I was mighty pleased to discover that the entire November issue of Reason magazine is available online. I've been perusing the Reason archives quite a bit lately, and much to my surprise I find that the Libertarians make a lot of sense these days.
Really! I think that the Libertarians are making more and more sense nowadays. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have begun to stray from their party lines, and the end result seems to be a terrible nanny/police state. Let's examine the Republicans first.
The Republican party supposedly stands for fiscal conservatism, smaller government, and personal freedoms. However, within the last eight years all of these values have been abandoned. Under Republican leadership we have seen the single largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States emerge in the form of the Department of Homeland Security. We have seen the national debt skyrocket: we're more in debt now than we ever were. The Republicans have taken their love of personal freedoms and replaced it with a love of Police States. The TSA routinely violates 4th amendment securities, protesters have been relegated to "free speech zones," and the government can now spy on anybody anytime for the most tenuous of reasons. We can see that the Republican party leadership and elected officials by and large have deviated from what their party stands for, leaving the Republican base frustrated. One thing I hear a lot here in Florida is "Bush isn't even a real republican." I'm not even a Republican and I agree with that.
The Democratic party has done no better. The Democrats, in an effort to appeal to the nonexistent voters who like the modern Republicans, have resorted to amazing levels of doublespeak and outright lying. They have openly supported some of the least popular Republican initiatives, and you can actually hear Democratic candidates spouting off that they think we need more police intervention and more government oversight into peoples lives. Clearly the Democrats are trying to be exactly like the Republicans except they're doing a much worse job of it.
So, what's a voter to do? On the one hand you have the Republicans, who have deviated so far from their party lines that they are no longer recognizable; on the other hand you have the Democrats, who for reasons not clear to me want to be seen as exactly like the Republicans. There are no good options, and it looks like the 2008 elections might just be a toss-up between the truly frightening Rudy Giuliani and the equally frightening Hillary Clinton. If it came to that, I don't know what I would do: Rudy is good at getting attention but bad at being personable, and I can see him leading our nation into more ridiculous and expensive wars that only make everybody madder at us. Hillary is also good at getting attention but doesn't differ noticeably from Rudy on most policies.
That's what I'm rooting for the Libertarians. While I certainly don't agree with everything that Ron Paul says, I think the core of his philosophy is good: the less the government intervenes with personal freedoms, the better. No more "nanny" policies, no more federally mandated restrictions, no more ridiculously high taxes going to wasteful government spending on things like The Bridge To Nowhere or the war in Iraq. Sure, the Libertarians would also abolish a lot of social welfare programs, but I don't really have a problem with that since most social welfare programs are disastrously applied these days. I think that a lot of the time they wind up doing more harm than good, and there's really no enforcement of the rules that are supposed to govern these things (see the Florida DME Scandal) leading to widespread fraud and corruption. Getting rid of or dramatically cutting the funding for a lot of these programs would force people to scramble for a new solution, and frankly sometimes things are so damaged that it's best to discard them and start over: sort of an organ transplant for social welfare programs.
Many people complain because the Libertarian party would dismantle federal police agencies like the DEA. But really, where's the problem? The way this nation is supposed to be set up, states are supposed to be able to write their own laws with minimal intervention from the federal government. Let's look at California, which has recently decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. The DEA dislikes this intensely, and has been raiding warehouses and stores selling marijuana--an action that is perfectly legal under state laws in California. The libertarians are rightly incensed by this: why should the federal government trump state law? What even is the point in having state laws if the feds can come in and overturn them?
Anyway. Those are some of the reasons that I have been leaning in a more libertarian direction lately. Check out Reason and think about it. Maybe you'll like the libertarians too.
I;m with you. Ron Paul all the way. If he does what he says he's going to do, our nation might stand a chance.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I have strong libertarian sympathies. I like almost everything they stand for. But my problem with them is that they are kooky about demanding open borders. It is a self-defeating policy.
Don't they understand that if they were ever to gain power and implement their Libertarian vision including open borders that there would be a massive influx of new poverty stricken people and that these people would quickly figure out that they can vote for politicians that make lots of socialistic promises to impose high taxes and redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor and give them lots of free stuff?
If the Libertarians were ever to win control over our government, it would only last one election cycle because their own kooky policies would insure their defeat at the next election.
Of course, they'd need to be citizens to vote, and since so few citizens vote anyway it's sort of a moot point, isn't it? Even if they went through the right channels and gained citizenship, they'd have to actually vote, and for most people that's just too much work.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
Reason Magazine has published many articles in favor of open borders and it definitely favors making them citizens too. They were one of the big proponents of the recent failed shamnesty bill. Once they can vote, a certain number of them will vote which is why both the Republican and particularly the Democrat parties are so busy with hispandering.
If you make take poverty stricken people from the third world who have a long history of voting for socialism in their own countries and bring them here and let them vote, I will promise you they won't be voting for libertarianism. They will vote for whomever promises them the most free stuff.
Libertarians have some great ideas but they are just plain kooky on the immigration and it is self-defeating. They are espousing a policy that will cause all of their other good policy ideas to be defeated.
You're assuming that these people will vote. I keep telling you that's why your argument fails: most of them probably wouldn't even bother to vote. And I don't think that there are enough migrants to vote in a socialist government single-handedly, in addition to which: when was the last time a socialist seriously ran for US government? Pretty much never.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
During the first 4 years of the Bush Administration we saw the largest expansion of the Social Welfare State since Johnson's Great Society. George Bush is a committed socialist. And the only thing that most of the Democrat's didn't like about Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Program was that it WAS NOT BIG ENOUGH. Every Democratic Presidential candidate is running on a platform of socialized medicine. Almost all of our politicians are socialists.
