MOULITSAS: You know, if people want to label me, I'm actually a libertarian, of all things. I'm not even a liberal, I wouldn't call myself a liberal. I don't think true liberals...
ROSE: You don't like government at all.
MOULITSAS: It's not at all. There's a difference between traditional libertarianism which says government is evil, can't do no good. I think government can actually do good. I just don't want it in more places than it needs to be. And...
ROSE: You don't want it in personal lives, you don't want it...
Definitely not personal lives. But I also don't want corporations getting in my personal business. I don't want them stealing my information or hoarding my information. I don't want corporations polluting my air and war.
ROSE: Do you think government is not doing enough to regulate corporations?
MOULITSAS: Not now. Clearly not now.
ROSE: You want to see more government regulation of corporations, right?
MOULITSAS: There's two power...
ROSE: More government regulation of corporations?
MOULITSAS: Yeah, to a certain degree.
ROSE: That's not a libertarian position.
MOULITSAS: The key is...
ROSE: That's not a libertarian position.
MOULITSAS: Right, right, no. But to me, when I think of me being a libertarian, I don't want anybody messing with me. I don't want government getting in my way. I don't want corporations getting in my way. And sometimes the only people that can keep corporations out of my face is the government. So it's clearly a modified and twisted around version of libertarianism.
Clearly. I don't take this very seriously except that Moulitsas—one of the savviest and most impactful political operators of this young century—thinks there's strength in associating his party with libertarianism. That's not bad.
He wants citizens' rights to be protected against corporations. That is certainly a libertarian position in my mind, but that doesn't mean regulation. It means corporations can act freely but if they violate the rights of the citizenry they will/should be punished.
Moulitsas tries to make a distinction between old libertarians and new libertarians. One of those main distinctions is the view that corporations have gained such power that we should view their power as skeptically as we should view government power. Charlie Rose then cross-examines Moulitsas by saying that the new views on corporations are not old libertarian views.
Oh, the free market...I'm supposed to like corporate spying on me, but flip out at gov't spying...'cause there's a huge difference.
If this fuckwit manages to get himself associated with libertarianism I'm becoming a green. He's as much of a libertarian as "Mainstream Libertarian" jackass Eric Dondero.
I fail to understand the enthusiasm self-proclaimed Libertarians have for "leaving it up to the courts" rather than regulation. Doesn't anyone here know how laws get codified? You have enough deaths or disasters associated with an industry, things get regulated.
Self-regulation only works when the actors demonstrate sufficient responsibility. The reason we have fire codes in the US is because we have painful experience from history as to what happens when we don't. Companies may bitch about regulation, but I doubt they'd enjoy more leaving everything up to the courts, the legal costs, and the interpretation by juries. Hence the screaming about "tort reform."
What companies don't want to admit is they want to have all of it--no regulation AND the inability of the consumer to bring suit against them.
Learn some history of statute law and regulation, idiots.
What a crock of shiat. Kos is a bratty nanny state liberal a la Hillary and Bloomberg. He wants government to interfere in the affairs of "Evil Corporation" as long as the government is controlled by liberal democrats who know what is best for everyone. What a fraud, just becuase he blurts out libertarian doesn't make it true. I would be very hesitant to believe that Kos and his merry band of moonbats latching on to libertarianism is some how good for libertarians.
I sure if asked he'd be for single payer health care,which is socislist,not libertarian.I think he perfers gov. to force companies to do things the free market would not allow.Most corps. are small and medium size and he lumps them togeather into a vevil cabal.
He sounds like a new liberal, not a new libertarian.
He's skeptical of the big government tendencies of the liberalism from the New Deal through Clinton.
To the growing pile of kinda-sorta libertarians - Republicans who want to smoke pot, atheist capitalists, localist right-wingers - we need to start adding Liberals Who Learned From Liberalism's Collapse in the 80s. "Anti-PC" liberals like Bill Mahar would be another example.
Christopher Monnier, I think the "not getting" that's going in is your "not getting" the distinction between "too often" and "inevitably."
It seems that Democrats like to wrap themselves in the Libertarian tunic when the Republicans are in power and the Republicans when the Democrats are in power. That's all this is.
I'll say it: the regulatory state inevitably (and almost exclusively) furthers the interests of big corporations. They have the money to hire platoons of lobbyists, lawyers, and accountants to grease the system.
The notion that leviathan would ever act otherwise is laughable.
In a more libertarian system, big corporations have to compete with other businesses on the even playing field known as the Bottom Line. In some fields, bigness is a distinct advantage, but in many others it magically works out that big corporate bureaucracies are less effective at putting out product that smaller, more motivated groups.
That must make it awfully easy to figure out your position, ChrisO.
I wish I could know what I think about legislation without having to know anything about it.
Oh, and in a liberal system, there are values besides the bottom line. Kos mentioned a number of concerns he had about Big Business. Their ability to turn a profit was not among them.
Seems like everyone likes to call themselves a libertarian.
Kos, Chomsky, assorted Republicans. If being a libertarian means believe the government shouldn't interfere where you don't think its needed, then I guess everyone is a libertarian.
This is a load of shit. Kos has shown himself to be primarily interested in partisan politicking, and the fact that he has transformed from an internet geek to a Democrat powerhouse. He's drunk with his new power, and what he enjoys most is throwing his weight around where he can actually affect things, which is within his own party. The Lamont/Lieberman thing showed that.
Kos will do a 180 on anything the instant it gives him more power. Though the increasing use of "libertarian" by many people in a positive way seems to indicate a growing awareness and positive connotation for libertarianism, being associated with people who are actually diametrically opposed to the philosophy (from DONDERRROOOOOO to Kos) is not necessarily a good thing, because they distort the message with their false associations.
