawed). This also makes me question Cain’s judgment.
So while I’m not writing off Herman Cain just yet, I am approaching his candidacy with caution. He would certainly be an improvement over Romney (as would almost anyone to the right of Howard Dean), I’m still waiting to discern the true prince in this pond full of noisy but rather small toads.
Smited! Second time in as many days. It’s good to know that the smitebot hasn’t forgotten me.
All aid the farce, and all thy mirth maintain,
Whose joys are causeless, or whose griefs are vain.
Such was the scorn that filled the sage’s mind.
Buchman? Do you mean Michelle Bachmann? If so, I too would like to see her run.
Wait! We’ve got Hannan! Oh, you said major politician.
Seriously, although he’s nowhere near libertarian, he does have decent small government instincts, it’s just that he seems satisfied to make his speeches to an empty chamber in Brussels rather than seeking to influence policy in Westminster.
Perhaps he’s biding his time until the current centre left government fails, the far left gets back in and fails again, and the people are finally looking for a small state conservative like our Dan.
By which time the people will actually be looking for a ‘strong man’ to lead us out of the wilderness to which another six years or so of the current idiocy has brought us.
Meanwhile, back in the USS… sorry back in the USA(Link), TPaw threatens to tell Iowans that their ethanol subsidies will end, Wall Street that their bail-outs are finished and Floridans that their Social Security will be means tested.
Interesting.
If a presidential candidate, of whatever party, were to come out and say, ‘Abortion? My opion is irrelevent. That is an issue reserved to individual states and Roe v. Wade should be repealed on that basis’, well, that would be my man.
It will happen about the same time as pigs learn to fly.
I would prefer Silvio Berlusconi to any current American or British politician. I’m serious.
Abortion should be legal; its no business of anyone else what a woman does with her body, certainly no business of any federal or state authorities.
If a woman does not want to raise a child she cannot afford or does not want, she should abort it, pure and simple.
Well how about after it is born? Can she kill it a week after? And if not, why not?
Gary, I am glad that you have all the answers to life’s difficult problems. Of course, this is the same Gary that, a few weeks ago, wrote – on the occasion of the Royal Wedding in the UK – on how marriage is a mutually parasitic institution of no value and that the only reason for men and women to get together is for sex. So now he tells us about sexual procreation and child-rearing responsibilities.
Dearie me.
Abortion being the issue that divides people of all political stripes including libertarians…
The issue being, of course, whether you regard a pregnant female’s body as being entirely her own, or whether you regard the body inside as being entirely in possession of the same rights as the mother.
And where (or if) you draw that line.
I imagine people will still be debating it 1000 years from now.
Abortion being the issue that divides people of all political stripes including libertarians…
The issue being, of course, whether you regard a pregnant female’s body as being entirely her own, or whether you regard the body inside as being entirely in possession of the same rights as the mother.
And where (or if) you draw that line.
I imagine people will still be debating it 1000 years from now.
Apologies for double post. Damn browser.
How’s about we try this then.
How about none of them, ever again.
I don’t care if John Redwood is good, bad or different. I’d rather have none of them at all.
The only one who seemed to have some kind of moral clarity in a flawed human way was Sarah Palin.
MSM, (and probably her own supporters) will never let her win so there isn’t really too much hope.
Globally conservatives are in disarray.
And yes, where does medical procedure end and murder begin?
I didn’t know that Cain supported TARP, Laird – in what capacity? In any case, not good at all.
Has Fred Karger shown any Libertarian leanings?
To me T Paw seems the best of the bunch so far. As was noted he’s shown some guts and didn’t do too bad a job as Governor of Minnesota.
My dream candidate (so far) is Bobby Jindal, who stood up to Obama during the BP oil spill last year and seems to be doing OK cleaning up the nasty corruption in Louisiana. That is what he will be ultimately judged by.
If he can do that he’ll be able to make a good case that he can handle the corruption in Washington.
I like Johnson too, but I watched him closely in the first GOP nomination debate, and he looked way too wooden and wonkish. He’s definitely a candidate of substance, but he needs to work on being a bit more telegenic. Still, he may still surprise. I suspect he knows a thing or two about getting elected.
