I Get Press Releases

David Weigel | April 4, 2008

Like this one.

APPLETON, WIS. — April 4, 2008 — Congressman Ron Paul has endorsed The John Birch Society in a statement received from his office this week.  His statement also congratulates the Society on being “a great patriotic organization” now in its 50th year.

John McManus, president of JBS, responded, “We graciously accept Dr. Paul’s endorsement.  He continues to demonstrate what an elected official should be doing … obeying the Constitution.  We thank him for his continuous commitment to protect the freedoms of all Americans.  There’s a reason why he consistently rates toward the top of the Freedom Index, our Congressional scorecard rating legislators’ votes published twice a year in The New American magazine.”

Dr. Paul stated, “The John Birch Society is a great patriotic organization featuring an educational program solidly based on constitutional principles. I congratulate the Society in this, its 50th year. I wish them continued success and endorse their untiring efforts to foster ‘less government, more responsibility … and with God’s help … a better world.’”

The Paul-Birch connection is no secret. At the RP New Hampshire headquarters, I saw plenty of New Americans sitting around, with volunteers flipping them open to positive articles about Paul. (I never saw any given to prospective voters, even though I assumed that was what they were there for.) When Chris Caldwell asked him about the JBS in 2007, Paul laughed it off.

“Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society!” he said in mock horror. “Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with. Because they’re real strict constitutionalists, they don’t like the war, they’re hard-money people...”

Still... is Paul really still trying to max out the anti-McCain protest vote? Why's he doing stuff like this?

Cue paleolibertarian writers ineffectively attacking me in 3,2,1...

Comments

javier|4.4.08 @ 4:24PM|#

what exactly is the john birch society????

Bingo|4.4.08 @ 4:27PM|#

The John Birch Society is anti-totalitarian, particularly anti-Socialist, anti-Communist, and leans libertarian. It generally seeks to limit the powers of government and strenuously defends what it sees as the original intention of the U.S. Constitution, rooted in Judeo-Christian principles.

So they are paleos with a foreign policy?

Jesse Walker|4.4.08 @ 4:27PM|#

Paul was on the masthead of The New American back in the '80s, so I've always assumed he was a full-fledged member of the JBS.

|4.4.08 @ 4:29PM|#

"Cue paleolibertarian writers ineffectively attacking me in 3,2,1..."

They're so "ineffective" you feel compelled to mention them.

JM|4.4.08 @ 4:30PM|#

I don't see why Reason is weirded out by the JBS? What's so bad about them? Wouldn't shock me if someone affiliated with them at some point in time has said something offensive, but then again what organization hasn't had that happen.

javier|4.4.08 @ 4:31PM|#

sounds like an interesting group from what I read on wiki. Why is bad to be associated with them

|4.4.08 @ 4:31PM|#

Still... is Paul really still trying to max out the anti-McCain protest vote? Why's he doing stuff like this?

I imagine he is cutting his losses and shoring up his base.

Knowing he won't play a further role in the Republican party this year he has reverted to piecing together his coalition of libertarians and extremist paleoconservatives.

|4.4.08 @ 4:32PM|#

I saw plenty of New Americans sitting around...

Is that some kind of cosmo term for illegals?

|4.4.08 @ 4:35PM|#

This is just a cover story, designed to conceal the fact that Ron Paul is a conscious, dedicated agent of the world Islamist conspiracy.

|4.4.08 @ 4:35PM|#

Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .

So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now!
Look out you Commies!

Now we all agree with Hitlers' views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist,
At least you can't say he was a Communist!
That's to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.

Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Reds.
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn't find 'em . . .

I wus lookin' high an' low for them Reds everywhere,
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair.
I looked way up my chimney hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They got away . . .

Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.
Them Reds caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.

Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
That ol' Betty Ross . . .

Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me.

Now Eisenhower, he's a Russian spy,
Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy.
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell.
I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus.

Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!

|4.4.08 @ 4:37PM|#

The John Birch Society - not someone associated with them, but an statement put out by the society - states that Dwight Eisenhower was "a conscious agend of the international Communist conspiracy."

Not a dupe. Not a guy with bad policies. A mole actively working to advance communism.

Weirdos.

Kolohe|4.4.08 @ 4:38PM|#

"Why is bad to be associated with them?"

Because they disagreed when a judge told some people that a little black girl could go to the same school as a little white girl.

They may have changed their minds since then, however.

Timothy|4.4.08 @ 4:39PM|#

What's so bad about them?

Um...maybe some of this stuff:

During the 1960s, The John Birch Society opposed aspects of the Civil Rights Movement because of concerns that the movement had a number of Communists in important positions and because they suspected that it was backed and supported by the American Communist Party. The John Birch Society opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the belief that it was in violation of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped the rights of individual states to make laws regarding Civil Rights.

The John Birch Society is against a unified "one world government", and has an illegal immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It has opposed the United Nations, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA, and other free-trade agreements with other nations, believing them to be destructive to American principles, the economy, freedom and national sovereignty.

Timothy|4.4.08 @ 4:39PM|#

That's from the Wikipedia, so handfull of salt and all, but yeah....

|4.4.08 @ 4:42PM|#

John Birch? Is this some fucking joke? I hate to play libertarianer-than-thou but how can anyone call themselves libertarian and support these guys?

|4.4.08 @ 4:42PM|#

Bingo,

So they are paleos with a foreign policy?

Not exactly.

The John Birch society viewed the conflict between liberal-democracy and Communism as primarily a conflict between Christianity and satanism disguised as atheism. Any other political considerations were largely secondary. They were wildly conspiratorial accusing everyone of disagreed with them about anything, such as Eisenhower. of being a communist. They didn't show much respect for the Constitution when it came to rooting out communist.

They had their heyday in late 50's after the Red Scare. Even then they were a noisy but marginal group. After that, they mostly served as a bugaboo for Leftist who accused anyone worried about communism as thinking just like the John Birch society.

John Markley|4.4.08 @ 4:43PM|#

Actually, history of wacky conspiracy-mongering notwithstanding, the modern Birchers are pretty good- some strong libertarian leanings, certainly more than you see from many other paleocon groups. They're hardly perfect from a libertarian standpoint, but not something to be ashamed of associating with, either.

Plus, they earned a lot of points with me when Sean Hannity called them a "liberal" organization.

javier|4.4.08 @ 4:46PM|#

The John Birch Society opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the belief that it was in violation of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped the rights of individual states to make laws regarding Civil Rights.

oh thats right! If you oppose the civil rights act, it is not OK to have an intelligent discussion, it just means you're a racist.

Well, You Asked|4.4.08 @ 4:47PM|#

What's so bad about them?

The unbohemian poor and the petty bourgeoisie are not fit for public display. They're also not politically useful to the left. But that's surely a coincidence, since cosmotarians are just really awesome libertarians.

|4.4.08 @ 4:47PM|#

Before Newslettergate the JBS was of no consequence. Like Paul said, Birchers aren't dangerous. They mostly want what libertarians want. They read, they care about the Constitution. The only thing that I can't agree with policy wise is their staunch unwillingness to enter into any kind of treaty with other countries.

Basically they are conspiracists, worried about the UNs black helicopters and such. So while you might worry about them being a bunch of moonbats feeding off their own paranoia, most of what they're afraid of is too much power being concentrated into too few hands, so most of what they're calling for sounds pretty libertarian.

But when you throw all the Truthers, and White Supremists in together, you've got a real crazypants problem that needs to be addressed before you cozy up with the fringe.

Jesse Walker|4.4.08 @ 4:48PM|#

Timothy: My understanding of the Birch position on the civil rights movement is that they thought both the protesters and the KKK counterprotesters were part of a Communist plot to foment a race war.

They have a pretty standard paleo platform, maybe 80% libertarian. But they're prone to excessive conspiracy theorizing.

Travis|4.4.08 @ 4:51PM|#

I voted for Ron Paul and still consider him probably the best Representative in congress, but the John Birch Society he's fucking nuts.

Kolohe|4.4.08 @ 4:52PM|#

inteligent discussion of civil rights act-

bad precedent for federalism, and possibly bad law, but asshole southerners brought it upon themselves, for drinking from the New Deal fountain, then crying 'state's rights' when they didn't want the black man thinking he was the equal of the white man. (see also: 1861)

Thanks a lot South, you wankers!

Bingo|4.4.08 @ 4:54PM|#

Thanks Shannon, that explains why there is so much Christian rhetoric on their site.

Wackos that are pretty good in terms of libertarian outlook, but still wackos.

Fluffy|4.4.08 @ 4:54PM|#

OK, but how many of those "flouridation in our water is a conspiracy" guys are really still around?

I don't see anything in Timothy's quote that puts them beyond the pale. They're more isolationist than me, but that's not an indefensible view. The "precious bodily fluids" stuff is what I always thought was the problem with them, but I thought that was decades ago.

After all, William F. Buckley opposed the Civil Rights Act, too, and he was supposedly a respectable person.

javier|4.4.08 @ 4:55PM|#

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I really don't mind them. In the next 100 years if they even get one thing right then they are worth having around.

Jennifer|4.4.08 @ 4:55PM|#

How mortifying. Thank God it's raining because otherwise I might overcompensate by doing something thoroughly embarrassing like setting fire to an American flag doused in patchouli oil whilst screaming "Guaranteed national income for everybody you selfish fucks!" and then I'd be doubly mortified once I came to my senses.

Fluffy|4.4.08 @ 4:59PM|#

You know, I spent a lot of time this week thinking to myself, "Gosh, why do these guys have such a problem with Reason?"

Now I'm starting to think maybe some of it's because occasionally you like to wiggle your ass in their faces for fun.

Colin|4.4.08 @ 5:02PM|#

Yes, a great patriotic organization that hates Blacks and Jews. A great patriotic organization that accused Eisenhower of being a Soviet spy. A great patriotic organization that believed putting flouride in the water supply was a conspiracy to turn us all into communists.

|4.4.08 @ 5:05PM|#

Tom Metzger was once a member of the John Birch Society.

It's like I said when someone pointed out that there were Ron Paul ads over at Storm*****. When I see people like that jump on a bandwagon, I jump the fuck off. I'll figure out exactly why later--all I need to know is that they got on the bandwagon and then I jump the fuck off.

The John Birch Society is kinda like that for me too. There's some old folksy wisdom that goes something like, "Anybody who [hates communists] that much can't be all bad." That old saying in that form--I think it's bullshit.

There's another old saying about how, "If you can't say something nice about somebody..." Well the truth is, I was never on the Ron Paul bandwagon, and I'd like to thank Dr. Paul for making glad about that all over again.

|4.4.08 @ 5:06PM|#

And for all you Ron Paul supporters out there, I think you should take the one about the road to hell being paved with good intentions to heart.

Seriously. It's not about you.

The Democratic Republican|4.4.08 @ 5:10PM|#

The other part of the motto that is a problem is the thing about understanding the Constitution "rooted in Judeo-Christian values"

Being a Christian, I'm not opposed to those values, but from the JBS, that can mean any number of things that would make Huckabee look like he was from San Francisco.

|4.4.08 @ 5:13PM|#

I actually love being a part of a movement that includes some hippies and Birchers, Rockwell and Crain, Raimondo and Welch. (Note that I didn't include Dondaro.)
I think the second photo in this old Onion story is a hoot: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/l_a_efficiency_chosen_as_site_of

The Democratic Republican|4.4.08 @ 5:14PM|#

Picking up where Ken left off:

reason posted recently to an interview with W. Buckley where he described how he and Barry Goldwater and some others consciously set out to separate the JBS from the conservative movement. So these guys, with their backs completely against the wall, thought it was a good idea to get rid of those lunatics, and now Dr. Paul thinks it's a good idea to bring them back in?

If that's really the case, then a person has to really wonder what Dr. Paul really thinks he's doing and why it is he has repeatedly allowed himself to be used by those who want to mainstream their bullshit ideas.

I wouldn't have taken it personally if thousands of people like me hadn't been duped into sending money to somebody that would have made Lew Rockwell Secretary of State. Caveat emptor....

The Democratic Republican|4.4.08 @ 5:15PM|#

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 5:13pm | #

I actually love being a part of a movement that includes some hippies and Birchers, Rockwell and Crain, Raimondo and Welch. (Note that I didn't include Dondaro.)