Incorporation, copyright, and patents are all government enforced. In a libertarian world, none of these would exist. The business climate would be quite different. There would probably be fewer big businesses (with less power) as well.
I don't take this very seriously except that Moulitsas—one of the savviest and most impactful [sic] political operators of this young century—things [sic] there's strength in associating his party with libertarianism.
Okay, we need government to regulate corporations and copyediting, but that's it.
Well, he has some good examples, and he has some bad examples.
It's not a priori a non-libertarian position to favor control of pollutants in the air and water. Those things pass the property line. If you're doing something on your property that fucks up the air over my property or the water under it, you can't argue that your property rights allow you to do this.
The whole "privacy" thing is a canard, though. Admirably repeated by Lamar. The only information about you that a corporation can get is the information you give to it, or the information you give to another corporation. If you enter into an economic transaction with me, I don't see what possible "rights" grounds you can have for demanding that I forget about it. You're essentially demanding the creation of a class of knowledge I'm not allowed to have or retain, and that's crap. The economic transaction I'm remembering is just as much mine as yours. If I tell somebody else about it, that's my business.
Businesses simply do not pose the threat that government does. Even the huge ones do not impose a tax burden on us, take our property, lock us up, etc., etc. To the extent that they do have great power--outside of their economic strength--that power often comes from government protection of corporate interests.
With all of the consumer protection laws on the books, coupled with the harshest corporate taxation model in the Western world, I'm just guessing that businesses aren't calling the shots in the U.S. The influence of various businesses (which are hardly aligned, even in the same industry) is shared with many other, noncommercial influences. Besides, competition in the marketplace often means competition for political attention, so no one company or group of companies really has the clout that many on the left like to think they do. I don't understand the idea of the business bogeyman rising to the level of government actors, particularly given the history of the latter when they get too much power.
A libertarian could, consistent with his ideology, support some forms of regulation of business. Perhaps the real question is the difference between regulating to protect people from abuses of power and regulating to control. The latter is where we're heading, and that is, in my mind, nothing less than regulatory socialism. In that system, government doesn't own anything, but it sure the heck exerts control.
Anyway, one of the things a more libertarian system might do differently is not impose the barriers to entry that government does today. Those barriers are often put up in the name of consumer protection, but they're usually there to protect entrenched businesses. Honestly, I think "big business" is far more powerful and influential in today's regulatory culture than it would be in a more libertarian system.
It sounds like the typical semantic mumbo-jumbo that pops up every few years after a political label gets tied to a electoral ass-kicking (I'm thinking 2004 here.) At least half a dozen hardcore Reaganites I knew in '92 became "libertarians" after Clinton won without a single policy shift.
The inability or unwillingness to recognize the link between social and economic freedom is always an easy way to spot a fakertarian. (i.e. dictating to someone how they can make or spend money is just as bad as dictating who and how they can have sex.)
joe, is "new liberal" gaining some currency on the left, or did you just make it up? I'm curious if it has a definition for itself. It's a nice turn of phrase either way.
But to me, when I think of me being a libertarian, I don't want anybody messing with me. I don't want government getting in my way. I don't want corporations getting in my way. And sometimes the only people that can keep corporations out of my face is the government. So it's clearly a modified and twisted around version of libertarianism.
Ah, the new libertarianism: "Freedom for me but not for thee." That's not really all that new.
"With all of the consumer protection laws on the books, coupled with the harshest corporate taxation model in the Western world, I'm just guessing that businesses aren't calling the shots in the U.S."
If libertarians had their way, there would be no consumer protection laws and no corporation taxation model. Correct? Anyhow, you have a point that corporate power comes from gov't protection of corporate interests, making corporate power an extension of gov't power and hence worthy of extreme skepticism. How can the free market regulate business with all that gov't protection?
Not only do corporations get gov't protection, they also get straight up subsidies, corporate welfare, tax breaks and sweetheart land deals. Perhaps you are addressing corporate control over the federal gov't, but I'm looking more to the state and local governments who see corporations as the key to their reelections.
Counterexample 1: Disney's influence on Orlando and central Florida. Sure, Universal and Sea World are there, but Disney runs the show and gets excellent subsidies.
Episiarch, I'm "diametrically opposed to libertarianism."
Just where exactly?
Is it my support for abolishing the income tax and the IRS?
Or maybe the fact that I'm Pro-Choice?
Or, is it my support for cutting government spending across the board on virtually everthing?
Or, maybe it's my support for ending foreign aid?
Or, perhaps my unlibertarian views come out in my staunch opposition to the Military Draft?
Or, maybe it's that pesky little fact that I favor drug legalization, legalized prostitution and gambling?
Or, maybe it's because I'm opposed to Islamic extremists murdering American citizens on the streets of New York, DC, or even New Jersey, Miami, Salt Lake City and Seattle?
Or, maybe it's because I'm in favor of abolishing affirmative action?
Isn't the label "old liberal" usually used to refer to the original meaning of "liberal"? IE, John Stuart Mill or Adam Smith would be considered old liberals.
I don't take this very seriously except that Moulitsas—one of the savviest and most impactful political operators of this young century
Did I miss something? He's great at self promotion and using his website to make a nice living, but didn't all the candidates he backed in the '06 cycle lose? Or am I remembering the '04 cycle instead?
"The latter is where we're heading, and that is, in my mind, nothing less than regulatory socialism. In that system, government doesn't own anything, but it sure the heck exerts control."
