Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Culture Bores
I have a new theory: 9/11 did change the country, but it only changed it by about 1%.
The media's line is that Bush's reelection turned on the culture war. I don't know whether that's true, but it's plausible; conservative Christians turned out in Ohio to vote against gay marriage, and that may have made the difference between a national victory for Bush and a national victory for Kerry. To judge from what I've been reading and hearing since Kerry conceded, this has set some left-liberals into a panic about evangelicals in the fever swamps trying to take away our freedoms.
They should calm down. Neither Ohio nor any of the other states that banned gay marriage this week enjoyed legal gay marriage before; the electorate merely reiterated the preexisting order. I'm sorry to see it happen, but it's not a dramatic development.
Once they're calm, those Democrats should take a look in the mirror. I hate the Red America/Blue America cliche, the whole idea that the country can be painted in just two colors. But if I had to speak in terms of that map, I'd say the most successful culture warriors come from the blue states. The dominant species of liberal doesn't just want to maintain the old taboos; it wants to introduce some new ones. For many Americans, the Democrats are the party that hates their guns, cigarettes, and fatty foods (which is worse: to rename a french fry or to take it away?); that wants to impose speed limits on near-abandoned highways; that wants to tell local schools what they can or can't teach. There is no party of tolerance in Washington -- just a party that wages its crusades in the name of Christ and a party that wages its crusades in the name of Four Out Of Five Experts Agree. I say fie on both.
Here's an idea for liberals looking for a political project: Team up with some hard-core conservatives and make a push for states' rights and local autonomy. If you have to get the government involved in everything under the sun, do it on a level where you'll have more of a popular consensus. Aim for a world where it won't matter what Washington has to say about who can marry who and whether they can smoke after sodomy. Then, in 2008, the presidential election can turn on something national -- like, say, foreign policy.
Update: Down in the comments, I'm informed that some of the anti-marriage measures could prohibit not just gay matrimony and civil unions, which did not already exist where they are now banned, but private domestic partnerships, which did. So the news is worse than I thought.
David Moynihan|11.4.04 @ 12:03PM|#
John Stewart had Chuck Schumer on last night and was arguing
from a similar perspective (revenge against the media elites for
bad TV). Schumer, sadly, was having none of it, arguing instead
that they'd outflanked once again.
Sigh.
|11.4.04 @ 12:04PM|#
There is no party of tolerance in Washington -- just a party
that wages its crusades in the name of Christ and a party that
wages its crusades in the name of Four Out Of Five Experts Agree. I
say fie on both.
Damn straight!
Jesse Walker|11.4.04 @ 12:04PM|#
David: Schumer is the ultimate intolerant Blue Stater, at least to those of us who remember his revolting performance in the Waco hearings.
fyodor|11.4.04 @ 12:06PM|#
But Jesse, the heart of the problem is that neither side really even wants that except when it's to gore the other side's ox!
|11.4.04 @ 12:09PM|#
"They should calm down. Neither Ohio nor any of the other states
that banned gay marriage this week enjoyed legal gay marriage
before; the electorate merely reiterated the preexisting order. I'm
sorry to see it happen, but it's not a dramatic development."
Incorrect. Ohio's constitutional ammendment banned civil unions for
folks of any sexual orientation, not just gay marriage. This is a
significant change.
Jesse Walker|11.4.04 @ 12:11PM|#
Craig: I thought none of the states had civil union laws either. Was I wrong?
Warren|11.4.04 @ 12:19PM|#
Jesse, I'm with you totally on your main points. However,
Neither Ohio nor any of the other states that banned gay
marriage this week enjoyed legal gay marriage before; the
electorate merely reiterated the preexisting order. is
misleading.
Here in Michigan the gay marriage ban (proposal 2) includes the
language, the union of one man and one woman in marriage
shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar
union for any purpose. I'd say that exceeds the
preexisting order. There are fundies here now preparing to take
various organizations into court in attempt to force them to stop
providing benefits to gay partners.