I think what I'm saying and others have been saying is that the Birchers and truthers are NOT part of the libertarian movement and should not be considered to be so. The differences between Raimondo and Welch are just not on the same level.

|4.4.08 @ 5:15PM|#

"rooted in Judeo-Christian values" = code language for a Judge Roy Moore type "Bible is higher authority than US Constitution" mentality.

|4.4.08 @ 5:16PM|#

Fluffy, a year or so ago either Bennington or Brattleboro Vermont tried to get fluoride in their municipal water supply. There was lots of good scientific discussion about the merits. And a shocking number of people coming out of the woodwork saying it was a conspiracy to reduce our will to resist or something.

Give a Truther an inch, and he'll latch onto every half-baked conspiricy theory ever proposed.

|4.4.08 @ 5:18PM|#

DR - Don't get me wrong. I don't support the JBS. I just think that some individual JBSers and truthers, as wacky and misguided as they may be, are really fellow travelers at heart.

alan|4.4.08 @ 5:23PM|#

Their past may have some embarrassing aspects to it, and the conspiracy stuff touches on the deep end*, I don't believe it is any kookier either the dispensationalist evangelicals like Hagee, or the National Greatness freaks of the Weekly Standard.


*some cosmos are way too touchy about 'conspiracies', Austrian theories concerning fractional reserve banking do not equate to standing on a street corner yelling about the Bilderberg, Ms. Postrel. I hope you don't feint if you ever get a hold of James Grant's Money of the Mind .

Colonel_Angus|4.4.08 @ 5:26PM|#

What the fuck is this paleo cosmo shit. They sound like retarded buzz words that only came up after that newsletter waste of time. Every time I read them I want to stab someone.

|4.4.08 @ 5:27PM|#

Well everyone knows the JBS are tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists who thought that the US government had full fore-knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and did nothing to prevent it (some go so far as to say actively abetted by sending the main defense force away from the island.)

... Oh wait, they were right about that one(read "day of deceit")

Well then, everyone knows the JBS are a bunch af racists (never mind their membership was open to all in a time when most organizations weren't) who opposed the Civil-rights act on the grounds it was a violation of the 9th and 10th amendments, a violation of private property rights, and was more about special-rights, than equal rights.

... Oh wait, they were correct about that one too. (the civil rights act is now the basis of state-sponsored discrimination in universities, housing loans, and in one particular case in Florida, even used to justify a white woman's "right" to a workplace free from African Americans.)

I never was a member of the JBS, but from where I am sitting, it seems to me that they were far more often correct than incorrect. And yet, it still seems fashionable to trash them as some kind of paleolithic throw-backs with jutting jaws and enormous brow-ridges.

Quite the unreasoning viewpoint for a magazine called "Reason"

Chalk this one up as one more "reason" I won't be renewing my subscription.

alan|4.4.08 @ 5:27PM|#

Fluffy, a year or so ago either Bennington or Brattleboro Vermont tried to get fluoride in their municipal water supply. There was lots of good scientific discussion about the merits.

Personally, I never gave a damn if their were scientific reasons for doing so or not. I just know that the
water I get from public drinking fountains when I'm in the city (which has fluoride in it) taste like shit compared to the well water I have at home in the county. I get my fluoride twice a day when I brush my teeth.

|4.4.08 @ 5:28PM|#

OK, but how many of those "flouridation in our water is a conspiracy" guys are really still around?

I couldn't say, but I worked for one about thirty-five years ago. He slept on a mattress on the floor, because he was worried someone could hide under his bed and kill him as he slept.

An employee had a key to his house, and had to wake him up every morning. For some strange reason, he didn't believe in alarm clocks. I didn't ask.

Fun times.

Orange Line Special|4.4.08 @ 5:29PM|#

I'm not overly familiar with the group, but there are probably two basic reasons why Reason and the Cosmos don't like the JBS:

1. The "liberals" to whom they curry favor react with horror to the JBS, and Reason/the Cosmos don't want to piss them off.

2. The JBS's opposition to certain things would cost certain people some money.

Edward|4.4.08 @ 5:30PM|#

Why's he doing stuff like this?

Because he's a certifiable fruitcake. A more relevant question is why Reason ever took him up.

|4.4.08 @ 5:31PM|#

"Quite the unreasoning viewpoint for a magazine called "Reason""
OK. I KNOW that one calls for a drink, under any interpretation of the rules. I'm making myself a manhatten as soon as I my fingers leave this keyboard.

alan|4.4.08 @ 5:31PM|#

And yet, it still seems fashionable to trash them as some kind of paleolithic throw-backs with jutting jaws and enormous brow-ridges.

Exactly. The Eisenhower matter (and I do like Ike) was fifty years ago. The Neocon and social conservative crazies are a real menace at this present time.

The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.08 @ 5:32PM|#

Cue paleolibertarian writers ineffectively attacking me in 3,2,1...

Good one, Weigel!

Sam Grove|4.4.08 @ 5:32PM|#

I have to wonder about any group that takes the name of its founder.

But why isn't that Scientology group more accurately called "the L Ron Hubbard" society?

The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.08 @ 5:32PM|#

Shut up Eric.

|4.4.08 @ 5:33PM|#

By my spelling of "manhatten," you can probably tell that I didn't wait for Kevin Houston to start the party.

|4.4.08 @ 5:34PM|#

They aren't racist...they are agaisnt the drug war, they are against affirmitive action, they are against communism, they are against the entire New Deal.

The wierd conspiracy stuff is 90% in this book:

"None Dare Call It A Conspiracy"
http://reactor-core.org/none-dare.html

if you don't want to read then watch avideo clip
JBS president on Crossfire and judge for yourself
:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlkD5z740w0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma6Cnqqv39M&feature=related

Jennifer|4.4.08 @ 5:34PM|#

John Birch had nothing to do with the founding of the society which bears his name.

|4.4.08 @ 5:35PM|#

Where's the goddamn bitters?

|4.4.08 @ 5:37PM|#

"We don't know what he did
But he's our hero just the same."

|4.4.08 @ 5:39PM|#

http://www.songlyrics.com/song-lyrics/Chad_Mitchell_Trio/At_The_Bitter_End/The_John_Birch_Society/23598.html

|4.4.08 @ 5:41PM|#

And the day we get Red Skelton
Won't that be a victory!

Famous Mortimer|4.4.08 @ 5:42PM|#

The more and more I learn about Ron Paul and his associates, the more I feel like I did the right thing by not voting for him in the primaries.

The newsletter scandal made him unfit for any kind of political office, but his attraction to crazy-Leftists-in-reverse demonstrates that beneath his veneer as a sweet, skinny old man, lies a wingnut waiting to unfurl.

Kolohe|4.4.08 @ 5:43PM|#

Quite the unreasoning viewpoint for a magazine called "Reason"

Chalk this one up as one more "reason" I won't be renewing my subscription.

Damn, happy hour is over 180 min away in my time zone.

charlie|4.4.08 @ 5:43PM|#

Right... Ron Paul can't associate with the eccentric but generally harmless JBS, but Reason staffers can write at the Weekly Standard?

I mean, if we're going to start purging people, I'd start with the warmongering pricks before I'd pick on the eccentric, but more often than not right, Birchers.

Now I'm not about to join them myself, but their greatest crimes seem to have come a good five decades ago -- and many of those "crimes", such as opposing the Civil Rights Act and the UN, are libertarian in nature (though I'll concede that they probably didn't oppose them at the time on strictly libertarian grounds).

|4.4.08 @ 5:43PM|#

If only leftist organizations retained their taint long after past transgressions.

I am assuming that the John Birch society is some group of libertarians/conservatives who ended up on the wrong side civil rights 40 years ago.

Didn't the Democrat party end up on the wrong side of the fucking Civil War?

SIV|4.4.08 @ 5:45PM|#

I have to wonder about any group that takes the name of its founder.

John Birch wasn't the founder. I believe Robert Welch was.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 5:54PM|#

"paleolibertarians"?

I though those guys were just a bunch of idiots. It's not like they were proposing alternative points of view, other than that, well, "You suck", "Reason sucks", "Matt Welch has liberal tendencies", and that "Gilmore obviously has a very small penis".

I think one of those things is probably true.

It's definitely not the one about my penis though.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 5:57PM|#

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 5:31pm | #

"Quite the unreasoning viewpoint for a magazine called "Reason""

OK. I KNOW that one calls for a drink, under any interpretation of the rules. I'm making myself a manhatten as soon as I my fingers leave this keyboard.

All I gots is beer.

Cheers everybody. It's friday, and soon those... paleos or whatever... they'll put us all on the floor in no-time

svf|4.4.08 @ 5:59PM|#

who gives a shit about the John Birch Society, the newsletters, the Masons, blah blah.

let's just abolish the IRS, dismantle Social Security and the Welfare State, end the Drug War, bring our troops home, and balance the budget...

then we can go back to arguing about irrelevant shit that most people have never heard of and don't care about anyway.

and.... 3... 2... 1... happy hour.

Colin|4.4.08 @ 6:03PM|#

This just in:

Ron Paul has commemorated the Horst Wessel Lied on his 80th year, praising it as "a great patriotic song."

###

|4.4.08 @ 6:03PM|#

Cheers, friends.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 6:05PM|#

Quite the unreasoning viewpoint for a magazine called "Reason"

Chalk this one up as one more "reason" I won't be renewing my subscription.

Ahh. Technically thats a *double* drink.

CHUG!

I learned recently that brits call that "a one'er".

charlie|4.4.08 @ 6:07PM|#

I think the paleolibertarians are in fact making a very clear point -- that Reason allows no deviation on issues such as the drug war (and rightfully so), but for some reason bombing poor people half-way around the globe is somehow open to debate. Advocating drug laws would be a violation of a fundamental tenet of libertarianism, but murdering foreigners in order to secure "U.S. (corporate) interests" wouldn't be -- at least in hipster Reason-land.

You can criticize the paleos all you want, but they do have a point. And you know, for some reason, advocating that there should be restrictions on immigration is somehow less abhorrent to me than advocating dropping bombs on poor brown people in order to secure U.S. hegemony around the world.

And people like Matt Welch not giving a shit about the deaths of hundreds of thousands to Iraqis to the point of not even caring either way if the U.S. preemptively attacked Iraq is fucking obscene, especially for the politically-aware editor of what's supposed to be the premier libertarian magazine (which isn't saying a whole lot, I know).

|4.4.08 @ 6:10PM|#

reason posted recently to an interview with W. Buckley where he described how he and Barry Goldwater and some others consciously set out to separate the JBS from the conservative movement.

Buckley's fiction book Getting it Right mentions that it was the Birchers and the Objectivists he wanted out of the Right movement.

Funny, though, how the right has betrayed libertarians time and again since Buckley did that.

|4.4.08 @ 6:11PM|#

Quite the unreasoning viewpoint for a magazine called "Reason"

Chalk this one up as one more "reason" I won't be renewing my subscription.

Dammit, I won't be renewing my subscription either. But in my case it's because my doctor says I'll get diabetes if I don't quit drinking.

Besides, I have no idea how many drinks that comment requires.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 6:12PM|#

charlie | April 4, 2008, 6:07pm | #

I think the paleolibertarians are in fact making a very clear point -- that Reason allows no deviation on issues such as the drug war (and rightfully so), but for some reason bombing poor people half-way around the globe is somehow open to debate.

Can you go back to that thread the other day and actually quote 1 person who said as much?

I thought they were just jealous of my huge dick, extensive vocabulary beyond "sucks"

|4.4.08 @ 6:12PM|#

but murdering foreigners in order to secure "U.S. (corporate) interests" wouldn't be -- at least in hipster Reason-land.

What corporate interests would those be? And if you say "oil", I reserve the right to laugh in your face, as you would so richly deserve.

Yes, reason was generally pro-Iraq war. Now, they are generally NOT. Maybe you can ask them, but I bet they're willing to cop to making a mistake, as did 70% of America, you big soppy douche.

|4.4.08 @ 6:12PM|#

I dig being a "hipster in Reason-land." I feel kinda like Sammy Davis Jr., or at least Joey Bishop.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 6:13PM|#

Besides, I have no idea how many drinks that comment requires.