As far as people not voting goes, it only takes a few. Right now our country is divided almost exactly 50/50. The 2000 election was decided by a few hundred votes. If we allow the 12 million people who are here illegally to vote and then the Libertarians let in about anoth 50 million additional poverty stricken ignorant people with a history of voting for socialism and makes them citizens too, even if only a tiny percentage of them vote it will be enough to swing the difference.
Don't forget Hillary Clinton, a devoted socialist. Don't believe me? Two Words: "Hillary Care". She also, both arguably and depressingly, has a very good chance at the Presidency.
"Oh Canada, my home and native land..."
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I was thinking more along the lines of assassination and replacing her with myself.
Canada wouldn't be much better than Hillary Rule.
The Stratford Festival and Tim Hortons. (And their dollar just surpassed ours!)
All good points.
But I can drive 10 minutes and get Tim Hortons.
Also, I would rather live here in the land of capitalism and wait for the dollar to improve, which it inevitably will because of the laws of supply-and-demand.
Hahaha!
You just called America the land of capitalism! America hasn't been the land of capitalism since 1845!
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
Hush.
The truth hurts and saddened me when I first learned it, and continues too...damn keyneysian economics.
Goddamn federal government.
1845 wasn't a typo. This was well before Keynesianism. This was the advent of intellectual property, when the government allowed/encourage a monopoly on ideas.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
I said again:
Goddamn federal government.
you know this because you yourself are a devoted socialist? i was watching The Nazi: a warning from history, and many of the german seems to believe that there was this whole jewish conspircy crap, kinda like what the right winger radio are spewing right now.
can i ask you a question?
do you ever step outside the bubble of listening to Limabuagh, coulter, faux news, and the national review? just curious? but are you incapable of thinking for yourself?
Yep. I do and I am. Also, just so you know, the first word in a sentence is intended to be capitalized. It's sort of a known "rule" when using the written version of English language.
Any more questions?
"are you incapable of thinking for yourself?"
Heh heh heh.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
So conservatives are nazis, is that what you're saying?
But you have another post up in which you say that the nazis weren't bad.
So which is it?
either the nazis are evil and conservatives are just like them..... or the nazis aren't all that evil, especially compared to those pesky conservatives...
or, the one I'm picking, you just don't really know what you're talking about, but hang on to buzzwords you've heard, without any real education on the issue.
you echo and mime others, then claim that conservatives can't think for themselves?
that's rich.
*snicker*
I didn't read about half of the debate that followed this comment, but I will comment on what deepfnord appeared to miss.
If Libertarians gained control of government, they would not necessarily free the borders. There's not a very clear consensus concerning immigration among libertarians. for instance, Ron Paul strongly favors greatly strengthening our borders.
However, Libertarians would not take steps toward freeing up the borders without also making it much more difficult to implement socialistic policies. There's the contradiction in your argument--that Libs would enact non-libertarian policies---no way. They'd amend the Constitution, or do something drastic to ensure that doing so is unlikely. Don't make the mistake of thinking Libs would be that shortsighted; any libertarian who favors freer borders would also have ideas about how to handle the consequences. I do....but we won't go into it now. might blog about it someday.
Michael Allen Yarbrough (PBUH)
Ron Paul repeatedly voted against putting National Guard Troops on the borders. He opposed the Border Fence, He has voted for a whole string of 245i amnesties. He opposes Real ID, He opposes work site enforcement (Basic Pilot Program) which is likely the only policy that will work. His tough border enforcement talk is just talk. He is against everything that might actually help solve the problem.
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=TX&VIPID=78...
Unfortunately, amending the Constitution to make it more difficult to have socialism is FAR MORE DIFFICULT than refusing to enforce our immigration laws or protect our borders which is a policy the current politicians have already perfected. With the Libertarians we would likely get even more of what we already have, more socialism (after the new voters threw the Libertarians out of office) combined with open borders which ironically the libetarians implemented and which would continue under the alliance of the cheap labor right, the open borders contingent of libertarians who would be the few who survived the purge, the current left with the newly imported left.
It's not like the 50% of Americans who lean left are suddenly going to vote in the 2/3rds of Libertarians that are necessary to amend the Constitution with a promise of undoing the social state. That is the just kooky to even think that will happen! Why would they vote to dismantle the social state that they fight so hard in each election to expand? It's not going to happen anytime soon.
Libertarians are kooky on borders and have a policy that sews the seeds of their own destruction. It is ridiculous to even talk like you would have the votes to amend the Constitution. Ideas are useless if you lack the votes to implement them. The Libertarian Party has been around for decades and I don't believe it has ever cracked more than 5% of the electorate and it usually does much worse.
I like a lot of Libertarian ideas and would probably be a supporter if they were not such wack-jobs on the borders.
Ron Paul (unfortunately) isn't lying. He does want to control illegal immigration, but from a libertarian standpoint less government spending trumps almost anything else.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
It is one thing to say, "we need to control our borders". Ron Paul has said that. So has Hillary. So has President Bush and almost every other politician in office.
It is entirely another thing to be willing to take the steps necessary to actually control the borders. Ron Paul has repeatedly voted against these steps. He voted against the Fence. He voted against sending troops to the border and he has voted against the most promising interior enforcement approaches which focus on cutting off the jobs. He has never actually proposed anything that might work. The best he can come up with is ending birthright citizenship for anchor babies. He can safely make this promise because he knows that it will take a Constitutional Amendment that is extremely unlikely to happen in the next 8 years.
Hillary, along with almost every Democrat in the Senate and most of them in the House, has also come out against taking these steps unless they are coupled with some sort of amnesty. When one actually reads the bills they support it becomes clear that the enforcement measures they are trying to pretend are tough are deliberately designed to fail. There promises of border security are empty words.
In my opinion, somebody who says one thing and then does another is proving themselves a liar. Ron Paul has earned that label.