On all other Libertarian Tests - 90/100 to 100/100.
Recently I took a new test, "Find out which Libertarian Party candidate you are most closely aligned with"
I was an ideological twin of Steve Kubby. Not even close to the guy I'm supporting Wayne Root, or any others like George Phillies, Christine Smith, et.al.
No, according to the Test, I'm a "Steve Kubby man."
I'll say it: the regulatory state inevitably (and almost exclusively) furthers the interests of big corporations. They have the money to hire platoons of lobbyists, lawyers, and accountants to grease the system.
Yes, it's quite fanciful to believe that government does, or could, reliably side with the broad public interest (even if elected officials were able to determine it, which mostly they can't).
Big business is bad, yes, but government is not a counterweight. The only effective counterweight to big business is big business (i.e. divergent lobbying interests).
Or, maybe it's because I'm opposed to Islamic extremists murdering American citizens on the streets of New York, DC, or even New Jersey, Miami, Salt Lake City and Seattle?
It's not your opposition to that, but the means by which you propose to prevent it, which are both counterproductive and liberty-curtailing.
The fact that you're consorting with an authoritarian like Giuliani (who strongly disagrees with you on most of the issues you bring up) isn't helping, either.
It's awfully amusing to me how a bunch of Newbies to our libertarian movement, can come in after 1 or 2 years of activism, and a couple Libertarian Party supper club meetings under their belt, and then pronounce that oldtimers who've been extremely active in the LP since the early 1980s, are somehow "not libertarian enough."
Hey Newbies: Get to the back of the bus.
Before you start declaring that oldtimers like me, who have 25 years of hardcore libertarian activism, are somehow "not libertarian," get a couple Libertarian Party petition drives on your resume first.
Like umm, I dunno, STANDING IN 15 DEGREE WEATHER ON A STREET CORNER IN SOME TINY TOWN IN WESTERN NEBRASKA IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER BEGGING FOR SIGNATURES FOR LIBERTARIAN PARTY BALLOT ACCESS!!
Your right, but I was wondering if joe was striking out into a distinction of trip from classic liberal to modern leftish Democrat liberal to some "new liberal" that is undefined. I'm a defintion nerd.
"Or, maybe it's because I'm opposed to Islamic extremists murdering American citizens on the streets of New York, DC, or even New Jersey, Miami, Salt Lake City and Seattle?"
I'm opposed to anybody murdering anybody on the streets of New York, DC, New Jersey, Miami, Salt Lake City, Seattle, and anywhere else whether they're Islamic extremists or whatever else. I don't see the reason for singling them out. We're all opposed to Islamic extremists or anyone else murdering people.
Dude, you're supporting the Ghost of Fascism Past for Ultimate Leader, dude, if anything gets you kicked out of the club it's that. For serious, "freedom is about authority"? Sure it is, sure it is. Now run along and play with your dolls.
You gotta a better idea to stop these Islamic extremists?
How about the guy who shot those 6 women at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle last year, screaming "Allah-ahu-ahkbar"? Or the Salt Lake City shooter who murdered 5 in that suburban Mall? Or, the Fort Dix Six?
What's your solution?
And don't tell me, "it's not really a problem" or "let our local law officers handle it."
It's much more than that. These people are in a rage against American values of openess and tolerance.
They see our big-busted Blonde women and they go apeshit, cause they know they can get any of it. They come home and turn on their TVs, and there's even more big-busted Blond women staring at them. They drive around town, and the Billboards have big-busted Blonde women.
Like the virginal Virginia Tech shooter, these Radical Muslims go bonkers, and start shooting Americans in the name of "Allah."
You got an easy solution how to deal with these scumbags, most of whom are here illegally, or have overstayed their Visas, I'm all ears.
I actually voted straight Libertarian out at sea as my very first vote, in 1992, on board the USS Luce DDG-38 (Guided Missile Destroyer), right smack dab in the middle of the Persian Gulf while Iranian and Iraqi missiles were streaming in the sky above my head.
Libertarians are hardly a monolithic block. I think the utilitarian wing, such as it were, might be okay with some very limited consumer protection laws. A government with defined limited powers could have regulatory power without running amok. Those Who Run Amok could be the new name for Congress and the Executive these days.
You can be big-L all you want, but Guliani support really does make a mockery of your support of the party for years. The man had roving police squads in the East Village on Friday night doing nothing but picking up people smoking a joints and driving them around all night because they couldn't be arrested for that low amount of possession.
Lie down with authoritarian dogs and you get up with fleas trying to tell you what to do.
I'm going to pull rank here as a 25 year veteran of the Libertarian movement, (2 years on the LNC, 4 years on the LP of FL ExComm, 2 years on the 1988 LP Presidential Campaign, 6 years as Ron Paul's Senior Aide, 5 years as Roger MacBride's Personal Political Aide, Founder of the RLC, ect...)
Quite frankly, the only person on the Reason Hit & Run board who is a regular poster who I recognize as someone who has been around this movement of ours for a long time is James Merrit of Kansas.
I remember Merrit from the 1988 Ron Paul for President Campaign. Here on this Forum, I don't often agree with him, and I'm sure he neither agrees with me.
But I respect him, cause he's been around a long, long time.
He ain't some wet behind the ears Newbie, like the vast majority of you all here.
Now, I could be wrong. Some others here may have been around the LP since the 1980s. But I don't recognize any other names.
It's the absolute hieght of audacity, for some Newbie fuck to come into a political movement, whatever the movement, and start yelling and screaming at the ones who've been around forever, that they are not "true to the goals and mission and beliefs" of the organization.