(Gilmore as Wise Owl)

Let me see.

A one...

A two...

a three...

Three.

|4.4.08 @ 6:15PM|#

LOL, GILMORE, probably because of all the manhattans.

Jesse Walker|4.4.08 @ 6:15PM|#

Yes, reason was generally pro-Iraq war.

At the time of the invasion, two Reason staffers supported the war, one was unsure, and the others -- a clear majority -- all opposed it.

|4.4.08 @ 6:19PM|#

Jesse - although that may be true, I don't think that my memory is so bad because I recall that the pro-war folks (CPF and Cathy Young, at least...) got a lot more column space and blog time on the issue.

But, I do appreciate the opportunity to be wrong.

LevStrauss|4.4.08 @ 6:21PM|#

"During the 1960s, The John Birch Society opposed aspects of the Civil Rights Movement because of concerns that the movement had a number of Communists in important positions and because they suspected that it was backed and supported by the American Communist Party."

I regret that I was not alive to see the Civil Rights Movement during the sixties, but if history was written by the same type of people who give me my mainstream news, then who knows what went on. I can tell you the contemporary version of the Civil Rights movement, the anti war protesters are rather communist. If you walk past the tables in the mall during a protest there is plenty of Marxist-Leninist stuff to purchase. They also condition people who are passionate about their cause to dress grungy and make paper mache puppets to exact change. Now does that makes sense to anybody who looks at it for the first time? There is some social engineering going on there. It is like a cult, like a religion, where they deprive you of your instincts to make you more docile. The leaders of the anti war movement, that Peace and Justice Outfit, tries to be impotent, nobody could be more useless. It is nothing but a hustle and a gag like the truther movement. Many are well meaning, passionate leaders and followers, there can definitely be the few, the kind of people who highjack popular movements like Neocons did to foreign policy. I definitely think there could have been elements in the Civil Rights Movement. When things become popular thats when the charlatans come out to further their own causes and ambitions. Look all the hustlers that gather around religions, is there supposed to be anything nobler than God?

I don't agree with what the Birchers say and probably how they say what they say as well, but I do not believe that jumping to conclusions or vulgarity should be mortal sin. The two parties appear to do plenty of that on their own, same for Reason and Rockwell. Here at Reason, the cosmopolitans seem so eager to find favor with their liberal friends that they cave on everything they do not feel like debating in an effort to look effeminate and beautiful. I live in DC too but it makes me want to be quiet and take more showers.

And why do I have to keep shooting the defenseless, denouncing the weak minded, the people who buy the 9/11 truth garbage, Birchers, and all those small fringe groups that have absolutely no power or influence? I'd much rather pity them and go after the people who actually influence how I live my life.

charlie|4.4.08 @ 6:22PM|#

Ayn_Randian:

You may have heard of this little thing called "the military industrial complex." That liberal commie plant Dwight Eisenhower mentioned a few years back I think.

I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty just why the U.S. attacked Iraq, but I'm pretty sure those corporations that make all those weapons that make "shock and awe" possible had something to do with it.

|4.4.08 @ 6:27PM|#

I may have heard of it. Given that you've presented no evidence that it caused or was even a significant contributing factor to the invasion, I suggest that you quit making hysterical accusations.

I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty just why the U.S. attacked Iraq

There are certainly quite a few who can. You ain't one of 'em.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 6:31PM|#

I will admit I supported killing Osama and putting his head on a stick in lower Manhattan (*With an "A", dude)

As for Iraq, and Reason, I recall a bunch of posts about how there was poor intelligence, but that finishing the war of 1991 was not necessarily bad idea.

Once things went to shit, I dont recall anyone at Reason begging us to "stay the course"

Are the ardent ant-war types of the mind that Afghanistan attack should never have happened?

charlie|4.4.08 @ 6:31PM|#

You have to appreciate some of the superficial libertarians that comment here -- the ones whose political philosophies are derived from a shitty author who, when not writing awkward pseudo-rape scenes, claimed big business was a poor, persecuted minority -- reflexively coming to the defense of corporations. Why, daring to point out that corporate interests benefit from military interventions makes you a wild-eyed leftist, despite the fact that the U.S. has, repeatedly, invaded countries to protect natural resources. I mean, for christ's sake, the U.S. invaded Guatemala over fucking bananas, so suggesting oil played a factor in the invasion of Iraq isn't so ludicrous, even if some anti-war protesters overstate the role it played.

Corporations themselves are a government-created entity, and there's no reason (ha) libertarians should feel the need to defend them. And dare I point out that the the U.S. elites just might want to sit on the third largest oil reserves in the world, if only so that countries such as China and Russia can't? There is a reason, I think, why the US decided to "liberate" Iraq and not, say, Zimbabwe... just saying.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 6:32PM|#

p.s. still support the Osama+Sharp stick idea, FWIW. Surge that shit!

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 6:35PM|#

Why, daring to point out that corporate interests benefit from military interventions makes you a wild-eyed leftist

Well, yes. Sort of.

War has not benefited many 'corporations' with $100 a barrel oil.

Unless you think the whole thing was aimed at destabilizing the global economy?

Sorta like our secret plan to attack ourselves at the WTC to achieve the same...?

Sorta reminds me of that Mr Show sketch where NASA launches mission to Blow Up the Moon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHpX5aa5Lz4

Brandybuck|4.4.08 @ 6:35PM|#

The John Birch Society is correct on every one of their positions... except their core belief which is the Conspiracy Theory of History. That Ron Paul is actively endorsing them is distressing.

Remember folks:

*Nothing happens by accident
*Nothing is as it seems
*Everything is connected

charlie|4.4.08 @ 6:40PM|#

War certainly has benefited defense contractors and the oil companies -- not an insignificant portion of the U.S. economy. Granted, the economy as a whole has predictably tanked as a result of the massive deficit spending the war has incurred, but for the aforementioned politically connected corporate interests it has worked out pretty well.

The most ludicrous suggestion is that the United States invaded Iraq over a genuine concern over "weapons of mass destruction" or "spreading democracy." Both those claims are bullshit on their face. When lawmakers push a regulation libertarians rightly argue that one should the follow the money -- the same applies, doubly, to military interventions.

Famous Mortimer|4.4.08 @ 6:40PM|#

If the U.S. invaded Iraq to gain some kind of oil advantage, it certainly hasn't even remotely had a positive effect on that initiative.

The "blood for oil" routine simply doesn't add up.

Sometimes the truth is simpler, and much more obvious.

However, I guess that's the point of some of these comments. Conspiracy theorists tend to cling to ideas like the Pope clings to a rosary. They can't imagine that it's just as the talking heads say it is.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 6:44PM|#

War certainly has benefited defense contractors and the oil companies -- not an insignificant portion of the U.S. economy

Well, technically... as an economic research analyst, thats sorta stealing from peter to pay paul. Consumer spending is 70% of the US economy, and war is/has not been particularly good for the US dollar, employment, consumer prices, cost of driving to work, etc.

The idea that Wars happen BECAUSE OF or FOR THE BENEFIT of corporations is kinda silly and naive. Yes, some entities benefit. But it's not like we kill American kids in order to grease Halliburton. We kill the environment and stuff for that.

Tess|4.4.08 @ 6:46PM|#

Personally, I am anti anything that is against our Constitution, or We The People, and yes, I am a Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul has my vote and support.

Brandybuck|4.4.08 @ 6:47PM|#

p.s. Of course, there are some other beliefs of the JBS that I have problems with. They've very squishy on immigration and trade, for example. But on the whole they are very libertarian. Most of the shit they get accused of is simply not true. Except for the conspiracy lunacy.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 6:47PM|#

The most ludicrous suggestion is that the United States invaded Iraq over a genuine concern over "weapons of mass destruction" or "spreading democracy."

Ok. fair enough.

How about "Hubris", "Revenge", "Ending existing regime", "Scaring Shit out of Iran + everyone else", and "Installing Bases in North to put in Missile Shield and Spyplanes to Fuck With Locals & Secure Threat Potential"

And more.

I mean, thats more plausible than, "hand out money to buddies".

They can do that over lunch.

Famous Mortimer|4.4.08 @ 6:47PM|#

So, your argument revolves around agreeing with you automatically, and if not, we're blind?

Sound like an argument from incredulity.

|4.4.08 @ 6:49PM|#

the ones whose political philosophies are derived from a shitty author who, when not writing awkward pseudo-rape scenes, claimed big business was a poor, persecuted minority

My, you're passive-aggressive. And stupid to boot! Hanging out with you must be a lot of fun.

She didn't say "Big Business"...she said the businessman. The "superficial" libertarian around here is you, who cannot even get past the most shallow and wrong-headed criticism of Ayn Rand. You have no concept of deeper meaning or understanding WRT her writing.

Which is all well and good...it's not required. But if you're going to blather on about her, it'd be best you not demonstrate your ignorance the instant your fingers hit the keyboard.

and her political philosophy, like mine, is libertarian...I don't see where it makes a whit of difference from where it was derived.

Did you know that Rand was virulently anti-war, an "America Firster" and probably someone with whom, if you knew how to read past a sixth-grade level, you would find yourself vigorously agreeing WRT foreign affairs?

No? Color me surprised.

|4.4.08 @ 6:52PM|#

The John Birch Society has been far better on foreign policy than a number of libertarians, since 9/11. It is fairly sound on most things, except abortion, immigration and trade.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 6:52PM|#

War certainly has benefited defense contractors and the oil companies

Have you asked oil guys how much they're thrilled about the failure to be able to access Iraqi oil for the last 15 years, Embargo Iran, having Venezuela and Nigeria be unstable, etc.

Temporary profits are sweet, but shit priced above $100 a barrel is bad business overall.

I mean, I can find an article for you explaining this... it's not complicated if you have some knowledge of the economics of oil...

I think Salon did a decent piece on this...

here tis -

Big Oil Fears War Too
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/02/25/oil/index.html?source=search&aim=/news/feature

Is it me, or are conspiracy theories most often a replacement for things people dont understand?

charlie|4.4.08 @ 6:52PM|#

Mortimer --

Read your history -- you'll find plenty of conspiracies. Arms manufacturers were the leading advocates of U.S. intervention in WWI, and benefited the most from the Cold War arms buildup.

United Fruit pushed to overthrow the government of Grenada, and it just so happened that the Sec. of State was their former chief counsel.

Pointing that out is very much different than saying 9/11 was an inside job or fluoridation is a communist plot.

I'm sure many of these military contractors thing they are good, American patriots -- I don't think they eat babies while planning the next war. But there's plenty of money to be paid in times of international conflict, and certain companies stand to gain the most. Thus a sort of mindset develops that sees military intervention as frequently necessary (and, coincidentally, good for business). That played a part in why the US invaded Iraq, and it's a large part of the reason why the US spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined.

And please don't conflate saying that oil played a part in why the U.S. leadership cared about Iraq with saying that was all it was about. And just because things haven't worked out as said leadership planned -- and oil hasn't paid for the reconstruction, as Wolfowitz predicted -- doesn't mean it wasn't a factor.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 6:53PM|#

Famous Mortimer | April 4, 2008, 6:47pm | #

You aint talkin to me are you?

|4.4.08 @ 6:54PM|#

It is fairly sound on most things, except abortion, immigration and trade.

erm, well, those are issue of some significance to be "bad" on, wouldn't you agree?

And please don't conflate saying that oil played a part in why the U.S. leadership cared about Iraq with saying that was all it was about.

In all fairness, you started the conflation, not us.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 6:55PM|#

Pardon me =

*"borrowing from Peter to Pay Paul..."*

I actually played to the guy's assumption that we fight to "steal oil" by fucking up that cliche

Anthony.Gregory|4.4.08 @ 6:56PM|#

Charlie writes, "You can criticize the paleos all you want, but they do have a point. And you know, for some reason, advocating that there should be restrictions on immigration is somehow less abhorrent to me than advocating dropping bombs on poor brown people in order to secure U.S. hegemony around the world."

Heroic! And indeed, the "paleos" are better, or at least more nuanced, on immigration than they're often given credit for, and surely better on it than many libertarians are on war -- or on immigration, for that matter.