Jesse Walker|11.4.04 @ 12:23PM|#
They're not just trying to block civil unions, but are going after private arrangements like employer-offered domestic partnership benefits?
|11.4.04 @ 12:27PM|#
You're right -- the map shouldn't just be Red/Blue:
Tyrell Co, NC Results:
Badnarik: 853 / 35%
Bush: 850 / 35%
Kerry: 727 / 30%
;)
Warren|11.4.04 @ 12:31PM|#
Jesse,
Yes they are. I don't know how far they will get. Here's the
best I could find in a quick google search. It has been written
about more extencively.
|11.4.04 @ 12:32PM|#
Red State Gay People: your neighbors are bigots. They hate you.
Come to our cities, fix up our rowhouses, and don't put kids in our
schools.
We have better restaurants, anyway.
aix42|11.4.04 @ 12:40PM|#
Here's an idea for liberals looking for a political project:
Team up with some hard-core conservatives and make a push for
states' rights and local autonomy.
Umm, sounds like a Libertarian Party. There must be better groups
to start with other than the donkey.
|11.4.04 @ 12:44PM|#
Blue state individualists: you're neighbors are collectivists.
They hate you. Come to the country, help out our restaurants.
We have more land anyway.
;)
|11.4.04 @ 12:49PM|#
What I want to know is why Libertarians and their ilk can't work to create some kind of organization to capitalize on the disaffection out there. It seems to me that there is already quite a bit of support for a Libertarian-Lite message: smaller government, lower taxes, protection of civil liberties, etc. The problem as I see it is that Libertarians can be as doctrinaire about their views as just about anybody else. While they have some good ideas, they continue to support wackier positions like abolishing the IRS or bringing all U.S. troops home from overseas. By modifying the message slightly, I think Libertarians could be quite successful. The average American gets tripped up over these more extreme positions and walks away thinking that we're a bunch of nuts. I mean, can't we just work on lowering taxes without abolishing the IRS? Can't we work on limiting military adventurism overseas without recalling all of our troops? Maybe somebody out there needs to think of starting a third party that can split the difference between totalitarianism and total choice.
|11.4.04 @ 12:55PM|#
aix42, Libertarians support liberal economic policies at the
state level? Fascinating, I had not heard this.
wellfellow, remind me again how many liberal campaigns have passed
out fliers hanging the "individualist" label around the necks of
their opponents.
Seriously, if you are too much of an individualist to fit in with
mainstream American culture, which community do you think you'll
get a warmer reception in, Salt Lake City or Boston?
|11.4.04 @ 1:04PM|#
Joe, I'm only teasing, relax.
Also, I've lived in the Commonwealth's City of Boston, I know just
how they tolerate autonomy. It just takes a different form.
Larry A|11.4.04 @ 1:05PM|#
Actually, before buying this argument we need to look at the
questions. The poll I saw asked whether people voted because of
foreign policy, the national economy, or moral issues. That leaves
a hell of a lot of issues stuck behind door number three.
For instance, I notice that nobody in the national
media is mentioning gun control as an influential issue.
Kevin Carson|11.4.04 @ 1:21PM|#
Right on, Jesse.
The Democrats, by switching their focus to cultural issues and
identity politics, left themselves wide open to Karl Rove's wedge
issues. If abortion had been left an issue for the state
legislatures instead of the federal courts, as it should have been,
it wouldn't even be a national wedge issues.
IMO, for the party establishments these cultural issues are really
just a form of branding. With both parties firmly under the control
of the same corporate establishment, they have to differentiate
themselves by saying "We're the corporate party for God and fambly
valyas," or "We're the corporate party of sensitivity and
inclusivity."
I really don't think Bush and Rove even want Roe overturned all
that much, because it would no longer play as a pseudo-populist
wedge issue in Kansas. And the DLC is grateful for Roe because it
diverts debate from fundamental issues of political and economic
power.
All this stuff just goes to prove how wrong progressives/liberals
were, over the past century, in trying to (as Croly put it)
"promote Jeffersonian ends with Hamiltonian means." Once you have a
federal government that's not bound by the delegation of powers in
Article I Section 8, it can be used to promote the ends of whatever
party is in power. What happens when the Hamiltonians come back
into power? Of course, that's assuming that the Progressives and
New Dealers *weren't* Hamiltonian, which is a load of crap.
|11.4.04 @ 1:21PM|#
Larry, neither candidate ran on, or against, gun control. Both
worked to downplay any suggestion that there was any difference
between them on gun control.