James Merrit has the right to diss me, and say he doesn't believe I'm a "true libertarian."
Brian Doherty, who has been in this movement, almost as long as I have (Brian was at the UF College Libertarians in the 1980s when I was heading up the Florida State Libertarian Club),
has that right too.
The rest of you fucks, are complete Newbies to our movement. So sit down and shut up.
I'll shut the fuck up about what a jackass you are as soon as you explain to me why TEAM RUDY, FUCK YEAH! has anything, at all, to do with minarchism, individual liberty, or not being an authoritarian fuckwit. Because you've been hanging around meetings creeping out women for 20 years I should doff my cap and respect you, I think not.
I actually voted straight Libertarian out at sea as my very first vote, in 1992, on board the USS Luce DDG-38 (Guided Missile Destroyer), right smack dab in the middle of the Persian Gulf while Iranian and Iraqi missiles were streaming in the sky above my head.
Iran was shooting missiles at our vessels during the first Gulf War? Iraqi SCUDs could reach the middle of the Persian Gulf? Is this some alternative history or are you just a lying sack of shit?
I just read a poll this morning where Hillary Clinton is now leading in Florida. She's up by 5 point over Rudy 49 - 44.
She's creaming all other Republicans including Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.
Now, I ask you, is it "Libertarian" to support Hillary Clinton for President? By sitting out the election, bad-mouthing the one guy who has a shot of beating her, or even voting for the Libertarian Party candidate (Kubby, Phillies, whomever), you are as good as voting for ole' Cowhips herself.
ESPECIALLY IF YOU LIVE IN A SWING STATE LIKE FLORIDA, OHIO OR PENNSYLVANIA!!!
I choose to vote against Hillary Clinton, by supporting Giuliani. And incidentally, Giuliani has been called repeatedly a "libertarian" by the major media, including most recently the Wall Street Journal. Not only that, he appointed Reason Magazine friend SALLY PIPES OF THE PACIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE, as his Policy Advisory. AND he's got other libertarian-leaners like Steve Forbes, David Dreier, and Larry Kudlow, enthusiastically backing him.
So, tell me. How is it "unlibertarian" to join in with Forbes, Dreier, Kudlow and REASON MAGAZINE FRIEND SALLY PIPES (!!!) in supporting Rudy Giuliani over the woman who is going to bring this Nation Communist-style Health Care, raise our taxes through the roof, bring about an economic depression with massively high unemployment, and have the Feds knock on our doors to take away all our guns?
Sorry everybody. Ya'll take cheap shots at him, but what, in his litany, is inappropriate for a libertarian? Except for opposition to the draft, I think I agree with everything he said.
Now the rant against Muslims comes off a bit jingoistic, but hey. Listen to his meaning, not his words.
It's the absolute hieght of audacity, for some Newbie fuck to come into a political movement, whatever the movement, and start yelling and screaming at the ones who've been around forever, that they are not "true to the goals and mission and beliefs" of the organization.
Ouch! Big error on my part. Of course, I meant to say 1982, NOT 1992.
I just turned 18 in 1980 and missed voting for Ed Clark for President by 14 days, (my birthday is Nov. 21).
So, the very first time I got to vote was in 1982, and I voted straight Libertarian.
Funny story: Out of 340 guys on my ship I WAS THE ONLY ONE!! besides the Officer in Charge of our "Sailors Absentte Voting Program" to requets a ballot from my home state.
Piss poor 'eh? 340 eligible voters, and only 2 voted!!
Kind of tells you something. Imagine how much more Republican (or Libertarian) our country would be if Military guys actually voted.
Just because you're fucking old doesn't make you right. And just because you supporded the LP for a long time doesn't change the fact that you're backing an authoritarian for Prez.
Your fear of a real threat (but one which is much more minor than you make it out to be) causes you to back someone who will take away our liberties to "protect" us.
Sorry, DONDERODUDE, but you lose your street cred for that. Sorry to rehash the old Ben Franklin quote, but those who give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither. Nor do they deserve libertarian cred.
Yeah, that's why Ron Paul tracked me down in Mexico in 2001 and begged me to come back to work. And that's why he gave me regular bonuses for years after that to keep me around. And that's why when he supposedly "fired me" he gave me a $10,000 bonus. And that's why for the last 4 years I've been using him as my Number One employment reference.
Funny, after 4 years he only says he "fired me" the day after he learned that I was declaring against him for Congress. Funny how that kind of stuff works out, 'eh?
I think Kos is making the distinction between civil liberties and economic liberties. We can save for some other day the debate over whether the distinction is ever meaningful, but I can think of some areas of contemporary controversy where a person who claims to be a civil libertarian but economic liberal would have to make a choice: Vices, particularly unhealthy ones like transfats.
(I don't know Kos's stance on transfats, but even if he goes libertarian on that issue, there are enough liberals claiming to be libertarian that I think it's worth outlining the problem here.)
It's all well and good to say that you think personal, private decisions should be left alone, while taking a different stance on business decisions. Now, surely we'd all agree that one activity that any consenting adult should be able to do in the privacy of his own home is eat some unhealthy food. But that food is almost always bought from somebody. And we're seeing bans on the sale of various unhealthy foods. Now, usually those bans have a few exceptions, those who want to could still buy their stuff in another city, etc. etc. But clearly the ability to engage in a personal activity is being restricted, even if the SWAT team isn't breaking down the door to confiscate anybody's Twinkie. (Yet...)
Where do self-described libertarians who like business regulations come down on this issue?