Here's Lew Rockwell on immigration:

http://www.bkmarcus.com/blog/2006/01/lew-rockwell-on-immigration.html

charlie|4.4.08 @ 6:57PM|#

She didn't say "Big Business"...she said the businessman. The "superficial" libertarian around here is you, who cannot even get past the most shallow and wrong-headed criticism of Ayn Rand. You have no concept of deeper meaning or understanding WRT her writing.

Ouch... so I touched a nerve by criticizing your dear messiah? I take it Ayn Rand did not author the chapter "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Go back to reading the Fountainhead.

|4.4.08 @ 6:57PM|#

Anthony - it has already been demonstrated that reason doesn't endorse global hegemony.

I know you're smarter than this. Stop being so "TEAM PALEO" that you get dumb about things.

|4.4.08 @ 6:59PM|#

Ouch... so I touched a nerve by criticizing your dear messiah?

a nerve? I don't have feelings, tiny stuff, and I certainly don't have a Messiah (that is, excepting the person who beats you down with a tire iron...he would be my Savior from your Stupidity).

Regardless, I'm still curious why you're Rand-bashing when I have explicitly informed you that when it comes to foreign affairs, she's on your side.

A curious thing to shoot one's own intellectual allies.

charlie|4.4.08 @ 7:00PM|#

I really have nothing against Rand (or you). It's just that you come across as a petulant ass on the Internet. But I'm sure I do too. So sorry :-).

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 7:03PM|#

Pointing that out is very much different than saying 9/11 was an inside job or fluoridation is a communist plot

Yes, but not as much as you'd think.

Some corporations have been nasty and mean.

The extension of that to, "all corporations are part of some scheme to defraud the economy and start WWIV" is a tad thin though.

oil played a part

No one said it didnt.

But assuming it would be *good* for the economy would be naive. At best we wanted to install a nice government that would promise to sell it on the open market to nice western companies (and not china). And also let us keep some soldiers there to ensure they didnt use their reserves as a economic threat.

It's not like we were gonna *steal* it.

I mean, it's not some big secret conspiracy. Thats what Iraq I was about.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:03PM|#

Me? Team Paleo? What the heck is that even supposed to mean? I'm just a libertarian, and very socially liberal at that. If paleolibertarian means what it once did - hard core, plumbline libertarian - then I'm on that "team."

But come on. It's clear that if you're going to hammer at "the paleos" for being ecumenical on immigration - and yes, I think that's the right word; half the people I've met through Mises, if not more, are for completely abolishing all state immigration controls immediately -- then what about "debating" the war? And the US does indeed aspire to global hegemony. This is just abundantly clear.

I think it's also clear that, overall, the "paleo" crowd is at least as anti-police state as the "cosmo" crowd, if not much more so. When's the last time Reason advocated abolishing police and government courts? Now, don't try to turn this around and say I'm being sectarian or showing off radicalism. I'm just pointing out that, if anyone should be read out of the movement, it's the people endorsing the greatest amount of aggression, which would be the war.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:04PM|#

Rand wasn't good on foreign policy. She favored winning wars once they began. She was an America-First non-interventionist, not very much concerned with the fact that dropping a bomb on people is mass murder.

LevStrauss|4.4.08 @ 7:06PM|#

"Famous Mortimer | April 4, 2008, 6:40pm | #
If the U.S. invaded Iraq to gain some kind of oil advantage, it certainly hasn't even remotely had a positive effect on that initiative.

The "blood for oil" routine simply doesn't add up."

I'll tell you this type of stuff gets to me. Why do people think that the people in power or who profit off of these resources give a damn what people pay at the pump or the effects of the US on the whole? Have you owned stock in Exxon Mobil during Bush's wars? Looks like the oil companies are doing just fine. But as other people stated there are plenty of other industries that have done well by Bush's policies and they have plenty of new job openings for them and their children when they get out. The revolving door is not just applicable to defense.

|4.4.08 @ 7:08PM|#

Abortion, immigration and trade are pretty big and important issues. Good for the Birchers to oppose the Iraq war, but that doesn't mean libertarins should associate with them. There is much more to libertarinism than being anti-war.

|4.4.08 @ 7:09PM|#

if anyone should be read out of the movement, it's the people endorsing the greatest amount of aggression, which would be the war.

A. There's no "movement" here.
B. Stop. You nor anyone else have yet to demonstrate that reason overwhelming endorsed war

When's the last time Reason advocated abolishing police and government courts?

we're not having this debate again. there's a very sound argument to be made a little bit of government is better for reducing violence than none at all...that's all I am saying.

my malfunction is that YOU KNOW THAT and you are showing off how fashionably radical you are. You know that there's an intellectual side to libertarian minarchism and you're ignoring it for partisan reasons.

|4.4.08 @ 7:11PM|#

*libertarians, libertarianism

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:12PM|#

"Abortion, immigration and trade are pretty big and important issues."

Of course they are.

"Good for the Birchers to oppose the Iraq war. . . . "

And the Afghanistan war. And the torture. And the surveillance state. And secret evidence. And the empire. And the war on drugs. And income tax. And the Federal Reserve. And warrantless spying. And the welfare state. And erosions of habeas corpus. And gun control. . . .

"but that doesn't mean libertarins should associate with them. . . . "

Wait, we should only associate with perfect libertarians? That's ridiculous.

"There is much more to libertarinism than being anti-war."

Of course. Being antiwar is necessary, not sufficient, to being a libertarian. But the Birchers are about 85% libertarian, I'd say, whereas a pro-war libertarian is, like, 60% the way there. I'd "associate" with either, learn from either, work with either on common goals. . . I don't see the problem.

j1|4.4.08 @ 7:13PM|#

this article.. so ridiculous. tries to make the john birch society looks weird, while they don't have one non-libertarian position. at least you could say what's wrong with them, but you don't, and it ends up making the author look bad.

|4.4.08 @ 7:13PM|#

The problem is the conspiracy theories, Anthony. It's a deal breaker.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:16PM|#

Ayn Randian wrote:

"Stop. You nor anyone else have yet to demonstrate that reason overwhelming endorsed war. . . ."
What on earth are you talking about? I never claimed Reason did!!

I wrote, "When's the last time Reason advocated abolishing police and government courts? Now, don't try to turn this around and say I'm being sectarian or showing off radicalism. . . . "

AynRandian ignored the latter sentence and wrote, "we're not having this debate again. there's a very sound argument to be made a little bit of government is better for reducing violence than none at all...that's all I am saying. my malfunction is that YOU KNOW THAT and you are showing off how fashionably radical you are. You know that there's an intellectual side to libertarian minarchism and you're ignoring it for partisan reasons. . . . "

Hmmm. As I made completely clear, I am not trying to write off the minarchists (heck, here I am defending the Birchers! It's obvious I'm big tent). What I'm trying to do is defend the Birchers, the Rothbardians, and everyone else who doesn't seem to be welcome here, for whatever petty reasons, and pointing out that if we're going to be open to people who are prowar, why not be open to people who are wrong on far lesser issues? That's all.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:18PM|#

Ayn Randian wrote, "The problem is the conspiracy theories, Anthony. It's a deal breaker."

What, you don't believe terrorists conspired to hijack planes are run them into the World Trade Center? I do. And that is certainly a conspiracy theory.

The problem isn't conspiracy theories. It is that some of them are kooky. Isn't that the problem?

|4.4.08 @ 7:19PM|#

hmmm...do you go to LRC and antiwar.com and defend reason magazine? Because even though it's been debunked that reason is some kind of national greatness-neocon-global hegemonic-bloodthirsty magazine...you called charlie's implication that it was "Heroic!"

|4.4.08 @ 7:22PM|#

Oh yeah I guess I forgot one, the JBS is bunch of nut-jobs who think water fluoridation is a bad idea when everybody knows that it prevents tooth decay in children.

(and since it's Friday...)

I guess it only stands to "reason" that the folks here see nothing wrong with forced medication so long as it's for your own good and the good of the children.

Whatever happened to freedom of choice?

You can pat yourselves on the back all you like about not being on the Ron Paul bandwagon. I hope you are very happy with Obama, Clinton or McCain. May you get everything you deserve - good and hard.

Gene Berkman|4.4.08 @ 7:22PM|#

I have been around JBS members on numerous occasions, and attended JBS meetings. I never joined, they knew I would never join, and they respected me as a Libertarian.

The JBS has never held an official view that Eisenhower was a tool of the Communist conspiracy, but that was the stated view of Robert Welch, founder of the JBS. He even set up a small publishing company separate from the JBS to publish his book "The Politician" about Ike, so that the JBS would not be implicated.

THe JBS has promoted some conspiracy theories, originally about Communist infiltration of the US & other governments - not too different from views put forth by Joe McCarthy and by many in the Goldwater campaign. Later they adopted a conspiracy theory linking rich western capitalists with the Bolsheviks.

The JBS has denounced other conspiracy theories, including any anti-semitic theories, as well as black helicopters etc.

I have seen Ron Paul speak at a JBS council dinner, and made small talk with him afterword. He definitely does not consider himself a Bircher, but referred to them as allies. And they have become more libertarian since Ron Paul's 1988 campaign.

The JBS opposed the Iraq War in 1990, and the current Iraq War, and opposes the War on Drugs. Libertarians tend to differ with Birchers on social issues such as abortion, gay rights and immigration.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:23PM|#

I've linked to Reason in the past. I'm not emphatically anti-Reason or anything. What I agreed with Charlie on is that being wrong on immigration is less bad than being wrong on war. Furthermore, I think promoting the work of vicious immigration restrictionists is less bad than promoting the work of vicious warmongers. Moreover, promoting anti-immigration views is less bad than promoting pro-war views.

And, besides, the "paleo" crowd doesn't actually promote anti-immigration views as much as Reason promotes pro-war views. You don't think this is true?

|4.4.08 @ 7:23PM|#

What, you don't believe terrorists conspired to hijack planes are run them into the World Trade Center? I do. And that is certainly a conspiracy theory.

I shouldn't have to shout this, but YOU'RE NOT THAT STUPID! You know the difference between the connotative definition of a term and the denotative one, and what's pissing me off is that you pretend you don't to score points.

It is that some of them are kooky.

Kooky? NAUSuperHIghWay NAFTA means the end of our Soveriegnty? Shut down the borders? And you just call this lunacy "kooky"?

dude...I never would thought I'd see an anarchist embrace something so statist and closed borders and walls. Yikes.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:25PM|#

And there's Berkman, sounding all reasonable.

Orange Line Special|4.4.08 @ 7:25PM|#

I wasted my time typing out a comment on the Lew Rockwell link, only to find out that comments are restricted to members of their, ahem, circle. Herewith:

1. Rockwell forgot to discuss the fact that MassiveImmigration = political power. And, that means more power for the far-left and the MexicanGovernment. Neither of those are libertarian, yet Rockwell and most other "libertarians" would... give them more PoliticalPower. Apparently Lew and most other "libertarians" can't think things through.

2. The vast majority of Americans will always oppose IllegalImmigration/MassiveImmigration. By encouraging those, "libertarians" encourage a crackdown, leading to support for more government intervention. If I thought they had a brain, I'd think they were making things worse intentionally. If libertarians instead opposed illegal activity, there would be less government intervention, not more. Apparently Lew and most other "libertarians" can't think things through.

3. Perhaps Lew et al could tell us how we could do MassDeportations if we absolutely, positively had to. If "libertarians" try to think that through, they'll see that we've been invaded and settled, something that the Constitution says we should be defended against. Apparently Lew and most other "libertarians" can't think things through.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 7:26PM|#

the "paleo" crowd doesn't actually promote anti-immigration views as much as Reason promotes pro-war views.

Show me the "pro war" views that Reason so actively promotes, please.

Please, really. I've been reading for about 6 years, hanging out here for 4 or so. Dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Except for maybe a few guys on the boards. I think John & TallDave are the most hawkish. But they're the exception rather than the rule.

|4.4.08 @ 7:26PM|#

And, besides, the "paleo" crowd doesn't actually promote anti-immigration views as much as Reason promotes pro-war views. You don't think this is true?

erm...ahh...no, that's not true. At all. LRC embraces assholes like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Samuel Francis...they defend The League of the South. Anti-immigration goes hand-in-hand with racism, and LRC is a pack of racist trash.

|4.4.08 @ 7:27PM|#

Yes, the Birchers being kooks is a problem. From a purely strategic viewpoint, it makes no sense to align/associate with crazy people.

|4.4.08 @ 7:28PM|#

look, you see what you did? you brought out lonewacko! now the whole thread smells of Cheeto's and "Mom's Basement".