The only people who where voting on gun control were liberals who
just knew, despite what Bush said, that he really in his heart was
going to gut existing gun control, and conservatives who just knew,
despite what Kerry did and did not say, that he was really, in his
heart, opposed to the ownership of guns. Both groups of people are
committed partisans who would have turned out anyway, whose votes
don't explain why the election went as it did.
fyodor|11.4.04 @ 1:23PM|#
joe/wellfellow,
My friend who moved to Argentina cited being demonized for smoking
as a reason for abandoning the US. So yeah, intolerance does come
from all quarters.
fyodor|11.4.04 @ 1:37PM|#
gaius,
Not sure exactly what you mean by your vague "responbility to their
society," but while it's true that libertarianisms reject being
legally responsible for the wellbeing of others, they do
believe in being legally responsible for respecting others' rights.
Additionally, libertarians believe that taking interest in the
wellbeing of others is perfectly okay; that is, it's a personal
choice that should be left to the individual.
Craig|11.4.04 @ 1:42PM|#
Jesse: "I thought none of the states had civil union laws
either. Was I wrong?"
Yes and no. Ohio has no civil union law per se, but some
public universities and cities presently offer "domestic partner"
benefits to their unmarried employees, which is now illegal by most
interpretations of the ammendment.
|11.4.04 @ 1:47PM|#
Chinaman: "... The problem as I see it is that Libertarians can
be as doctrinaire about their views as just about anybody else. ...
"
=========
Well duh! Libertarians are by definition more doctrinaire than the
DemoReps. We/they actually have more-or-less consistent things we
believe in. Winning elections would be nice, but at what cost? If
the cost is to become a LibDemoRep, there is little point to
libertarianism.
fyodor|11.4.04 @ 1:47PM|#
gaius,
Until you can be specific about something/anything
regarding what this supposed responsibility to "society" amounts
to, your diatribe comes off sounding like holier-than-thou hot air.
In fact, if I read you right, you may even be saying you don't
know what it amounts to! Funny, then, how it's so
important to western civiliation! Well, maybe western civ
is based on a certain quotient of holier-than-thou hot
air... 1/2 :)
|11.4.04 @ 1:49PM|#
fyodor, if you believe that taking an interest in others' well
being is something to do or not do, depending on your feelings,
then you do not believe in responsibility to other people.
If I pick up my daughter from daycare every day, I am taking
responsibility for her. If I were to do it, or not, depending on
how I felt, I would not be responsible.
Responsibility is about following through whether you want to or
not.
fyodor|11.4.04 @ 2:06PM|#
depending on your feelings
No, joe, not depending on your feelings, depending on whatever
criteria you damn well choose on your damn well own. You've
repeatedly brought up this "feelings" thing in response to people
who have never originally said anything about feelings. What's your
deal?
My only point was that responsibility for others' well-being (as
opposed to responbility to respecting others' rights) is a personal
choice and no one else's business.
That said, you cleverly bring up one of the gray areas in such a
formulation, children. Raising children does imply a certain taking
on of responsibility toward their well being, because they're
minors and not fully responsible for themselves. It's different. If
that's what gaius was talking about, he could say so, I would say,
"Oh, that, well sure, that's different..." But it doesn't
seem like that's what he's talking about. Is it, gaius?
|11.4.04 @ 2:09PM|#
I believe here-in lies the proper role of social pressure, cultural influence, personal faith or whatever. Does one's own feelings of responsibility need to be mandated by law?
fyodor|11.4.04 @ 2:16PM|#
To clarify joe, since I believe in respecting others' rights,
that includes respecting contracts one makes with others, which
means taking responsibility for promises one has made to others.
Raising children is one such promise. To raise a child is to make a
promise that one will take interest in that child's well being. I
believe in honoring that promise, very much so. The State's role in
enforcing that promise is a gray area because of the gray area of
children being separate human beings.