I think Kos is hitting on a theme I've brought up here several times: libertarians are often blind to the fact that government is not the only entity that can restrict liberty.
I think libertarians are fiercely refusing to make the rightward lurch with the GOP. It has the effect of making libertarians look more lefty than in the past.
I wouldn't have a big problem with Rudy, but his record proves that his M.O. on law and order issues is to arrest everybody, slander the innocent victims, then wait it out until people forget about it. Worked like a charm for NYC. I'm not so sure it's the Rx for the country.
You say that Giuliani will "take away our liberties."
How's that the case? Last time I checked Rudy Giuliani WAS PRO-CHOICE!!! That is the one civil liberty that I care about most. And he agrees with me. He is absolutely going to protect me on the one civil liberty that matters to me the most.
And he's not that bad on a whole host of other civil liberties issues as well, such as protecting our gun rights, stopping the Nanny State government from outlawing smoking everywheres, letting my Gay friends lead their personal lifestyles free from government harrassment, ect...
Now compare that to the Wicked Witch from the East who wants to take away all our guns, ban smoking everywhere, crack down on pornography and violent video games because "it's for the children," and allow Islamic Radicals to board planes so as not to violate PC rules.
Dondero, forgive me for not believing your various stories after you lied about your military service above.
In any case, you're not going to make much headway using seniority to win an argument with libertarians. You've been hanging out with statist frauds for too long, and it apparently is affecting your judgement.
Hey, here's an idea for how to deal with Islamic extremism: I call it the fucking Constitution of the United States.
If authoritarianism was going to stomp out Islamic extremism, Dondero, the Communists would have won in Afghanistan.
The only tool we have that can ultimately defeat Islamic extremism is liberty. Your buddy Giuliani thinks the answer is to suspend civil liberties for the duration of the emergency. That's the strategy that will lose. He couldn't have picked a better losing strategy if it was his intention to lose.
This escapes you because despite your tales of standing in the snow, you really don't have sound libertarian instincts. Know how I know this? Because you keep trying to claim seniority. This isn't a union, dopey. You start out at zero every morning and have to prove yourself all over again. When you fail to run as fast as you can from the guys who are in love with secret prisons, torture, the suspension of habeus corpus, and the shredding of the 1st and 4th Amendments, you don't get to tell stories about collecting signatures back in the day and have it all be square.
Which is the view I more-or-less support, although the current wiki description of it is a little extreme.
Anyway, he's libertarian in that he wants to maximize individual liberty. Where he diverges from traditional libertarians is that threats to individual liberty stem from concentrations of power, which includes corporations as much as it does the government.
I don't think it's an inappropriate use of government to keep corporate power in check in order to defend individual liberty (whether consumers, employees, or third parties). Certainly it's better than the status quo, where the two collude with each other against individuals.
I'm quite willing to believe that you have done great things for the libertarian movement in the past. However, people can change, and go in dangerous new directions. Even those who were previously among the most devoted.
And even (especially?) the most loyal and pure can still be annoying as all hell.
If we're a bunch of newbie losers who aren't worth your time, why are you trying to convince us? You could be out there campaigning for your team among people who might be more receptive.
Seriously, why do you back Guiliani then? He's only slighly less of a nanny-stater than your average Democrat. His interest in civil liberties seems to be solely in reducing them. On social issues, he's lined himself up fairly well with the Republican line. And on fighting terrorism, his only qualification seems to having been mayor of New York on 9/11 and being willing to repeat that fact ad nauseum. The only place he differs from the candidates you so disdain is that he's for keeping us in Iraq (now that's been an effective intervention!), torturing people, lowering the already low safeguards on gov't surveillence powers, and remaining willfulling ignorant of the political conditions in the Middle East that give rise to terrorism (they hate us for our FREEDOM!!!).
If you're going to be a single issue voter, at least vote for someone who actually seems to have a competent understanding of the issue.
I really, really care not at all about what you were doing last week, last year or last century. Rudy Giuliani is the opposite of a libertarian. By supporting him, you are declaring yourself opposed to libertarianism, at least for the purposes of one election to one office.
Seriously, your "I was there when . . ." is so tiresome.
Plenty (I would never join the LP, I don't join political entities), but I'm not interested in some numbers-matching game with you. The length of time one has been doing anything is irrelevant if you stop doing it.
You have stopped by supporting Giuliani because you are pissing yourself over the Islamic threat. You are ruled by fear and want someone to protect you.
I think the better question is to ask you how many years of libertarianism are you willing to throw away because of fear?
Can't help it Cracker Boy. Thanks for the encouragement. But it pisses me off to no end that these fucking Newbie assholes TO MY LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT!!! come in here and start accusing me of "not being a real libertarian."
How fucking dare they!!!
Do you know where I was on Nov. 6 of last year, the day before the election?
I was in Anchorage, Alaska. It was 10 degrees outside, with snow everywhere. I stood on a busy street corner, with my old friend Scott Kohlhaas for 4 hours!! waving a sign for him for his Libertarian campaign for State House.
10 degrees outside! I dare say, you won't find a handful of Libertarians in our movement with that sort of dedication.
And some fuck like Episiarch or Crimethink comes in here and has the audacity to say that I'm "not libertarian."
Man, that'll never get old. Seriously, though, hiring some people and getting called 'libertarian' by a the media isn't exactly a bonafide dude. Let's see, there was that whole, "let's make New York awesome by being a total dick about non-crime" and the whole, "I'll close your museum down, bitches!" incident. But hey, he's "close" to David Dreier and he, like, hired a lady from PRI, so it's ALL FREEDOM ALL THE TIME!