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:28PM|#

"I shouldn't have to shout this, but YOU'RE NOT THAT STUPID! You know the difference between the connotative definition of a term and the denotative one, and what's pissing me off is that you pretend you don't to score points."

And I happen to think that "conspiracy theory" is an anti-concept. It begs the question. It is a statist construction of words, such as "public school" or "illegal alien" or "assault weapon" or "assault weapon" or "designer drug." By saying you oppose conspiracy theories, but what you really mean is you oppose bad, idiotic conspiracy theories, you are really saying nothing at all - since we all oppose that which we consider bad and idiotic.

"dude...I never would thought I'd see an anarchist embrace something so statist and closed borders and walls. Yikes."

Yeah, neither did I. And even though I have mixed with the "paleo" crowd for several years now, I have yet to meet a single self-described anarchist for closed borders. I have met some who oppose completely open borders, though. I think they are wrong.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 7:29PM|#

Orange Line Special | April 4, 2008, 7:25pm | #

I wasted my time typing out a comment on the Lew Rockwell link...

... So, you thought you waste more typing one here?

Good move there.

You've definitely got more time than brains. Which tells me you definitely need to get a fucking life already and take a few years break from the internet.

REMINDER = No One Cares What You Say.

Please God, send him a message or something. A Flaming Taco. A Mexican Girlfriend. A vicious asskicking. By Native Americans.

Anything.

Amen

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 7:31PM|#

Kevin Houston | April 4, 2008, 7:22pm | #

I guess it only stands to "reason"

Fuck, now I have to head back to the fridge.

DRINK WHILE IM GONE

|4.4.08 @ 7:31PM|#

I can do the drinking game thing one better:

For a magazine that calls itself Reason and thinks it's libertarian, it has gone downhill bigtime since Virginia Postrel AND Nick Gillespie used to edit it -- so much so, that I'm cancelling my subscription to this so-called libertarian, reason-based magazine.

Everybody take 7 drinks now!

Or does it count if the violations are intentional?

|4.4.08 @ 7:32PM|#

So Mike Gravel joining the LP baaad.

Right wing hate group John Birch Society good?

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:32PM|#

Ayn Randian writes, "erm...ahh...no, that's not true. At all. LRC embraces assholes like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Samuel Francis...they defend The League of the South. Anti-immigration goes hand-in-hand with racism, and LRC is a pack of racist trash."

Nice. Nice reasoning there. Let's see. Can you dig up a single article on LRC by Sam Francis?

This is not a very good argument you have. Reason has published articles defending various wars. There is very little stuff on LRC actually defending more state control of the borders or opposing immigration. There might be some, but the Hoppean argument is more nuanced than that. There are also numerous LRC articles taking the anti-borders position.

As for racism, LRC upholds the rights of all humans everywhere, including the right not to be bombed by the US government.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 7:32PM|#

You can pat yourselves on the back all you like about not being on the Ron Paul bandwagon

Dude, as i mentioned yesterday, about 30-40% of the people who read this magazine ARE on the "RP bandwagon"

We're just not drooling sycophantic dicks

|4.4.08 @ 7:33PM|#

And I happen to think that "conspiracy theory" is an anti-concept.

GILMORE, I'm doing this for you. Hope you got two of 'em:

THIS is why libertarians are so marginalized. We think that connotative definitions are so beneath us that we can't talk to the guy on the street.

And I know that Rand was a very guilty individual in all this. (see: "selfish")

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:34PM|#

"So Mike Gravel joining the LP baaad.

"Right wing hate group John Birch Society good?"

Who holds both these positions? Not the LRC crowd. The most critical comment about Gravel was by me. I don't think he should be the LP candidate. I also wouldn't want a protectionist Bircher to be the LP candidate. And Lew Rockwell said it was good that Gravel joined the LP.

Ayn Randian|4.4.08 @ 7:35PM|#

Ayn Randian writes, "THIS is why libertarians are so marginalized. We think that connotative definitions are so beneath us that we can't talk to the guy on the street."

Or maybe, when we're talking to each other on a libertarian blog, we don't talk the same way we do when we talk to someone on the street? You ever think of that? Libertarians should know better than to oppose all "conspiracy theories."

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:36PM|#

Whoops! That last comment was written by me, not Ayn Randian! sorry.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 7:36PM|#

ANTHONY GREGORY =

"Good for the Birchers to oppose the Iraq war. . . . "

And the Afghanistan war.

Quick question?

Why?

I wanted to fucking bomb the Taliban over the Buddha thing and shooting women in the head for teaching literacy to other women.

Much less fucking with downtown.

So, what was the principled position against attacking Afghanistan again?

|4.4.08 @ 7:36PM|#

in re: Sam Francis...no, he's not on there. Guess I got confused as I watched Paul Gottfried practically fall all over himself to give a handjob to that racist asshole.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 7:37PM|#

Libertarians should know better than to oppose all "conspiracy theories."

Of course.

Just the really dumb ones.

Are there some good ones you know? I know some about the MTA raping my city blind for cash while letting infrastructure rot. Also, I was in the mob for a while. We had a whole bunch of em running.

|4.4.08 @ 7:38PM|#

Libertarians should know better than to oppose all "conspiracy theories."

not if you use Occam's Razor.

|4.4.08 @ 7:40PM|#

Anthony, those newsletters were racist trash.

|4.4.08 @ 7:41PM|#

Lonewacko/Click N Learn/Orange Line Special/Chris Kelly-

Do us all a favor and fuck off.

You're not Edward R. Murrow. You're not even Matt Drudge. You're a fourth-rate high school newspaper editor.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 7:41PM|#

I'm getting a headache.

Stop with the Paleo-Reasonoid /Sharks-Jets thing. Talk about a fucking single issue. And type slower. I've got one hand busy with the beer stein and cant rebut the "pro war" thing until someone cites examples of the Reason LETS BLOW UP THE WORLD endorsements.

|4.4.08 @ 7:42PM|#

P.S. the page ranking for your site in terms of traffic is absolutely laughable. Blogs about sheep herding probably get more page hits than yours does, and they don't even have to be self-linking attention whores.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 7:43PM|#

Cesar | April 4, 2008, 7:41pm | #

Lonewacko/Click N Learn/Orange Line Special/Chris Kelly-

You're a fourth-rate high school newspaper editor.

You're giving the guy WAY too much credit. Remember his spelling thing? Any decent HS editor would nip that shit in the bud posthaste.

|4.4.08 @ 7:44PM|#

Ayn_Randian: I take people who are 85% libertarian, but a bit nuts about a few subjects, than people who, by majority consensus, allegedly are completely sane while thinking a really huge government is a good thing.

I mean, that last part is just nuts.

|4.4.08 @ 7:45PM|#

No no no Gilmore. Chris Kelly is a REAL, HARD HITTING JOURNALIST who, uh, asks OTHER people to ask the "hard" questions.

Yeah. Thats it.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 7:50PM|#

prolefeed | April 4, 2008, 7:31pm | #

Everybody take 7 drinks now!

Or does it count if the violations are intentional?

Well. Yes...

but i've got to do something about this headache anyway.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 7:53PM|#

What happened to that Anthony Gregory guy?

Seriously, I want to know why fucking up the Taliban & Al Q in Af'stan was a really *uncool* idea. Havent heard anything good there yet. I'm open!

Also, where are the citings of "Pro Iraq War" Reason feature-stories? COME ON ALREADY!!

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:55PM|#

"So, what was the principled position against attacking Afghanistan again?"

It is mass murder to bomb children, period. If you drop a bomb, and it predictably kills innocent people, you are a murderer, period. Yes, the Afghanistan government was aggressive (and the US was funding their drug war, by the way), but just because you happen to live under a government that violates rights (as all do), even one that is particularly evil, doesn't mean it is acceptable for people to kill you. Let's say the US drops a nuclear bomb and murders a million people -- does this mean it's okay for foreigners to murder us? No. The same moral standard is universal.

Besides, the Afghanistan war was a practical failure. They didn't catch Osama, and instead took hundreds of poor souls to shove into a dungeon in Guantanamo. You're proud of that war? I think it's been an atrocity.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 7:55PM|#

I meant "well, no" above, re: drinking rules. I think you got the idea though.

They should implement the ability to edit posts a *little*. I hate my constant typos. I like to be remembered for posterity as a good speller, at the very least.

|4.4.08 @ 7:56PM|#

Wow, these Ron Paul posts don't bring out the nut jobs like they used to, do they.

I guess elections do that--nutin's more fun than a nutty true believer.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 7:57PM|#

Gilmore, you ask for evidence of prowar material all the while defending the mass slaughter of innocent people in Afhganistan? You can't be serious.

The Afghanistan war was unlibertarian. And it was just a debacle I am curious why anyone would continue to defend it.

|4.4.08 @ 7:58PM|#

Ok Anthony, thats less non-interventionism and more pacifism. Unless we agree to fight wars with muskets and pikes again, there will be innocent people killed in any war.

|4.4.08 @ 7:59PM|#

Not that theres anything wrong with pacifism if thats what you believe (its a hell of a lot better than jingoistic militarism) just call it what it is.

|4.4.08 @ 7:59PM|#

oh good, Anthony. So that means I can take a tank, strap some kids to it, and take over your house and kill you? And you won't shoot back 'cause you "can't murder the innocents"?

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:00PM|#

Cesar writes, "Ok Anthony, thats less non-interventionism and more pacifism . . ."

No, pacifism is the opposition to all violence. I am fine with self-defense, and even retaliation and forced restitution. But if you attack me in my home, I am not allowed to just blow up your neighborhood. I am not allowed to kill innocent people or steal from others to pay for my vengeance. I am okay with self-defense, but "collateral damage" is not defense, it is aggression.

"Unless we agree to fight wars with muskets and pikes again, there will be innocent people killed in any war."

Well then, I guess we libertarians should oppose all war then. I don't see what the problem is.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:02PM|#

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:55pm | #

"So, what was the principled position against attacking Afghanistan again?"

It is mass murder to bomb children,

Ah.

So, like good christians we're supposed to do nothing when religious fanatics blow up the biggest (albeit ugly) building in your hometown? Turn the other cheek, as it were?

just because you happen to live under a government that violates rights (as all do), even one that is particularly evil, doesn't mean it is acceptable for people to kill you

Thats a wonderful sentiment, but I have a subject that may interest you called "history" that provides some insight that this particular theoretical position is essentially untenable in organzed society.

I mean, how exactly does this work out when you're the one government that practices this form of reasoning?

One answer = New Canada? New 'Anyone Thats Ever Had An Issue With US'?

Seriously. I dont see how this particular moral equation works in the real world. Explain to me what we should have done as opposed to wipe the morons off the face of the earth. (*morons = Taliban, Al Q)


Besides, the Afghanistan war was a practical failure.

Well, you probably mean a 'strategic' failure. On the practical/pragmatic/tactical side, it wasnt too bad.

I'm not excusing some awful things that played out, but by and large - cost benefit not so bad. We'd be happier here with Osama's head on a stick though. Great Tourism generator.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:05PM|#

"oh good, Anthony. So that means I can take a tank, strap some kids to it, and take over your house and kill you? And you won't shoot back 'cause you "can't murder the innocents"?"

I love how every argument about libertarianism and war eventually comes to this, where the defender of war essentially argues, "Ahah! Your principles sound good in theory. But in the real world we'll be conquered by tanks with babies strapped to them!"

Come on. Strapping babies to tanks is aggression. Would this happen just because our people avoiding war because it's unlibertarian? Probably not. Why? Even a moron would realize that threatening someone's life might lead him to violate libertarian principle to defend himself, out of desperation. So there's a deterrent.

If someone pointed a gun to your head and forced you to kill a baby, would you do it? Whether or not you'd do it, we know it's not libertarian. And whether or not it's libertarian, we thankfully don't have to worry much about civilization collapsing under people forcing others to murder babies.

|4.4.08 @ 8:05PM|#

Well then, I guess we libertarians should oppose all war then. I don't see what the problem is.