Part of my purpose in responding to gaius is to get him to be more
specific. My belief is that if he ever is, he might be forced to
acknowledge that libertarians are not the nihilists he's claiming
them to be. And this is important to me because it's a common
fallacy, that because liboids don't want to force others to be nice
to each other that they don't believe in being nice to each other,
or in other basic values such as responsibility. But it's
nonsense.
|11.4.04 @ 2:28PM|#
"While they have some good ideas, they continue to support
wackier positions like abolishing the IRS or bringing all U.S.
troops home from overseas. By modifying the message slightly, I
think Libertarians could be quite successful."
I've made that point repeatedly. But whenever it's made, you
invariably run into one or more LP devotees bemoaning how doing so
would make the party no better than the alternatives, when that's
far from the case. And so the LP stays perpetually irrelevant,
struggling to outgain the friggin' Constitution Party in much of
the country, and not even taking 1% of the vote in mountain states
with strong libertarian streaks.
This is really a subject that Reason should devote some attention
to. Especially since a majority of their writers decided not to
vote for Badnarik, and some of those who did were far from
enthusiastic about their votes.
gaius marius|11.4.04 @ 2:35PM|#
depending on whatever criteria you damn well choose on your
damn well own
agreed, mr fyodor -- but we can't suppose that peopel are rational.
we aren't. we're animals driven by emotion.
law -- society, really -- is the way in which people a) acknowledge
they aren't always right, or sensible, or on their best behavior;
and b) submit to a code that they can reference even in the heat of
battle to tell them that they're doing wrong.
ex.: libertarian A has neighbor B. A gets in a fight with B over
the lot line. barbarian tribe C shows up at B's house, ready to
pillage.
A, being a good man but emotional and libertarian, is really pissed
off and doesn't feel obligated to help -- and so doesn't and B is
killed. if A had been social, or obligated under law, he'd have
helped B survive.
what of it?, says A. a week later, C shows up at A's place, and
there's no one there to help him.
there's a humility in being social that is good for people, imo. it
forces concession. it puts one in a subordinate state that
extinguishes hubris. if i may speculate, one of the reasons that
many libertarian representatives (as noted above) are so
uncompromisingly doctrinal is because they do not believe in
subordination and its attendant compromises. it's a good philosophy
for messianic loners (among many other good people).
you may even be saying you don't know what it amounts
to!
lol -- all i'm saying, mr fyodor, is that *i* don't decide what
that obligation is -- traditionally, that's the role of law and/or
elders. and that's inclusive of child-raising.
but that such a definition exists and that is it important... well,
i refer you to my example.
My only point was that responsibility for others' well-being
(as opposed to responbility to respecting others' rights) is a
personal choice and no one else's business.
respectfully, sir, i wonder if you fully appreciate what an
antisocial, antitraditional view that is. it is a claim that no law
nor elder can make you compromise, that you need no help and want
none, that others' intrinsic importance is for you to decide.
i would also note that there is no universally accepted set of
"rights". a devout libertarian must concede that rights are
relativistic -- up to each to decide on his own. if others have a
different conception of what your/their rights are, how do you
convince them otherwise?
individualism entails a lot of fighting.
gaius marius|11.4.04 @ 2:42PM|#
if he ever is
sorry, mr fyodor -- i'm at work and get called away sometimes.
frustrating, but necessary. :)
he might be forced to acknowledge that libertarians are not the
nihilists he's claiming them to be. And this is important to me
because it's a common fallacy, that because liboids don't want to
force others to be nice to each other that they don't believe in
being nice to each other, or in other basic values such as
responsibility. But it's nonsense.
mr fyodor, i would say you are assuming a set of universal human
rights that is commonly acknowledged -- including things like
contract law and (i suspect) property rights.
what of those who feel constrained by such oppression? is not their
freedom to decide their ethics for themselves being compromised
against their will? and who is to say that they can be so
forced?
gaius marius|11.4.04 @ 2:52PM|#
unsurprisingly, perhaps, this has been argued here before, where (sadly) i end up (for the purposes of this discussion alone) on jonah goldberg's end of things.
|11.4.04 @ 3:06PM|#
fyodor, I would be no less irresponsible if I failed to pick up
my daughter "depending on whatever criteria (I) damn well choose on
your damn well own."
That grammar sucks, btw.