So my choice is Clinton or Guiliani? I might close my eyes and blindly grope the touch screen. Your many years of service to the LP make your conversion sad rather than funny. Have fun wiping off your keyboard.
That must make it awfully easy to figure out your position, ChrisO.
I wish I could know what I think about legislation without having to know anything about it.
There is basically no connection between what I posted and your response, joe.
I do have strong ideological principles (and I don't claim to be 100% libertarian). However, I don't see any nexus between that and my knowledge that each and every piece of legislation that makes it out of the congressional sausage factory has significant corporate backing and benefit. Does such backing/benefit mean that I automatically favor or oppose a given piece of legislation? Of course not.
BTW, Dondero, trying to scare us into voting for Giuliani by raising the specter of Hillary isn't very useful. Frankly, I don't see a whole lot of difference between them in the ways that count.
And there you have it folks. Pussy-boy Episarch admits to all of us that he's a total Newbie to the libertarian movement, and doesn't even support the Libertarian Party.
Episiarch, what are you doing here? Reason is a libertarian forum. If you're not a libertarian you're just a troll around here.
Your libertarian movement? You keep conflating the LP with libertarianism as if one defines the other.
Seriously, take pride in your long-time membership in an organization with people who turn themselves blue and guys participate in political debates dressed like the Statue of Liberty.
It still doesn't mean that 9/11 didn't turn you into a bedwetter who wants the next president to tuck him in at night and check the closet for the bogeyman.
I do have to praise Dondero for one thing, he's made it through the whole thread without using the F-word. Maybe Rudy's Catholicism is rubbing off on him...
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO demonstrates that troll feeding can be fun, even if it is ultimately a pointless way to rack up 100+ posts.
How's that the case? Last time I checked Rudy Giuliani WAS PRO-CHOICE!!! That is the one civil liberty that I care about most. And he agrees with me. He is absolutely going to protect me on the one civil liberty that matters to me the most.
Uh, Giuliani has pledged to appoint conservative judges and said it would be "OK" to repeal Roe v Wade.
If this is your issue, Giuliani is a strange choice. Any Democract would be better.
Well, I must admit, by calling me "pussy-boy", saying I "admit" I am a Newbie (by not playing "I've been here since 1865"), and pointing out that I don't support an ineffective political entity (seeing as I am an anarcho-libertarian, that kills my cred how exactly?), you have totally shown me up.
You sure have me beat, DONDERROOOO; I'm just an idiot opposed to authoritarians and government, while you are the true-blue libertarian who supports authoritarians and civil liberty stealers.
What was I thinking? Thanks so much for setting me straight.
Sorry Timothy, but I entirely disagree with you. Yes, hiring someone who is only casually libertarian could be viewed as non-evidence of one's libertarianism. If it was just limited to Steve Forbes, Dreier, and Kudlow, who are fellow travelers at best, (though I'd argue Kudlow is more hardcore libertarian), you'd be right.
BUT IT'S SALLY PIPES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!
You don't get much more libertarian than Sally Pipes. Hell, what do you want? Are you waiting for Giuliani to hire Bob Poole, Virginia Postrel, Brian Doherty, Ed Crane or Dave Boaz before you christine him a "friend of libertarians"?
Can you remember a past Presidential Campaign besides the LP of course, so explicitly identifying themselves with the libertarian movement?
I can't recal "Bush for President 2000" having hired a libertarian Policy Advisor.
Certainly none of the Clinton Campaigns.
Yes, Bush Sr. did appoint Jim Pinkerton. I could be wrong here, but I don't believe Pinkerton was on the Campaign, just on Bush's Presidential Staff.
This is a very, very good sign that Giuliani has surrounded himself with libertarians on his campaign: Forbes (Chief Policy Advisory), David Dreier, Bill Simon (California Chairman - Giuliani for President), and Sally Pipes.
Moreover, I've had some limited dealings with the Giuliani campaign. And everyone I've dealt with, at least 4 people, have described themselves as "libertarian Republicans."
I challenge you to find another Presidential Campaign right now, (besides Kubby or Phillies), that has more self-identified "libertarians" working for them?
I know of only one, that's even on the map. Mitt Romney for President has at least two "libertarians" on staff that I'm aware of. But nobody in top positions like the Giuliani campaign.
Now, I ask you. If Rudy is willing to surround himself with libertarians during his campaign, don't you think that it's safe to say that he might do the same if he is President?
Think about that for a second.
Where do you think Giuliani is going to get his Cabinet choices and Policy Advisors from?
Heritage? I don't think so!
Brookings? Certainly not.
Reason Foundation, Cato Institute, Pacific Reserch Center, Manhattan Inst., James Madison Inst., Macinac Center, Heartland?
OK, I'm convinced: you must still be a Libertarian in spite of everyone else's current protests to the contrary because I don't think I've ever read anything so aggresively "impolitic" by anyone who self-identifies as a politician.
I think Kos is trying to herd libertarians into the Dem base by using the current strong anti-Rep sentiment. The problem is he isn't espousing a believable libertarian-liberal fusionism. I take it for granted that liberals don't want to intervene in my "personal life" as they define it. If you don't believe in at least some sphere of personal liberty, you're not even a liberal. A believeable fusionist response to Rose's question about regulation of corporations would have been to point out that it isn't a simple as more or less and that in some areas regulations need to be rolled back and in others they may need to be expanded.
i love these two arguments. in a thread where kos calls himself a libertarian, dondero calls giuliani a libertarian for having friends who call themselves libertarian. when did we get so hot?