We should certainly work to make it much less likely and not enter into it lightly given that modern war (especially its total form) is a very horrible ordeal.

But, what would you do if say, I don't know, Brazil carpet bombed New York? How would you respond if you were President?

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:06PM|#

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 7:57pm | #

Gilmore, you ask for evidence of prowar material all the while defending the mass slaughter of innocent people in Afhganistan? You can't be serious.

Well *yeah*. I might not be Joe Peacenik, but the magazine hasnt written any editorial screeds screaming for wiping out The Children last time I saw. I was looking for *links* bro.

The Afghanistan war was unlibertarian

Specifically, by your argument, ALL WAR is unlibertarian.

My previous comment provides the point that War is sometimes necessary, and has never in any point in history been logically reduced to 'homeland defense' only.

My question was = what was the logical response to 9/11?

Put anti-aircraft batteries on every skyscraper and recruit a bunch of minimum wagers to man the barricades?

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:08PM|#

"So, like good christians we're supposed to do nothing when religious fanatics blow up the biggest (albeit ugly) building in your hometown? Turn the other cheek, as it were?"

What's this "we" stuff? The innocent Americans killed on 9/11 were also victims of their own government, which disarmed them to the advantage of the terrorists. And you think that same government -- the greatest enemy of Ameircans' liberty -- is going to protect them abroad? Come now.

"Explain to me what we should have done as opposed to wipe the morons off the face of the earth."

A larger bounty and more forces aimed at Osama. Pinpointing Osama, shortly after 9/11, instead of waiting a month and then contracting the job out to the Northern Alliance, would have perhaps worked better. Also, the Taliban offered Osama up if the US presented evidence. It never did. The US should have used diplomacy, law enforcement, and very narrowly targeted force. Maybe they would have actually captured Osama. Even if not, we'd be no worse off than we are today, but there'd be hundreds of thousands of foreigners still alive.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:09PM|#

Anthony Gregory | April 4, 2008, 8:00pm | #

No, pacifism is the opposition to all violence. I am fine with self-defense, and even retaliation

Right. And i'm not asking you to justify ALL war. Just the one with the T'ban and Osama.

What do you do when the plane full of Jihadis hits *your* brothers office building?

I'm serious. Not asking for moral position. If you're OK with some form of "retaliation", whats the right thing to do, practically and strategically? You never really got around to that.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:09PM|#

"Specifically, by your argument, ALL WAR is unlibertarian."

Yes, all government war is unlibertarian! That is indeed the truth.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:10PM|#

he innocent Americans killed on 9/11 were also victims of their own government

hold on.

Pacifist.

But the people in the WTC should have been strapping surface to air missles at their desks and kept their eyes out the windows all day?

You're losing me buddy.

|4.4.08 @ 8:10PM|#

Gilmore

In all fairness, not all war is un-libertarian according to his definition. Just MODERN war. If we still fought war according to 18th Century Napoleonic rules where small professional armies engaged in pitch battles in an open field somewhere in the country, and where civilians were left totally untouched he probably wouldn't have a problem with that.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:12PM|#

Yes, all government war is unlibertarian! That is indeed the truth.

Hmm.

So... we should have organized local committees, and paid for commercial flights to Afghanistan, THEN killed the shit out of them? AFTER asking them if there were any children nearby?

This pacifism thing confuses me. Or, where was the last Libertarian (trademark) war that was all cool and stuff?

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:12PM|#

"But, what would you do if say, I don't know, Brazil carpet bombed New York? How would you respond if you were President?"

Well, I wouldn't carpet bomb Brazil in retaliation. But I think this is a pretty silly question. How the hell is Brazil going to carpet bomb New York?

I'd also like to point out that the US has nearly had a monopoly on carpetbombing since WWII. So here's a question for you all: Let's say the US government waged an aggressive war. (I know, it's hard to imagine.) Would foreigners be justified in blowing up our skyscrapers? My version of libertarianism says no. I'm not so clear about yours. Remember, even under the collectivist notion of nations rather than individuals conducting war, the US has been mainly an aggressor abroad for a long time.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:13PM|#

"So... we should have organized local committees, and paid for commercial flights to Afghanistan, THEN killed the shit out of them? AFTER asking them if there were any children nearby?

"This pacifism thing confuses me. Or, where was the last Libertarian (trademark) war that was all cool and stuff?"

I'm not a pacifist. I'm a libertarian. All war is evil. It don't understand why libertarians, of all people, would shy away from this position. If it is wrong for me to levy a tax on your cigarettes, then surely it is wrong for me to drop a bomb on a city where you happen to live.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:13PM|#

...a small professional armies engaged in pitch battles in an open field somewhere in the country, and where civilians were left totally untouched he probably wouldn't have a problem with that

Oh. Like the 30 Years war?

No wait.

I think Napoleon et al did their share of raping and looting too.

I need a better example.

|4.4.08 @ 8:13PM|#

Anthony, its just a hypothetical. Just bear with me and answer the question.

In modern warfare, a countries very capacity to wage war (i.e., its industrial infrastructure) is targeted. If we were at war and a country decided to target our infrastructure (and therefore kill some civilians in the process) and we didn't respond in kind, our ability to wage war would be totally crippled and we'd lose within a year.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:14PM|#

All war is evil.

Now i'm confounded.

I thought Libertarians were athiests.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:15PM|#

Cesar, what would it even mean for a libertarian society to "lose" a war? Would our government be conquered? Would we be conquered? What are you so afraid of actually happening?

|4.4.08 @ 8:15PM|#

GILMORE--

Actually I meant to say PRE Napoleonic warfare. The French Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were the genesis of mass warfare, though still extremely tame compared to World War I or even the Civil War.

So, the last war that would be OK by Gilmore would be the Seven Years War. The impact on civillians was pretty small compared to modern war. They "only" had to worry about disease carried by the soldiers and their property being temporarily comaderred.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:16PM|#

"Now i'm confounded.

"I thought Libertarians were athiests."

You might get that impression reading Reason, but not all libertarians are atheists.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:16PM|#

How the hell is Brazil going to carpet bomb New York?

Good point.

How about the French?

|4.4.08 @ 8:17PM|#

Anthony-

If the agressor was Canada, probably not. If it was Communist China, yes I'd be scared shitless.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:17PM|#

Is welfare unlibertarian? The only necessarily unlibertarian thing about it is it is funded through taxation. So is war. So war, even if no one is killed, is at least as unlibertarian as welfare.

Yes, I know, self defense is legitimate. So is giving money to charity. But government has no right to be engaged in either.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:17PM|#

Cesar | April 4, 2008, 8:15pm | #

GILMORE--

Actually I meant to say PRE Napoleonic warfare

Well, the Assyrians salted the earth....

I'm still trying to think of a war where civilians werent part of it.

|4.4.08 @ 8:17PM|#

Also, purely on a practical level I'd like to destroy their industrial base before they do the same to us so I don't end up starving.

|4.4.08 @ 8:18PM|#

Strapping babies to tanks is aggression.

So was 9/11.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:18PM|#

Cesar, Communist China could not make America communist without changing our public ideology. Actually, if we were "ruled" by China, the masses here would probably put up with less tyranny than they do.

Having a central government only makes it more likely you'll be conquered, because there is something to conquer. Imagine if we didn't have a central state. They'd have to conquer each neighborhood. Wouldn't be worth it.

The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.08 @ 8:19PM|#

But in the real world we'll be conquered by tanks with babies strapped to them!

Amen, brother, and what a sad commentary on the modern world.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:19PM|#

Yes, 9/11 was aggression - despite everything our government has done to commit aggression in the Middle East.

Similarly, the Afghanistan war and Iraq war were aggression - despite 9/11.

See how that works? Only individuals have rights.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:19PM|#

so, getting nowhere, let's ask a simple yes-no question =

Anthony, can a REAL libertarian be in the military?

(*planning to forward response to DONDEROOO and start World War V = Paleos vs. the "Ultimate Libertarian Warlord")

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:21PM|#

Imagine if we didn't have a central state.

I thought that was Anarchism?

Dude, what the fuck is "limited government, individual rights" called anyway?

The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.08 @ 8:22PM|#

where was the last Libertarian (trademark) war that was all cool and stuff?

Why the Revolution, of course.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:22PM|#

Gilmore, I don't think libertarians should be in the military, no. And I think people who quit the military for moral reasons are heroes. If someone signed up in good faith, and doesn't want to "desert" - because, outrageously, soldiers can't quit their job, which is another unlibertarian aspect of the military - out of fear of penalty, I can understand that.

There is certainly a range of behavior one can have in the military. Some military men don't violate anyone's rights. Some people help people. But it is unlibertarian to engage in aggression, even if ordered to.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 8:23PM|#

"Dude, what the fuck is "limited government, individual rights" called anyway?"

Confusion, that's what. But of course, many if not most libertarians are somewhat confused, imo, and I'm very big tent.

The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.08 @ 8:23PM|#

Dude, what the fuck is "limited government, individual rights" called anyway?

Minarchism, of course.

|4.4.08 @ 8:24PM|#

In the Revolution things got pretty nasty in the back country, complete with civilian butchery done by both sides.

The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.08 @ 8:26PM|#

soldiers can't quit their job

The contract seems to be a problem. Although, my granddad quit and nothing much came of it. Anderson's dad quit and when they came looking for him he told them he was done, the war was over, and he wasn't flying any more bombing runs for the Army Air Corps. That worked out, too. Course that was a while back.

|4.4.08 @ 8:27PM|#

But of course, many if not most libertarians are somewhat confused, imo, and I'm very big tent.

How can you be big tent? We can never have a meaningful policy discussion on what government should and should not do if you can't get past the "Government is Illegitimate!" thing.

Seriously. It's a disagreement about basic principles.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:28PM|#

So, in essence, unless there is an idealized Libertarian state, and ALL other nations practice by the same basic code, "Libertarian" basically means, "bent over and ready to get royally assfucked by anyone with a taste for purple mountains majesty and amber waves of grain"

I think i might get it now.

Like how we massacred the Indians in Westward expansion. We were libertarians then, and so were they.

Only, we were far better armed.

This reminds me of a famous quote

Someone says, "Libertarian", and then...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

|4.4.08 @ 8:28PM|#

because, outrageously, soldiers can't quit their job, which is another unlibertarian aspect of the military

What's unlibertarian about signing a contract and being held to it?

we can quit if we want. we just have to face the consequences, and said consequences happen to be much more severe than quitting a civilian job.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:31PM|#

I admit it. I like shooting jihadis. Not their kids though. Until they grow up and go the flight school. Then we shoot them too.

can I please keep the little "l" though?

Pleeeeeeeeeseee?

|4.4.08 @ 8:34PM|#

all the while defending the mass slaughter of innocent people in Afhganistan?

Argghhh. Come on, be fair.

The contract seems to be a problem.

Yup. My version of libertarianism says you can sign your life away if you want to.

highnumber|4.4.08 @ 8:43PM|#

Associations with JBS, LRC intolerant assholes, all this is why I no longer call myself a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist.

Do I get to pour myself a drink for that? I never subscribed, and I'm not blaming reason, and I'm not exactly saying that this is why libertarianism will never go anywhere...but somewhere in there, I feel I earned a round.

The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.08 @ 8:49PM|#

I admit it. I like shooting jihadis. Not their kids though.

Ahhh, come on, it isn't that hard, you just don't lead them as much.

The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.08 @ 8:52PM|#

My version of libertarianism says you can sign your life away if you want to.

Uhh, it's a voluntary commitment, there's no draft (yet). It's a fixed contract for a certain number of years or until death do you part. If you don't like the terms you don't sign up.

Hell, they don't even lie to you anymore. Closest my grandfather ever got to becoming an Army doctor was driving an ambulance. Those days are long gone.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:52PM|#

highnumber | April 4, 2008, 8:43pm | #

Associations with JBS, LRC intolerant assholes, all this is why I no longer call myself a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist.

Do I get to pour myself a drink for that? I never subscribed, and I'm not blaming reason, and I'm not exactly saying that this is why libertarianism will never go anywhere...but somewhere in there, I feel I earned a round.