Feelings. Opinions. Principles. Choose whatever term you'd like,
and stop being so damn pissy.
|11.4.04 @ 3:34PM|#
Chinaman: "... The problem as I see it is that Libertarians can
be as doctrinaire about their views as just about anybody else. ...
"
Craig, you responded, "Well duh! Libertarians are by definition
more doctrinaire than the DemoReps. We/they actually have
more-or-less consistent things we believe in. Winning elections
would be nice, but at what cost? If the cost is to become a
LibDemoRep, there is little point to libertarianism."
At what cost? Well, if losing the election means that we get to
live in a welfare/police state and winning it means that we get to
live in a place that's a bit better, I opt for the latter. I have
no compunction about making small compromises in my ideology if it
means that I hang on to at least SOME of my freedoms . . . for even
a little while longer. I would submit that elections are crucially
important here, since the people who ARE winning them continue to
make the situation worse rather than better. Anything we can do to
turn back the tide -- or stave off the inevitable -- should be
welcomed. The head in the hole theory just doesn't work for
me.
***************************
fyodor|11.4.04 @ 3:43PM|#
Joe,
I'll be as pissy as I damn well want! :-) My reason for being that
way was that you accused me of something I never said, and it's a
repeat offense. Would probably make you pissy too, as I believe it
has when you've felt treated that way by others.
Anyway, you didn't address any of my substantial points. What's
your deal? :-)
gaius,
Your A's, B's and C's have me confused, but I think you're talking
about whether someone should help someone else being threatened by
another. To answer, I think there should certainly be precious few
instances in which someone is ever required by law to help
someone else, and that's all libertarianism is basically about (as
it applies to this issue). As far as my personal opinion about the
example goes, I think a good and noble person would help out, sure.
And I think the more people are good and noble, the better we all
are. Does that fit into your idea of "social responsibility?" Maybe
I really do believe in "social responsibility" in a certain
respect? But I don't think I (or you!) would have the right to
require someone else to behave in a good and noble way.
It's up to them. So maybe now I don't believe in "social
responsibility?" Heh, that's up to you. But now at least we've
addressed something specific and real. And as I've expressed to
Joe, I also believe that people should keep their commitments,
which is something that can be enforced by law under particular
circumstances but not under others. Anyway, whether all this
changes your sweeping generalization about libertarians (probably
won't), I think these positions make perfect sense and I'll defend
them.
Also, I don't agree law should be telling people when they're being
"sensible" or not, only when they're messing with others in an
unacceptable way.
|11.4.04 @ 4:13PM|#
fyodor, your points are substantive, but I'd hardly call them
substantial. ;-)
If a problem, because of its size or nature, cannot be solved
without a universal public sector program, you are being
disingenuous if you say you want to solve the problem, but you
don't want there to be a public sector program to solve it.
You said you weren't against other people being responsible for
Social Security, but the contributions should be optional. Well, if
it's not social, it's not security. Is that that best way to
maximize returns on the dollars invested? Probably not. But that's
not the point of the program. The point is to cover everybody.
|11.4.04 @ 4:24PM|#
"like abolishing the IRS or bringing all U.S. troops home from
overseas"
It's all a matter of phrasing:
"The IRS is only a group of individuals doing the job they've been
ordered to do. We don't want to abolish them, but we do want to
work towards a simpler tax plan that doesn't include so many traps
that force the IRS to enforce the code."
"The Arts are a tremendous asset, but we have found that the arts
are threatened by government officials who work to silence critics
and prevent freedom of expression where they disagree with the
outcome. We therefore encourage you to support your local artist
directly"
"We are in favor of the freedom to do research, but the past has
taught us that certain constituencies will use the power of federal
government to prevent certain types of research. The only way of
preventing this type of abuse is to disengage the government from
these decisions."
Libertarians need to learn the art obfuscation.
gaius marius|11.4.04 @ 4:38PM|#
I don't agree law should be telling people when they're
being "sensible" or not, only when they're messing with others in
an unacceptable way.
ah, i tend to agree, mr fyodor -- but when ARE you "messing with
others in an unacceptable way"? part of the point of having law is
to codify that condition and involve a third party -- because
people have a funny way of not realizing when they are, even if
they mean well.
submitting to law and society is an admission that the individual,
either himself or in a crowd, is fallible and sometimes really
destructive despite his best intentions.
fyodor|11.4.04 @ 4:42PM|#
fyodor, your points are substantive, but I'd hardly call
them substantial. ;-)
So damn funny I forgot to laugh! (Just trying to be pissy...)