He who does the most work and activism for the libertarian movement has the most claim on ownership of the movement.
Thusly, Paul Jacob, Scott Kohlhaas, Jake Whitmer, Bruce Cohen, Phil Blumel, Brian Doherty, Tom Walls, Scott Tillman, Aaron Starr, Leon Drolet, and a handful of others are the most libertarian of all.
Newbies who just sit behind their computer screens all day long, and philosophize, but wouldn't know a stack of Libertarian brochures if it smacked them upside their heads, have no claim whatsoever on ownership of our movement.
You don't get much more libertarian than Sally Pipes. Hell, what do you want? Are you waiting for Giuliani to hire Bob Poole, Virginia Postrel, Brian Doherty, Ed Crane or Dave Boaz before you christine him a "friend of libertarians"?
No, I'm not. If I ever "christine" him a friend of libertarians, it won't be because of the people he hires while still holding authoritarian policy positions.
Eric, your point about doing the work is a darn good one. We're just suggesting that you take a look at what you're working on now and ask yourself whether it really fits with what you've done before.
It is possible to get so caught up in trying to defeat something that even those most committed to the cause will forget what the original goal was.
When Kos picks up a sign for a Libertarian candidate and stands on a street corner all day waving it, then he has the right to call himself a "libertarian." Or, when he busts his ass for some Libertarian Party petition drive in some isolated State somewheres. Or, when he mans a phone bank for libertarian Republican candidates for Congress. Or, actively does something instead of just talking on the internet, then he will have the right to call himself a "libertarian."
*Luke clings to the vane in the depths of Cloud City, his hand severed by his father's light saber.*
DARTH DONDERO: I'm going to pull rank here as a 38-year veteran of using the Force, (9 years of having elevated midichlorians, 8 years of tutelage under Obi-Wan Kenobi, 21 years as Dark Lord of the Sith, etc.)
Quite frankly, the only person in the Rebel Alliance who I recognize as someone who has been around this power of ours for a long time is Yoda of Dagobah.
I remember Yoda from the Jedi Council meetings on Coruscant. When it comes to the Force, I don't often agree with him, and I'm sure he neither agrees with me.
But I respect him, cause he's been around a long, long time.
He ain't some wet behind the ears Newbie, like the vast majority of you all here.
Now, I could be wrong. Some others here may have been around the Force since the Clone Wars. But I don't recognize any other names.
It's the absolute hieght of audacity, for some Newbie fuck to come into a successful Empire, whatever the Empire, and start yelling and screaming at the ones who've been around forever, that they are not "true to the goals and mission and purpose" of the Force.
Yoda has the right to diss me, and say he doesn't believe I'm a "true libertarian."
Obi-Wan Kenobi, who has been in this movement, a little bit longer than I have (Obi-Wan was the padawan of Qui-Gon Jinn pre-Clone Wars when I was pod-racing on Tatooine), has that right too.
The rest of you fucks, are complete Newbies to the Force. So climb off that vane and shut up.
"...Moulitsas—one of the savviest and most impactful political operators of this young century—thinks there's strength in associating his party with libertarianism."
He doesn't fucking think there's strength in associating his party with libertarianism, you knucklehead. He's using "libertarian" in a normal, non-lunatic-sectarian sense of socially liberal. If you inform most intelligent people of the extemist positions Reason's brand of libertainism takes, they roll their eyes and back away.
This is my absolutely final contribution to this psychopathic forum. Please ban me.
Thoreau, my Gosh, you're being a bit rational. You make a good point.
However, what explains my insanity this morning, is a post at Race42008.com (my favorite site), which shows Hillary Clinton now ahead of all Republicans, including Giuliani in Florida.
She leads Rudy by 5 points 49 to 44. She leads Fred Thompson by 12 points I believe. And Romney and the rest, she's crushing them.
Folks, if Hillary Clinton is winning in Florida, it's all over. The Republicans cannot win without Florida.
Rudy is our best chance. Perhaps our only chance. But even with Rudy, it's going to be an enormous struggle.
If we don't rally around Rudy quick, our entire Nation will go to the shits in the next four years.
Think major economic depression brought about by huge tax increases.
Think completely socialized health care, that's mandatory for all Americans.
Think Radical Islamic Immams flying on planes from Minneapolis to Denver, and scaring the shit out of the passengers with their Prayers to Allah, 5 minutes before boarding time.
Think stringent political correctness codes on all college campuses outlawing "hate speech" by such entities as the College Republicans.
Think the Fairness Doctrine.
That's what we are in for, if we don't all stop this foolishness of Rudy-bashing, and start rallying behind the only guy that stands a chance against the very worst human being ever to seek the Presidency of the United States.
Please, spare us the endless old fart references to you standing on streetcorners. Seeing the state of the LP today, you don't exactly have much to brag about, especially if your method of convincing people was the same as you use here. "Join us you fucking newbie morons" isn't particularly effective.
I don't give two shits how many leaflets you handed out. The only relevant issue is WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR NOW.
You stand for an authoritarian ex-prosecutor who abused his power (and we can therefore assume he would abuse Presidential power).
The choice is between a bully (Rudy) and a nanny (Hillary). Its like choosing between electrocution and drowning, and you are saying ELECTROCUTION IS OUR ONLY CHOICE!!!!!
Eric, I thought the whole idea of a 3rd party was to break out of the "bad vs. worse" dichotomy. You've been very committed to that before, so why are you now advocating for "really bad" or "at least as bad"?