As self-nominated chairperson of the current social committee, I second the motion.

DRINK ALL OF YOU SOMETHING OTHER THAN REAL LIBERTARIAN NAMELESS BASTARDS

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 8:53PM|#

The Wine Commonsewer | April 4, 2008, 8:49pm | #

... you just don't lead them as much.

Nice quote. Now tip that wineglass, mike.

|4.4.08 @ 8:54PM|#

OK. GILMORE, Randian, TWC, (Cesar, I'd include you, but I'm suspicious of your spelling): What's the score? Who needs scourging? I'm on vaca out in Vail and I've been in the hottub for the last hour or so, and being an uncountable number of manhattans into the evening, I don't have the strength to read all the posts. So who needs a good reaming?

The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.08 @ 8:54PM|#

Sorry, Art, I misread what you said. It's these got dam glasses. I swear to God I am so sick of these glasses.

I used to be able to dam near strike a stick match with a .22 now I can't hit the garage door with a basketball.

I have nearly overcome my abject fear of Lasik. I'm going to do the deed soon.

|4.4.08 @ 8:55PM|#

Uhh, it's a voluntary commitment, there's no draft (yet). It's a fixed contract for a certain number of years or until death do you part. If you don't like the terms you don't sign up.

Hell, they don't even lie to you anymore.

Dude, I know. I'm in the army. That's just my smart-ass way of saying I sometimes regret it.

The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.08 @ 8:55PM|#

Thanks, Mr Gilmore, it's almost wine thirty.

|4.4.08 @ 8:55PM|#

I mean the enemies, of course. Damn you bourbon, you bitch whore!

The Wine Commonsewer|4.4.08 @ 8:57PM|#

I'm on vaca out in Vail and I've been in the hottub for the last hour or so, and being an uncountable number of manhattans into the evening

I'm on vaca from the last tax return I printed out while I was misreading posts. OTOH, Mrs TWC is hanging out at some fancy hotel in Old Town Charleston with some pretty cool people.

Color me jealous on both counts.

|4.4.08 @ 8:59PM|#

OK, TWC, disregard that last part.
I guess I should say that anybody with good sense is anti-war in that they think we should be judicious in how we deploy our forces (war should, after all, be a last resort).
Conversely, I pretty much ignore any anti-war person as soon as they tell me we shouldn't have fought WWII.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 9:00PM|#

The Wine Commonsewer | April 4, 2008, 8:26pm | #

"soldiers can't quit their job"

The contract seems to be a problem...

My dad resigned his commission during 'Nam by getting really drunk and writing a REALLY obscene letter to Westmoreland and forwarding copies to all his colleagues in the Pentagon (he was a staff officer), and offering to send a copy of his recent report on operational status after his trip there to every newspaper in America.

I didnt learn this until i was 22 and he got really drunk and sentimental and showed me a copy. Im the only one who's seen it. It's pretty funny. Or sad. Or scary. Family Heirloom!

Really though, I'm a pacifist too. Until people say nasty things about me, the Irish, New York, girls I'm dating, or books I like.

I also quit the military FWIW. Not really intentionally. I was smoking a lot of weed. They said they werent going to keep paying for college. I shrugged and got some loans and an acedemic scholarship. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

|4.4.08 @ 9:00PM|#

Charleston is a tres cool city, TWC. The skiing, however, is marginal...

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 9:01PM|#

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 8:54pm | #

... I'm on vaca out in Vail

...sigh.

Goddamn cosmotarians.

|4.4.08 @ 9:03PM|#

Citizen Nothing - you are in Vail, so a scourging for you may be in order :-D

I don't think anybody needs a beatdown anymore, at least until Beckster shows up. He's perpetually in need of an ass-whooping.

I tip my bitters-loving glass to ya for asking though.

|4.4.08 @ 9:04PM|#

GILMORE, if I were an atheist, your dad would now be my god. In any case, he sounds like a cool dude.

Kolohe|4.4.08 @ 9:07PM|#

Random thoughts on the above:

My belief is that you can be libertarian and still believe in the nation-state, and that a proper function of the nation state is to wage war when necessary.

Contracts are written in a legal and ethical framework that limits their scope. Labor contracts even more so. However, in most cases, neither side can, nor should be able to, unilaterally terminate a contract without just cause, regardless if the labor contract is for hitting 90 mph fastballs, flipping burgers, or killing people in the desert. Believe it or not, enlistment contracts protect the soldiers/sailors' interests as much as the govt's, stop-loss notwithstanding.


The Mil-Ind complex is more or less real, but the absolute last thing they want is actual war. Threat of war is great for business. But actual war requires delivering actual products that get actually tested in acutal conditions. What's better: a) supplying bright and shiny equipment that's never used, so you can convince your customer without proof that it's obsolete, so you need the latest model. b) Military and Congression inquiries on why your shit that you dumped on them sucks when taken into an actual battle.

|4.4.08 @ 9:08PM|#

My dad quit the Air Force back in the '70s, too. Me, I'm more than halfway through with my contract. With luck, I'll finish it up and never look back.

|4.4.08 @ 9:09PM|#

I'm an officer...I got a hike to go to pay off that whopping 2-year scholarship, though.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 9:09PM|#

Citizen Nothing | April 4, 2008, 9:04pm | #

GILMORE, if I were an atheist, your dad would now be my god. In any case, he sounds like a cool dude.

Not being an Athiest, he may in fact be some kind of new kind of apostle

example =

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=83

he was lead lawyer for the side that won the right for "freedom of religious speech", basically.

They lost some of the ruling 2 years later when they came up with the "lemon test"

Very catholic dude, and really, not a very nice guy when it comes down to it. Mean sonofabitch. But he did rub off a bit of fondness for books and military history before he split the fam.

Kolohe|4.4.08 @ 9:10PM|#

another one:

war has always sucked. Those lands between the Tigris and Euphrates have been hacked over for goin on 10K years now. And it's always sucked for pretty much everyone, soldiers and civilians alike. Yes, it sometimes works out for the victorious solider. But eventually, he loses, either individually, or in aggregate (i.e. we don't hear much from the Hittites anymore)

LevStrauss|4.4.08 @ 9:11PM|#

Ron's got books to sell. He's going to make money off of this. But as a Presidential candidate he is just going through the motions and thanking his supporters, they paid for it. Lew is Lew. For people who are supposed to be fine about living in a state of nature some can't handle the fact that we have no sacred cows, Ron is mostly forgiven because of his congressional record moreso than anything. His record is objective and many of the decisions are catalogued. Ron isn't the leader of any movement anymore. Let him earn his money, he deserves it. Other supporters have to not support a guy that isn't running but to work for the future, to work for congressional candidates and a potential presidential candidate. The petty bickering between the Rockwellians and Reason, the writers themselves, illustrate that there are less individuals and more people looking for a media organization to get behind. They are just websites and media materials, each have decent products, some good, some bad, and some annoying, but they are not elected officials. I said somewhere else this is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict because both are irrational and petty at times and its always the other guy's fault. That should be taken into account when they write anything, motive is a question the reader should answer when reading anything.

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 9:13PM|#

Art-P.O.G. | April 4, 2008, 9:08pm | #

Me, I'm more than halfway through with my contract....

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 9:09pm | #

I'm an officer...


Fuck, maybe Reason *is* really chock-a-block with 'Warmongers'.

Kidding.

|4.4.08 @ 9:14PM|#

Thanks for sharing, GILMORE. Really.
Here's to you (raising manhattan #5 of the evening.)

|4.4.08 @ 9:16PM|#

I'm about to take off to a piano bar. and this thread means that the first drink I'll order will be a Manhattan.

thanks all!

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 9:19PM|#

Ayn_Randian | April 4, 2008, 9:16pm | #

I'm about to take off to a piano bar...

Fag.

Kidding again.

Ask the player to rock "Misty". Or, "Mercy, Mercy, Mercy". Never heard a cocktail lounge player do that one. Good tune.

Night all. I'm also out to shoot pool and start fights. :)

|4.4.08 @ 9:21PM|#

Good night ye all.

|4.4.08 @ 9:25PM|#

What's un-libertarian about signing a contract and being held to it?

The government does not sue you for breach of contract, like any civilized person would do - it just sends you to the slammer on "desertion" charges, which is a way of saying that you are a kind of runaway slave for them.

|4.4.08 @ 9:28PM|#

[...] LRC intolerant assholes, all this is why I no longer call myself a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist.

Yep. LRC, intolerant towards war, the state, Leviatan meddling in our economic affairs... Who are they to question the wisdom of our masters? Them bastards.

|4.4.08 @ 9:29PM|#

Yeah. Me, too. Tonight I'm looking for Aussies in Vail village to shoot eight-ball and crack some skulls with pool cues with. Wish me well...

SIV|4.4.08 @ 9:33PM|#

I am often criticized for frequently pointing out that libertarianism is an extreme right wing ideology. Look at the "News":

Ron Paul endorses John Birch Society.

Former Congressman Bob Barr likely to announce candidacy for Libertarian Party nomination on Saturday- should become instant frontrunner.

Brandybuck|4.4.08 @ 9:35PM|#

What, you don't believe terrorists conspired to hijack planes are run them into the World Trade Center? I do. And that is certainly a conspiracy theory.

That is not a conspiracy theory, that is a fact of a conspiracy. The two are world's apart philosophically. A conspiracy theory is a belief that an event did not happen by accident, is not what it seems, and that the truth of this is being concealed from us by authorities. The Conspiracy Theory of History expands on this by asserting that this same secret authority has dominated major events throughout history.

The John Birch Society not only believes in the Conspiracy Theory of History, they formulated it! They started with the theory that Communists were the secret insiders directing all of current events. But then they broadened this to a more nebulous Insider conspiracy that has been directing all major historical events since before the Amercian Revolution.

Conspiracy theorists love to argue that their pet theory (Bigfoot killed Kennedy, Cheney is an alien doppleganger, the NAU is real, etc) is plausible because other conspiracies were shown to be true in the past. Surely, they argue, the Watergate Coverup demonstrates the plausibility of their crackpottery!

|4.4.08 @ 9:36PM|#

The government does not sue you for breach of contract

that's part of the contract too...I signed it and acknowledged that part of it.

Again, how is that unlibertarian?

Yep. LRC, intolerant towards...

mexicans, gays, "fleet-footed, welfare-loving blacks who deserve cop-administered 'street justice'"...

|4.4.08 @ 9:37PM|#

Reason is making a bad business move being so antagonizing to Paul and his voters.

It might get a few extra page views now, but once Paul's campaign comes to an official close, people like me, who are neither JBS paleocons nor beltway Libertarians will not have much use for Reason.

And that's sad, because I was a daily reader before the unnecessary hating on Paul started coming from the quarters.

|4.4.08 @ 9:40PM|#

another canceled subscription!

GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 9:41PM|#

They lost some of the ruling 2 years later when they came up with the "lemon test"

Correction for posterity (and so I can go shoot pool now!)..

The lemon test was like 10yrs old at the time. It was a follow-up case (Lynch-Donnelly?) where there was some kind of 'equivalency' test applied to religious speech in public space.

Fuck, I dont know all the details. I just didnt want someone to fucking correct me ex post facto.

Wish me well. My game is pretty hot when i've got a few beers in me already.

Oh, and p.s.

Who's Ron Paul?

SIV|4.4.08 @ 9:43PM|#

Real libertarians stopped reading REASON when Virginia Postrel left.

|4.4.08 @ 9:52PM|#

"another canceled subscription!"

Nope, never a subscriber. Always more of a library browser and online bookmarker as far as political magazines went.

boston|4.4.08 @ 9:55PM|#

my favorite part of the whole cosmo/paleo thing was when they said Brian Doherty was going to be fired. Though Doherty hasnt been heard from since saint patty's so maybe they were on to something

|4.4.08 @ 10:00PM|#

Yeah, you guys are makin' a nice effort, but this still isn't anything like when they thought Paul was still in the hunt, y'all remember? Just before New Hampshire? They were all spittin' fire...

...Now those were some crazy peckerwoods!

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 10:13PM|#

"What's unlibertarian about signing a contract and being held to it?"

