Tucker for President?
Nick Gillespie | May 22, 2008, 7:27pm
The blogosphere is abuzz with rumors that former MSNBC talk show host Tucker Carlson may be gearing up for a last-minute run at the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, currently playing out this weekend at the party's convention (reason's Dave Weigel is there and already blogging).
From the NY Times:
"Tucker Carlson for president?" That's the headline at the personal blog for Brendan Nyhan, a former Spinsanity editor who is now a graduate student in political science at Duke. Nyhan says that Carlson, the former "Crossfire" host and former writer for The Weekly Standard, among other magazines, may seek the nomination of the Libertarian Party, according to a rumor making the rounds among delegates to the Libertarian convention, which is being held in Denver this weekend.
Someone is polling the idea, at least. Nyhan links to the blog of Michael Munger, the chairman of the political science department at Duke and the Libertarian Party candidate for governor of North Carolina. Here's Munger's description of the phone call he received:
Just got a call from a polling firm.
Checking on Lib Prez candidates. Made sure I was a delegate to the national convention.
Guy asks, "Which of the following candidates do you support for Lib Pres nomination?"
(Reads list, including Barr, Gravel, Ruart, and Root. Also includes Tucker Carlson. I figure that Carlson is just a spoiler; he has never said he's a Libertarian, and isn't running for Prez.)
I answer "Undecided," which is true.
Guy asks, "After that first choice, what is your SECOND choice?"
Stunned for a moment, I pause and say, "Still....undecided."
Guy says, "Final question: Which of those candidates would you say has true Libertarian values?"
I'm a big tent guy, so I say: "All of them....EXCEPT Tucker Carlson."
Guy rings off. I am smug, thinking I caught them on their spoiler question.
Except that, Tucker Carlson has apparently decided to think about it. And Carlson may be funding the polling of Lib Nat Conv delegates.
More here.
Check out Munger's excellent Kids Prefer Cheese blog here.
Brian Courts | May 23, 2008, 1:00am | #
State borders aren't national borders, and not letting people into the country isn't even in the same category as enslaving them.
Neither of those things distinguishes race from place of birth in terms of denying another human being the fundamental rights that you take for granted.
Further, the state border thing is irrelevant to the point on several grounds. One, you could have left the slave in Virgina in my story if you want. The relevant issue was government policy denying a human being fundamental rights. Notice moreover that the slave was not a citizen either, so you don't even get that distinction. It was for all intents and purposes like a slave had been born in a different "virtual country" and could not "enter" the real United States simply by virtue of being born in a non-citizen legal status.
It's also not relevant to bring up state boundaries because the only reason they're different is because the law says so. Assume there was no legal prohibition of this - would you think it is a good thing, or promotes greater freedom (the same in my book) for states to prevent people born in other states from moving in? Should Connecticut ban poor Mississippians from coming north? If not, what principled difference (and by that I mean, non-statist) can you advance?
Finally, as for slavery not being in the same category as being born somewhere else, that's true but doesn't change the overall point. The point was that if something is morally wrong then economic arguments are not going to carry much weight. I think it is morally wrong for the government to deny any person the right to live, work and associate with others wherever one can find someone to rent from, work for, and hangout with.
But anyway, if slavery is too strong, the same argument can be made with Jim Crow laws. Would someone have been justified in arguing against the ending of Jim Crow because it was going to cost whites jobs in certain industries?
Again, the issue I'm getting at is this: Is using concern for somebody's inability to charge as high a price as they are used to for their service (i.e. their wage structure) a valid counter-argument to ending a government policy that is denying humans fundamental freedom based only on arbitrary characteristics?
Apologies for the stream-of-consciousness and un-editedness of this but I'm juggling too many things at the moment, including getting ready to head out for $1.50 pints of
good beer, to do justice to a complex topic. I mean, I didn't even get to get started on the protectionist angle... Anyway I'll have to leave it at that for now though I'm sure the next chance to debate immigration won't be too far away... :)