I’m a fan of Cain, but this was recently tested when he made a complete tit of himself when questioned about Palestinian right of return. Remember GWB’s infamous fluff in 1999, when he was being quizzed on his foreign policy smarts? He was discussing what he’d do about whatever was going on in Pakistan at that time, and he said something like “Well, I would negotiate with General Musharraf…” “Governor, what’s his first name?” “His first name’s General”. Well. Cain’s obvious ignorance of one of the key issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict made 1999 Governor Bush look like a towering expert on foreign policy in comparison. See more details here.
I’m not ready to write off Cain on the strength of that boo-boo alone, but he can’t afford (m)any more similar screw-ups, especially in his early candidacy. He isn’t Barack Obama, y’know.
Here’s Cain on the federal government bailing out banks (his own words).
Here’s an article about his opposition to Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” position.
Here’s another article about his support of TARP (some overlap with the first one).
I’m not convinced that Cain is a libertarian, or even anything close to it. He seems to be a fairly run-of-the-mill Republican: reasonably conservative with respect to spending and taxation, statist in some other regards, and perfectly satisfied with a large, broadly interventionist federal government. And Keynsian to the core (but except for Ron Paul, what prominent politician isn’t?). Ultimately, perhaps he’s the best among a bunch of flawed alternatives, but I’m not yet convinced of that.
I saw that too, James, and I didn’t make as much of that as the media did (and I live in Israel). The ME conflict happens to be one of the more simple problems the next president is going to have to deal with. As they said 20 years or so ago: ‘it1’s the economy, stupid’. Cain’s alleged support of TARP is far more troubling than that little blunder.
I’m not sure being an Israeli citizen has that much to do with it. In fact, I think it’s a mistake probably much easier to digest from your perspective. If I were an Israeli citizen and a fan of Cain, I wouldn’t make much of it, either. You’d know he didn’t have a clue about that which he was speaking of, but it was clear whose side he was on. I expect when he’s properly briefed on the issue, he’ll come down on the sane side (namely; Oh, you feel dispossessed? Yeah, well, I guess that’s what happens when you take advice from people who start wars and then go on to lose them).
However, from my perspective, a US presidential candidate *should* be more or less up to speed on something like this. His failure to understand one of the central sticking points of this most seminal of global conflicts was surprising. He talks a pretty line, but what else doesn’t he know about?
This isn’t a deal-breaker for him, in my opinion, but I think he’s on his proverbial ninth life after it. Now’s the time a compelling outsider such as himself needs to be buttressing his credibility, not making elementary foreign policy gaffes.
No, it wasn’t: most Americans don’t have a clue – and rightly so, because guess what: it isn’t a seminal global conflict, it is a local one that’s been artificially inflated beyond all proportion. With the Soviet Union long gone, there is no justification for keeping this balloon floating any longer. Now I of course agree that PotUS should understand the sticking points etc., but it really is something he can easily do in a very short time. I also agree that this gaffe may cost him down the road, but if so, I find that unfortunate. And yes, you may be right that my being an Israeli is irrelevant, so feel free to ignore that point.
Bunch of pseudo-libertarians around here.
Bachmann is a neo-con. She started talking like RP when the tea parties first started forming. She’s a political opportunist at best.
The newsletters excuse is crap. A red-herring by the liberals because they loose face on social liberties to a strong libertarian position.
As far as RP vs GJ, it’s up to the person. But I think the comparison at volokh is way of the mark. I don’t need to go into the reasons as a number of comments points them out.
This place is way more ‘Cato’ then ‘Mises’.
herman cain discussed today his views on tarp and his association with the fed. reserve in this interview:(Link)
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks”
You have posted this quote twice as a proof of Ron Paul’s “suspect” beliefs. Pls take the time and check the facts about the L.A. riots, before using the “suspect” theme in the future. The quote is absolutely correct, although is not P.C. to state it in public.
I would also like to beg for some more respect for both Rothbard and Rockwell, since they are mainly responsible for keeping libertarianism alive in the 1960-2000 period
Alisa: most Americans have no clue about “right of return” because essentially no one in the foreign policy-media-academy-NGO milieu wants to think about it. At all.