As to your subPAR points, aside from whether you're right that a
particular problem "cannot be solved without a universal public
sector program," there's the question of whether the problem
can be solved per se, whether trying to solve it that way
causes more problems and is immoral for that reason, and (first and
foremost) whether it's right to make others contribute to
solving it. And at root, there's the question of whether it's even
a problem that requires "solution" in light of the fact that the
world is inherently imperfect. Plus, does the concept of "social
responsibility" only apply to these types of problems?
You said you weren't against other people being responsible for
Social Security, but the contributions should be
optional.
Are you sure I said that? I don't remember saying that and I'm not
inclined to look for it. I would say that the pure libertarian
position is that no one should be compelled to contribute to such a
system, and if that means social security doesn't exist, so be it.
I guess Goldwater said contributions should be optional; I agree
that that would gut the system and defeat its purpose, which is
inherently cumpolsury. Personally, I'm okay with a minimal
compulsory social net, though I don't think it should be age based.
But that's a whole 'nother story.
Damn, I should do some work...
aix42|11.4.04 @ 4:54PM|#
joe: 'states' rights and local autonomy'
That is all, not liberal economic policy (!).
|11.4.04 @ 5:39PM|#
Seriously, if you are too much of an individualist to fit in
with mainstream American culture, which community do you think
you'll get a warmer reception in, Salt Lake City or Boston?
Comment by: joe at November 4, 2004 12:55 PM
Alaska - only individualist state in US. too bad legalization of MJ
sale and cultivation did not pass, surprised no one mentioned it at
Reason. Inthink it got over 40% of the vote.
DaveInBigD|11.4.04 @ 6:23PM|#
that wants to impose speed limits on near-abandoned
highways;
Uh, Jesse? Is there a party outside the LP that opposes
speed limits? I realize that on H&R you're preaching to the
choir, but I'd be a lot more sanguine about sending this link to
non-libertarians to build libertarian sympathy if there weren't
little gems of "Oh-god-this-is-some-libertarian loon"-ery scattered
thither and yon.
|11.4.04 @ 8:06PM|#
Although I voted for Bush and wanted him to win, I really hope that Kerry would carry Arkansas or North Carolina, since I figured that if a southern state went for Kerry, that would help to kill off the "red state/blue state" theme in the media. Instead, however, New Hampshire and New Mexico, the only states in 2000 among the lower 48 not to border at least one other state of the same color, switched sides, ensuring that the idea of a great divide will be run into the ground even more over the next four years. Probably the only thing that can kill it off now is if one side or the other has a landslide in 2008.
|11.4.04 @ 8:14PM|#
Oops - Maine, of course, borders only New Hampshire, and so Maine in 2000 was a third state that fit the criterion of not bordering any state of the same color. But, unlike N.H. and N.M., it was at least in the vicinity of a number of same-colored states.
|11.4.04 @ 9:06PM|#
"Is there a party outside the LP that opposes speed
limits?"
I can think of at least of a few German parties, only one of them
even remotely libertarian. Then you have to take into account Italy
and all the third-world countries where speeding on highways may
technically be illegal, but all but the most egregious offenses go
unpunished.
I'd be the first to say that the LP has a lot of loony, but
abolishing speed limits on rural stretches of highway isn't one of
them.
|11.4.04 @ 9:14PM|#
Jesse: I've actually seen some lefties lately arriving at your
suggested political program even without any prompting from the
likes of us. Take a look at:
http://www.juancole.com/2004_11_01_juancole_archive.html#109958311857266842
And:
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/perma110304a.html
They're starting to wake up to the fact that centralized control
often means that people they really don't like get to run their
lives, and that decentralization might thus be a good thing for
them. This is a real opportunity, I think, to build a new "Leave Us
Alone Coalition".
|11.4.04 @ 9:49PM|#
Nicholas Weininger,
What if Bush declared California a sanctuary for lefties who just
want to be left alone?
How much of a stretch could that be? It's a blue state,
right?