Oh, and if Bush hadn't been such an incompetent buffoon the past 7 years, maybe Hillary wouldn't be leading. Guess its what you get for goose-stepping behind The Great Commander In Chief Of Us All until the last minute.
Think Radical Islamic Immams flying on planes from Minneapolis to Denver, and scaring the shit out of the passengers with their Prayers to Allah, 5 minutes before boarding time.
Is Rudy going to issue a blanket no-pray order enforced by the TSA?
ED
Imagine how much more Republican (or Libertarian) [sic] our country would be if Military guys actually voted.
Yes, because we all know how the military (read: "50% of the entire government") is full of hardcore libertarians.
I wonder what the results would be if you polled the military to see how they felt about civil liberties vs. military power. My guess: not so hot on civil liberties.
-------------------------------------
On another note, some smart regulation of externalities is an acceptable libertarian position, as Fluffy explains above:
Fluffy
It's not a priori a non-libertarian position to favor control of pollutants in the air and water. Those things pass the property line. If you're doing something on your property that fucks up the air over my property or the water under it, you can't argue that your property rights allow you to do this.
Similarly, some very light consumer protection laws are acceptable to substitute for imperfect information. For example, banning transfats is stupid, but making sure that companies tell their customers what they're buying is justified. It's not the government's job to make peoples' choices for them, but people should be able to know what the consequences of their choices are. Otherwise, they're getting more than they bargained for (e.g. poison in their toothpaste).
because he believes the threat posed by muslim extremists is a greater one than the erosion of personal liberties that has taken place over the past 6 years.
No Episairch, you are dead wrong. The only thing that matters IS HOW MUCH WORK YOU DO FOR THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not the fact that you can cite every chapter of Ayn Rand's the Fountainhead by heart. Or, the fact that you can get in an on-line forum and argue better than anyone the justification of privatizing local garbage collection.
What counts is your willingness and ability to get your ass out from behind that computer screen, and go knock on some doors in your neighborhood for local Libertarian Party or libertarian Republican candidates for office.
As you all know, I can't stand the Ron Paul people. But I grudgingly have respect for them. They get out there in Iowa and other places and wave signs for their man Ron Paul.
That's how it's done.
If you ain't a libertarian activist, you ain't worth shit in our movement.
We've got far too many policy wankers as it is. So, step aside, and don't waste the time of the rest of us who actually do all of the work.
Fair enough, you have the street cred of doing the work. I give you props.
Now, what are you working for? Presumably you are working to persuade people to support certain actions and advance certain causes.
I will state the obvious and note that you aren't being very persuasive here. And that's doubly disappointing given that you are apparently an experienced hand in libertarian activism, and supposedly familiar with the arts of persuasion and engagement.
I fear neither Clinton nor terrorists enough to vote for someone who showed plenty of disdain for the concepts of limited government and the rule of law in his years in government. I think that's plain enough. I'm voting for Ron Paul.
Incidentally, redefining libertarian to the point that you are no longer a libertarian cuts short any "seniority" claims. How does the LP or the RLC feel about Giuliani? What about Cato? Or Reason? To the extent that there is a mainstream in libertarian thinking, it certainly doesn't view Giuliani as its prophet or see the surrender of liberties as justified by the limited terrorist threat.
I've been a libertarian since oh, around 1982. Not that that matters. I'm also a possible relative of William Wallace, so only I and my clan members can talk about FREEEEE-DOOOOOM :)
Being pro-choice doesn't make you a libertarian. Wanting to take drugs doesn't make you a libertarian. Believing in the right of individuals to live as free as possible and in the need to dramatically limit the power of government--that's what makes you a libertarian.
Honestly, DONDERROOOOOOO, I find it amazing that you claom to be a libertarian at all considering the collectivism of your comments, such as "my movement", and "you aint't worth shit in our movement."
I didn't realize that libertarianism was a collectivist club where I had to get permission from senior members (such as yourself?) to join.
Oh wait, it's not. So again, your claims of street corner blizzards mean nothing to me. Tell it to someone who cares if you give approval or not.
Damn. I agree with Pro Libertate too. AND Eric. I pretty much agree with everybody here... well, except joe, of course.
So... what to do now? Vote! Eric votes for the lesser of two evils. I'll continue to (waste my) vote (voting for) the person I believe would be the RIGHT person... not just the BETTER person.
Guys, stop teasing the Dondero. It's mean. It's not his fault that his candidate of choice violates the fundamentals of libertarianism at every turn. He's scared of Muslims, and scared people can't act rationally. He's been in a full-blown panic for 6 years now, which shows no signs of abating. Who among you wouldn't lose the capacity for rational thought in the face of 9/11? Seriously people. 9/11!!1!
Only ruthless authoritarianism can assuage that kind of panic.
So, lunchstealer, 3000 of your fellow American citizens dead, is nothing to you huh?
Just another day in New York City, (or DC), 'eh?
Radical Muslims blow up a suitcase nuke in Houston or L.A., not a problem, huh? So what 20,000 dead, and another 50,000 dying from radiation poison. Big deal.
"
They see our big-busted Blonde women and they go apeshit, cause they know they can get any of it. They come home and turn on their TVs, and there's even more big-busted Blond women staring at them. They drive around town, and the Billboards have big-busted Blonde women."
oh my god fuck guliani I AM GOING TO MAKE YOU PRESIDENT.
i will stand on street corners 30 degrees below zero while socialists surround me in a giant seething circle of hate (and lust!) and scream their bloody effete liberal latte drinking terrorist loving heads off. i will walk from sea to shining sea to get you elected because you are the most transcendentally lucid (RIP, RAW) choice for president since pigasu