Richard Landes of The Augean Stables had an encounter with a well-meaning Israeli peacenik woman who had managed to convince herself that Palestinians had dropped the “right of return” in the 1980s.
“Right of return” is an absolute deal-breaker. For the Palestinians, it’s a non-negotiable requirement: no Palestinian leader or group or manifesto has ever made any concession on it. For Israel, it’s national suicide.
But the Great White Whale of that foreign policy-media-academy-NGO milieu is a final Arab-Israeli peace settlement. It is their fanatically held Conventional Wisdom that such a settlement would allow all the other problems of the Middle East to be resolved. (Obama’s team is drawn from that crowd, and is badly infected with that delusion.)
The “right of return” issue kills the dream – so it doesn’t exist.
(BTW – who asked Cain about it?)
Rich Rostrom, it was Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.
I’m sure Obama was well as well informed on all the issues as one could hope before he was elected but look at his abject failures at achieving his goals. Iraq, Afghanistan, couldn’t even close Guantanamo. When apparently smart people promise the impossible, it’s no wonder people end up voting for “men of the people” like Bush.
I don’t think Cain’s lack of knowledge on the issue is a big deal per se, his principles seem to be in the right place and all else flows from that, not from the minutiae. Unfortunately, in the realm of modern politics, it’s a slip-up the media will rag on as much as possible.
Rich: some talking head on on Fox. See the link I provided in my first post.
Alisa: I agree with you that it has been blown out of proportion. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a seminal global conflict. Look at how many (big) players are (heavily) invested in it, and against each other, and also how long it’s been rumbling on for. And I didn’t say you being an Israeli makes your opinion irrelevant – hell, I’m Australian. What I meant was that you probably didn’t see his lack of knowledge on the issue as such a big deal at all, because it was pretty clear whose side he was on. As you and I both said, he will likely be coached on the ins and outs of the conflict, and this would be quite a simple matter.
Nevertheless, I’m a little bit surprised that someone who thinks he’s qualified to be president doesn’t have a clue about this. I’m even more surprised that he dealt with it so ham-fistedly, because I thought his response to people trying to call him out for not having a plan for Afghanistan was rather adroit – how could he be expected to have a plan for Afghanistan when he doesn’t have the information required to make a decision like that? He turned the tables on his accusers. This time he was….less adroit.
Anyway, if this doesn’t become a big issue for him now, I don’t think it will feature again in the race.
Smited.
Linky Dinky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XX1zTR7bFpM#t=540s
Richard Thomas: yes, I agree entirely. That’s the perfect riposte that anyone could make against Obama if he were trying to rip someone for inexperience or lack of expertise. Yes, you have the knowledge, Mr President, and look what you’ve done with it.
I think that Cain has actually talked a very good line about this kind of thing up, barring his right of return stumble. I’d say that he’d be very effective debating Obama, if he can make the distance. His assertion, that it would be irresponsible to detail how he’s going to deal with complex foreign policy problems when he isn’t privy to the information required to make such decisions, is axiomatic and *genuine* straight talk (as opposed to McCain Straight Talk) and I think will be aped by others.
Still, Gary Johnson’s the dream candidate for me. I just don’t think he’ll be able to get up.
Tim Sandefur(Link) has laid out a pretty devastating case against Ron Paul as a libertarian.
Not really. Rothbard was a great writer in some respects (economics, some history); his foreign policy views were nuts. Rockwell is a strange fish; I am not sure I would give him a pass and the issue of the Ron Paul letters leaves me queasy.
The Mises Institute does some good work on economics (notwithstanding the noisy, and aggressively anti-IP views of Stephan Kinsella); some of the Mises lot, such as Thomas Di Lorenzo, seem to be neo-Confederates.
CATO is infinitely preferable.
I was enthusing to a friend of mine about Gary Johnson recently, and he to me that he won’t win because his name’s too boring. I told him that’s a stupid reason.
Then again, it would seem that Obama was elected for similarly mundane reasons. Has it really come to this?
I like Johnson a lot – in fact, more than any of them. Problem is, I don’t think anyone can win a Republican nomination without the support of the Christian crowd.