Righties could peacefully coexist within, as they already do. They
would just have to seal their lips, which they, pretty much already
do.
We have "Free Enterprise Zones," don't we? Why couldn't California
be a "Tolerance Zone"?
It is already in the capable purview of the First Lady of
Cali-FOR-ni-a as the wardeness, as it were, eh?
If there were such a state--a free state--would lefties there
finally put an end to the War on Drugs? I wouldn't bet heavily that
they would.
Come to think of it, this would be the perfect way to let the air
out of the Cal-i-FOR-nia real estate market: as lefties begin to
seek refuge in the remaining 49 from other lefties there.
|11.4.04 @ 11:01PM|#
Chinaman in not wanting to be part of a Liberarian party that
has actual principles states: "..... The head in the hole theory
just doesn't work for me."
I understand and even sympathize with you. I suggest you join the
DemoReps and work from within to sway them in your direction. Good
luck.
|11.4.04 @ 11:49PM|#
"Chinaman in not wanting to be part of a Liberarian party that
has actual principles"
No - like me, he doesn't want to be part of a party whose
principles involve abolishing taxes instead of slashing them, and
ending all of our foreign alliances instead of just eliminating
unnecessary entanglements. You get the idea...or perhaps you
don't.
"I suggest you join the DemoReps and work from within to sway them
in your direction. Good luck."
I suggest you get used to doing without the support of the vast
majority of people with libertarian political leanings. Who knows,
maybe in 2008, your fruitbat-de-jour will get enough votes to fill
up six football stadiums instead of five.
|11.5.04 @ 1:04AM|#
not wanting to be part of a Libertarian party that has
actual principles
Yeah, whatever. Everyone has actual principles. And most of us
learn -- at around the age of, oh, five or six maybe -- that the
world doesn't revolve around us, and isn't going to give in to our
every demand just because we say so. So most of us learn to
compromise, and in so doing achieve some of what we want.
Libertarians are dramatically outnumbered by statists. It is simply
moronic to refuse to compromise or negotiate with them, and that is
why the oh-so-pure Libertarian Party is composed almost entirely of
cranks and wackos. The rational majority of libertarians aren't
welcome in the party; we're ideologically impure.
|11.5.04 @ 6:22AM|#
Dan,
Let me blunt, the "rational majority" (let me suggest that this is
a dishonest and self-serving term that is easily manipulated and of
little real value beyond your insult-based mode of reasoning) of
libertarians aren't welcome in the Republican party, except to vote
for Republicans that is. Furthermore, anyone with a glimmer of
intelligence should be able to discern that several decades of
alliance with the Republicans has led to very little domestically
regarding libertarian matters of concern - be this in the field of
health care (more socialized than ever), drug laws (more socialized
than ever), personal liberty, etc. Republicans have co-opted almost
all the things we despised about Democrats, and made them doubly or
triply worse. Now libertarians really have only themselves to blame
for their participation in these developments - either through
unwise alliances or ineptness.
That you advocate staying the course only illustrates your
intellectual bankruptcy.
Jesse Walker|11.5.04 @ 10:56AM|#
DaveInBigD: You'd be surprised by the back-and-forth over speed limits in Montana. But what I meant -- I should have phrased this more carefully -- was the nationally imposed 55 mph limit that the Dems rammed through and the Republicans repealed, not all speed limits.
|11.5.04 @ 3:49PM|#
Eh, bored now. The national election turned out about as well as
it could have for libertarians; I could pretend to care that you
think otherwise, but what would be the point? You've offered a lot
of "arguments" that amounted to "THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE
THE SAME LA LA LA" and you've failed to convince me. So I think
I'll just continue supporting the Republicans, secure in the
knowledge that the tiny amount of influence that that earns me
gives me some small ability to steer things in a better direction.
And perhaps I'll spare an occasional moment to shake my head at the
poor fools like you, who spend their days sneering and ranting at
those of us who actually, occasionally, accomplish something
worthwhile.
So go on. Support Badnarik, or Zippy the Pinhead, or whatever
fruitcake the Party nominates next time around. Whatever makes you
happy. I'll be over in the Republican Party with the rest of the
grown-ups.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245