James, I don’t want to turn this thread into a discussion on The Conflict, but it is an issue that is bound to figure at all stages of the campaign, so I’ll try to clarify the point I was trying to make. I am also an American citizen, and as such, although far from being an isolationist, I do think that the US approach to foreign policy in general, and the ME in particular, should be much more hands-off than it has been for as long as I can remember.
There are no big players in this other than the US. If the US tells to the Palestinians to get their shit together or to FO, then there is no one out there who has the clout and the actual power to do anything about it. The only other player in the field is only big by the mis-virtue of its acquisition of nuclear capability due to the ineptness of the US policy on the matter.
This conflict is real and it does need to be solved – including some real grievances on the part of the Palestinians. However, most of the issues involved, including The Right of Return, are in actual existence solely due to the meddling of the superpowers during all those years. The US part of the meddling was for the most part justified as a counterbalance to the expansionist policies of the SU – but there is no such justification any more.
The reason I like Cain is that he appears to be a regular American more than any one else currently in the GOP field. Regular Americans are rightly not interested in the intricacies of the ME issue, because they know in their gut that these things have no direct bearing on their own lives – unlike the economy and the size and the intrusiveness of their government. And if these issues are not sorted out soon (if it is not even too late already, to channel Paul Marks), the US has no chance of remaining a big player for long anyway. The economic collapse of the US will cause it to lose any influence abroad, and any ability to defend its real interests anywhere in the world, including in the ME.
I defended Ron Paul on the newsletter thing (most recently an hour ago – when I commeted against some [nameless as always] Economist magazine person who brought it up), Ron Paul did not write the Newsletter – he never even read it (it went out under his name – without his knowledge).
However, it does show poor judgement to let his campagin be taken over by that sort of person – sadly there are “the Confederacy was a just cause” types about (and some of them are libertarians).
How can someone be President of a country (the United States) if they do not even believe that country should exist – Ron Paul DOES believe in the United States, but people associated with him do not, and he should break with them and their anti American (as well as anti Israeli) opinions.
Actually I have more hopes that Rand Paul will do that – because he had never got himself associated with these people in the first place.
Rand Paul does make a much better impression than his father.
I repeat – the Republican nomination will be about who challenges Romney.
If Gary Johnson wins Iowa – then any sensible free market person should support him (against Romney in New Hampshire).
If Ron Paul wins Iow – then…………………………….
If Rudolf the Red Nosed …………………………………
However, they are not going to win Iowa.
If the field remains as it is – then Pawlenty wins Iowa.
If Buchman and/or Palin jump in – then they have a chance of winning Iowa.
Any of these people should be supported against Romney.
“You are not really a libertarian”.
Fine – I will PROVE how vile and unlibertarian I am.
I would even back MITT ROMNEY against Barack Obama.
“But Romney is not a libertarian” – yes.
“Romney in fact has no beliefs of any kind” – agreed (apart from his deep heartfelt conviction that it should be him behind the big desk in the Whitehouse).
“That proves how vile you are Paul Marks”.
Perhaps it does – to people who do not really see any difference of importance between an establishment man like Mitt Romney (or even a more conservative person like Tim Pawlenty) and Barack Obama.
“They are all statists” is a Ludwig Von Mises Institute way of looking at the world (true – but missing vastly important stuff), the real Ludwig Von Mises would have understood the importance of the actual differences.
The difference between someone who wants a smaller government but would not go as far as we would (such as Pawlenty), someone who does not really have any ideology (such as Romney) and somene who is life long Marxist swine who might as well be a demon escaped from Hell……
Such as you know who.
Kevin B wrote:
‘ . . . TPaw threatens to tell Iowans that their ethanol subsidies will end . . . ”
If he tells them that, he is finished as a candidate. If you thought Social Security and Medicare were the third rail of US politics, it just means you haven’t researched corn-based ethanol adequately.
Oh, for a candidate who will look the voter in the eye and say “I am not going to play the silly-ass game of Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, where a few thousand voters get to decide who will be the ‘leading’ candidate of the entire party’, and find some other way to get themselves selected as the party candidate. Right now, the entire system is in thrall to a few thousand Iowa corn farmers, which explains why their product continues to enjoy state subsidies at a level that would make the average voter gulp in amazement – if they only knew about it. If they were the Pennsylvania caucuses, we’d all be heating our homes with 50% Federally-subsidized hard coal until the end of time.
llater,
llamas
Paul, you are wrong. It’s that type of thinking which has led us to the position we’ve come to. It is that type of thinking which limits our choices in candidates and allows the elites of two established parties to pick who will effectively be in the race and who will not. You continue to give your support over to the lesser evil instead of taking a stand against it, allowing that lesser evil to perpetuate. Stand fast, withdraw your support and they can no longer win. This will force them into debating the ideas and open up the liberty ideology to more people who think they currently represent it. Can you see why change is so slow? It’s because people like you don’t stand for their principals, instead you fold when the ‘lesser evil’ (who happens to be as pro-gov’t and authoritarian as anyone on the other side) puts a little fear into you. It’s pathetic.
Its cliché, but voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. The reason that real libertarians haven’t been able to make any real strides in electability is because of people like you. You supposedly stand by the ideals but then get frightened into changing your vote.
And Cato is a beltway shill for big business. How any free thinking libertarian is blind to this and could support them is amazing.
Yesterday Alisa questioned my assertion that Cain supported TARP. Somehow my reply fell into a black hole or something; in any event it has never appeared. So here goes, again:
This (Link) is Cain supporting TARP and the bank bailouts (his own words).
This (Link) is an article about Cain opposing Ron Paul’s proposal to audit the Federal Reserve.
This (Link) is an article with more about Cain and the federal bailouts and stimulus (some overlap with the first article linked).
To me, it seems that Cain is very far from being a libertarian, but rather is a conventional Republican: fiscally conservative (for the most part), but perfectly happy with a large, interventionist federal government. And he’s a Keynsian to the core (but then, what prominent politician isn’t?). He’s an attractive candidate in many ways, but I’m not completely sold on him yet.
Llamas, indeed. Perhaps that is the nut we need to crack first. That and/or open primates. There’s evidence that Mc Cain was selected by Democrats. It’s unbelievable that a party can’t choose it’s own method to pick candidates (not that I am a big fan of parties)
primaries
primaries
primaries
primates
Perhaps Obama and his team are achieving just exactly what they intend to achieve – in the Middle East, in the United States ?
I won’t link yet again to the Garet Garrett article, The Revolution Was.
It is on the Mises website, though.
The possibility exists that things are going ahead more or less exactly according to their plan, as Garrett explored in his writing back in the 1930s.
Liberty is slowly being rolled up, it would seem. Should we be surprised?
What exactly would be different foreign policy wise between Ron Paul & Obama? Under both the US would empower its enemies at the expense of their allies. Its just different degrees.
I would vote Romney over Obama. However I think it unlikely Romney will get the nomination.
Currently I like Cain. Would have liked to have seen Daniels or Ryan get in, but neither looks keen.
Paul, you are wrong. It’s that type of thinking which has led us to the position we’ve come to. It is that type of thinking which limits our choices in candidates and allows the elites of two established parties to pick who will effectively be in the race and who will not. You continue to give your support over to the lesser evil instead of taking a stand against it, allowing that lesser evil to perpetuate. Stand fast, withdraw your support and they can no longer win. This will force them into debating the ideas and open up the liberty ideology to more people who think they currently represent it. Can you see why change is so slow? It’s because people like you don’t stand for their principals, instead you fold when the ‘lesser evil’ (who happens to be as pro-gov’t and authoritarian as anyone on the other side) puts a little fear into you. It’s pathetic.
Its cliché, but voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. The reason that real libertarians haven’t been able to make any real strides in electability is because of people like you. You supposedly stand by the ideals but then get frightened into changing your vote.
And Cato is a beltway shill for big business. How any free thinking libertarian is blind to this and could support them is amazing.
(could the fascists as samizdata actually approve one of my posts for once?)
“Under both the US would empower its enemies at the expense of their allies.”
Precisely how would staying home and minding our own business, as opposed to meddling in nearly every* conflict on the planet, serve to “empower” our enemies? And why shouldn’t all these putative “allies” bear the expense of their own protection? What makes that our responsibility?
* Dharfur is the only exception I can think of at the moment.
Laird, Obama won the peace prize… You obviously aren’t paying attention as he’s been trying his hardest to keep us from entering new wars or creating new enemies. So far that’s just emboldened those backward people to come here and try to kill us even more. They don’t hate us because we kill their family, but because we are free! Now Ron Paul wants to do the same, it won’t work.
/snarky
MJ: You don’t honestly believe that do you? You think Islamists want to kill us all merely because what has happened in the last two hundred years? Islam has been at war with the West (Christians, Jews etc) since its inception as a religion. The Islamist aim is to wipe everyone else not like them off the earth period. They make it very clear repeatedly in plain speak if you both to pay attention.
I disagree with meddling in Libya and am not keen on nation building in Iraq & Afghanistan. I thought Somalia was a bit mistake.
However to believe that complete isolationism would lead the US to be free from Islamist or any other enemy attacks is just naive.
Mr. Dodge, you didn’t reply to my questions.
Please note that I never claimed that isolationism would free the US from enemy attacks (in fact, I made no assertion at all). I merely asked you to justify your statement.
The excitable MJ writes:
Very funny. So an organisation that campaigns on issues such as ending corporate welfare, bailouts, subsidies to big business, etc, is a “corporate shill”. I am surprised you did not claim it was all run by giant Jewish lizards or something.
Of course, being a pro-free market organisation, CATO, like most other free market think tanks, defends business but not pro-corporatism.
Just paraphrasing Balmer’s “Developers, developers, developers” 😉
Truthfully, for each of those submissions, Samizdata told me it was not allowing my post because it limited the number of postings from mobile devices in a time period and to go back and fix it. I gave up after the third time and was all ready today to come on and be ribbed about using “primates” when, in fact, it managed to make me look even sillier.
MJ
“Cato is a beltway shrill for big business”.
I have opposed some people at the Cato Institute (in rather harsh terms) – but “Cato is a beltway shrill big business” is bullcrap.
Why say something you do not believe?
Just because it sounds strong?
Makes you seem radical?
Or do you really believe it?
In which case you are mistaken – radically mistaken.
As for standing up for principle.
Where were you when the Ryan Plan needed help?
“It is too moderate” I AGREE that it is too moderate – but it was step in the right direction, an acceptance of objective reality (rather than the insane belief that government could give everyone whatever they wanted).
So, I repeat, WHERE WERE YOU?
Where were you when the Republicans (for Paul Ryan was supported by almost every Republican in the House) tried to make a step in the correct direction – tried to do the right thing.
Did you support them?
Or did you dismiss them as “shills for big business” and leave them to be blown away by the media propaganda?
[ By the way who owns ABC, CBS and NBC (and Time and Newsweek and …..) are they not “big business”? And (of course) Google and Facebook and ….. (for the “new media” has gone the way of the “old media” those who control it favour one party over the other – and, oddly enough, the party they favour is not the “shrills for big business” Republicans of the Paul Ryan type).]
You say that no one should support someone like Mitt Romney – because he has no real belief in rolling back government.
And I AGREE with you.
But have a look at New York 26 – supposedly one of the safest districts in the country and now lost.
Lost because the voters would not even accept a modest step in the right direction (and a modest step is all the Ryan Plan is).
Did radical libertarians spend the last month or so MAKING THE CASE TO THE PEOPLE that “this is a moderate move in the right direction – we must support the Republicans” or did you leave them to be blown away?
Let me guess……..
And you wonder why Republicans may turn to principle-free-zones like Mitt Romney.
Want politicans to try and deal with out of control growth of government? Then SUPPORT them whenever they try and do the right thing – but (of course) make plain “but we should go a lot further”.
If you are not prepared to support people when they try and make a moderate move in the right direction….
What freaking use are you?
Why should they care about you at all? When they (politicians trying to make some effort to do the right thing) are in need of help – you will not help them, you will just carry on spitting on them.
So why should people not go over to Romney – no principles, but at least he pays his supporters and pays for research into public attitudes (so that he can say he believes whatever the reports say the voters believe – a true democrat, with a small d).
After all one can even (sort of) make a moral argument. Is not a man who believes in nothing – not better than a man who has lots of EVIL beliefs?
And that is the choice that people such as yourself create – because you will not support people who actually try (in their own moderate way) to do the right thing.