Liberty is an unalienable right. Indentured servitude was banned by the 13th amendment. This should apply to the military. No other boss can kill you for quitting, contract or no.

Filmer|4.4.08 @ 10:17PM|#

"The John Birch Society opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the belief that it was in violation of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped the rights of individual states to make laws regarding Civil Rights."

The Civil Rights Act WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What Article and section authorized it? Barry Goldwater believed the same thing.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 10:24PM|#

" Believe it or not, enlistment contracts protect the soldiers/sailors' interests as much as the govt's, stop-loss notwithstanding."

I don't believe it.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 10:27PM|#

Yeah, so now libertarians are defending the Civil Rights Act? What's next? The War on Drugs? The New Deal? Conscription?

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 10:35PM|#

Ayn Randian writes, "How can you be big tent? We can never have a meaningful policy discussion on what government should and should not do if you can't get past the 'Government is Illegitimate!' thing."

I can get past that. That's why I'm able to see value in the ideas of, say, the John Birch Society, or Jeremiah Wright, or Noam Chomsky, or Pat Buchanan, even though they're all not libertarians.

"Seriously. It's a disagreement about basic principles."

Yes, I agree. We disagree on some basic principles. And I'm sure I disagree with JBS on some basic principles. But on the overarching principle of liberty vs. power, they are, more often than not, on the right side. So are all my favorite Reason writers. So are plenty of people. So of course I'm for a big tent. I'm the one who jumped in here arguing for inclusiveness. Conspiracy theorizing is a deal breaker? Hah. I agree many such theories are wacko, but surely they are less offensive than supporting indentured military servitude and war, and I'm still willing to work with, learn from, and associate with people I consider grievously wrong on those issues.

alan|4.4.08 @ 10:43PM|#

Speaking pappy war stories, my dad was in the army in the early 60's and was sent to spots in Central America to put out some brush fires created by some of Fidel's brethren.

In one incident (I can only go on his veracity), his unit was dropped in the wrong location near Panama City.

Pissed off about the fuck up, they decided to severe communications and walk to Panama City where they found some carpet joints where they spent a few days gambling and drinking before they reported back.

I can only imagine the scramble the Pentagon must have been in when it seemed a squad (dad said around thirty guys) had disappeared.

|4.4.08 @ 10:50PM|#

My two cents are that at least since 9/11 the JBS has been more right than wrong.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 10:53PM|#

Now, Alan, that sounds like a worthwhile mission! At least they spent their time putting their tax-funded wages back into a civilian economy.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 10:55PM|#

Yes, Jack, and of course they're terribly wrong sometimes. They fired the heroic Will Grigg, as the most conspicuous example. They are conservatives, after all.

But they publish great, principled libertarian writing, such as by Wilt Alston:

http://www.jbs.org/node/7223

Ali|4.4.08 @ 11:11PM|#

What, reason stopped posting weekend threads?

That's it, I am stopping my subscription!

With that out of the way, regarding the above, as long as the "contract" is not indefinite, I do not see military contracts as giving up the unalienable of liberty. The contracted person has to just face the consequences of the contract. I side with Art and Ayn Randian.

Ali|4.4.08 @ 11:11PM|#

insert "right" after "unalienable".

Jesse Walker|4.4.08 @ 11:13PM|#

my favorite part of the whole cosmo/paleo thing was when they said Brian Doherty was going to be fired. Though Doherty hasnt been heard from since saint patty's so maybe they were on to something

Brian's on book leave. Watch for his triumphant return to Reason later this year.

While I'm at it, watch for an article by Ron Paul, the man Reason allegedly hates, in the June issue of the magazine.

alan|4.4.08 @ 11:14PM|#

Well, they also sold some of the equipment that was dropped along with them, but government goods transfered back to the civilian economy sounds like a positive thing to me too.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 11:21PM|#

Ali, should we bring back indentured servitude, then?

Ali|4.4.08 @ 11:36PM|#

Ali, should we bring back indentured servitude, then?

Is there any statement in a military contract that says that your services can be extended, possibly eventually indefinitely, if the contract is violated? I haven't seen a typical "contract", but my guess is that it does not. And, hence, there is no resemblance to indentured servitude, which, by the way and to answer your question, is wrong and should not be brought back.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 11:41PM|#

If you quit the military before your contract expires, you can be jailed or shot. The stop-loss regime allows an extension of your term for many years longer than the typical indentured servitude contract.

I don't see any libertarian defense of this.

Anthony Gregory|4.4.08 @ 11:45PM|#

Besides, you're discussing indentured servitude as it was actually practiced. But what about in theory? What if there was no extension of the term? Can I sell myself into slavery for five years? If not, why can I do so to Uncle Sam?

Kolohe|4.5.08 @ 12:15AM|#

Is there any statement in a military contract that says that your services can be extended, possibly eventually indefinitely, if the contract is violated?

Here is the standard enlistment contract

Here are the key parts per your question:

c. In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of
the United States.

11. FOR ENLISTEES/REENLISTEES IN THE NAVY, MARINE CORPS, OR COAST GUARD: I understand that if I am serving on a naval vessel in foreign waters, and my enlistment expires, I will be returned to the United States for discharge as soon as possible
consistent with my desires. However, if essential to the public interest, I understand that I may be retained on active duty until the vessel returns to the United States. If I am retained under these circumstances, I understand I will be discharged not later than 30 days after my return to the United States; and, that except in time of war, I will be entitled to an increase in basic pay of 25 percent from the date my enlistment expires
to the date of my discharge.

The other key phrases on how the terms of the contract may (and may not) be altered:

b. Laws and regulataions[sic] that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed
Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this
enlistment/reenlistment document.

and the most important one:

b. REMARKS: (lf none, so state.)





c. The agreements in this section and attached annex(es) are all the promises made to me by the Government.
ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE HAS PROMISED ME IS NOT VALID AND WILL NOT BE HONORED.

Now some context:

a) war is only declared by Congress. Lately they be doing this without saying 'I de-clare war' like a card game, but nonetheless, stuff like AUMF is literally close enough for government work.

b) the stuff about we can change the laws at any time can ONLY be changed by Congress.

c) The blank and the last statement are the most important ones. In other words, if the recruiter told you something, and it aint in the contract or an annex (annex's normally cover the benefits for higher end enlistment incentives e.g. nuclear power program) IT DOES NOT EXIST!

d) As of Jan 06 , there were about 13,000 whose enlistments had been extended by stop loss. This number has gone down since then, but I can't find an open source report of the new number.

Anthony Gregory|4.5.08 @ 12:20AM|#

As Jeff Tucker argues, the US doesn't have a voluntary military:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker32.html

The Wine Commonsewer|4.5.08 @ 12:40AM|#

Can I sell myself into slavery for five years?

I actually don't care if you do but I can't see the percentage in doing so.

Famous Mortimer|4.5.08 @ 12:44AM|#

"I'm not a pacifist. I'm a libertarian. All war is evil. It don't understand why libertarians, of all people, would shy away from this position. If it is wrong for me to levy a tax on your cigarettes, then surely it is wrong for me to drop a bomb on a city where you happen to live."

All war is evil?

Would you like to explain when the term "evil" became anything more than an emotional description?

War can be necessary, and taking the option of war off of the table can certainly be just as "evil" (since we're playing that game) as making it the only option.

Also, you made a false analogy. The reasons for a tax, and the reasons for war can be two completely different scenarios that involve completely different consequences, due to completely different reasons.

To compare the two is simply bizarre.

The Wine Commonsewer|4.5.08 @ 12:51AM|#

As Jeff Tucker argues, the US doesn't have a voluntary military

Really? Show of hands. How many people here have Selective Service Cards and draft lottery numbers? How many people here know anybody that's been drafted in the last twenty years?

Sure you can't go home from Iraq, it's a war.

You sign up in hopes of that free ride to college but in the end the MILITARY is about shooting, wars, and possible death or dismemberment. Nobody doesn't know that going in. That's like joining the fire department and being pissed because it isn't always a frat party at the fire house with cable and no wife. Shit howdy, you mean we gotta put out the fire?

Course one of the premises of abolishing the draft was that it would make it harder for politicians to drag us into wars like Iraq. Oooops. That didn't quite work out how we thought.

|4.5.08 @ 1:10AM|#

I think when Reason knocks Ron Paul for stuff like this they are quite missing the whole point of why Ron is so loved by so many libertarians. It would be easy to throw the Birchers under the bus to gain credibility with the "establishment". Saying the Birchers are insane is after all, the PC thing to do. But Ron doesn't do it. And he's right. Who among us could honestly say we'd prefer living under a government that follows the platform of the Dems or Republicans over that of the Birchers? Yeah, they have some nuts, but a few lunatics is nothing compared to the institutional insanity of the two major parties. So why treat the Birchers as pariahs? Because the establishment says so? The same establishment responsible for the warfare/welfare state? The same establishment that if they even deign to mention our ideas at all treat them with bemusement and ridicule? These are the people we should be throwing the Birchers under the bus for?

|4.5.08 @ 2:19AM|#

For someone fat, drunk, and stupid he sure makes a lot of sense:

I think when Reason knocks Ron Paul for stuff like this they are quite missing the whole point of why Ron is so loved by so many libertarians. It would be easy to throw the Birchers under the bus to gain credibility with the "establishment". Saying the Birchers are insane is after all, the PC thing to do. But Ron doesn't do it. And he's right. Who among us could honestly say we'd prefer living under a government that follows the platform of the Dems or Republicans over that of the Birchers? Yeah, they have some nuts, but a few lunatics is nothing compared to the institutional insanity of the two major parties. So why treat the Birchers as pariahs? Because the establishment says so? The same establishment responsible for the warfare/welfare state? The same establishment that if they even deign to mention our ideas at all treat them with bemusement and ridicule? These are the people we should be throwing the Birchers under the bus for?

|4.5.08 @ 3:28AM|#

. Indentured servitude was banned by the 13th amendment. This should apply to the military.

you're suggesting government intervention into a contractual agreement, based on an amendment to a Constitution that duly promulgated a government you find illegitimate?

WTF?

No other boss can kill you for quitting, contract or no.

OK, but I should be able to have that choice. My body is my own; if I choose to give to another in a contract, that's my choice, not yours.

Liberty is an unalienable right.

Inalienable is the word, first of all. Second, well...says you! If I have liberty, can I not choose to surrender it?

|4.5.08 @ 7:40AM|#

You sign up in hopes of that free ride to college but in the end the MILITARY is about shooting, wars, and possible death or dismemberment. Nobody doesn't know that going in. That's like joining the fire department and being pissed because it isn't always a frat party at the fire house with cable and no wife. Shit howdy, you mean we gotta put out the fire?

Yes, thank you. I wish the paleocons and Neo-Marxists would stop portraying servicemembers as either victims or as perpetrators of worldwide evil (switching it up whenever it's convenient for their rhetoric).
You see, many people, like the Medics, Hospital Corpsmen and Surgeons do a lot of good work in a difficult situation, but I think a lot of people are ignorant of things like this.
Those of us who actually serve might see a lot of bad the military does, but we see a lot of the good, too. Even if you don't agree with the war (I don't agree with the War on Drugs), it doesn't make all the soldiers (or cops) bad people. Stereotypical thinking like that is an acceptable form of bigotry for certain political factions. If you have a friend or close relative in te military, I encourage you to talk to them about it.

|4.5.08 @ 9:29AM|#

TWC writes:

I have nearly overcome my abject fear of Lasik. I'm going to do the deed soon.

I have had a massive fear of anything being close to my eyes, but I worked on overcoming that phobia. Last December, I finally had Lasik done. One of the best decisions I have ever made. My doctor is based in Temecula and the surgery took place at Sharp Hospital off the I-15 near San Diego. You'll love it!

Anthony Gregory|4.5.08 @ 9:29AM|#

"You sign up in hopes of that free ride to college but in the end the MILITARY is about shooting, wars, and possible death or dismemberment. Nobody doesn't know that going in. That's like joining the fire department and being pissed because it isn't always a frat party at the fire house with cable and no wife. Shit howdy, you mean we gotta put out the fire?"

The point is, you have a right to quit your job. A term of service is a violation of the inalienability of rights.

Anthony Gregory|4.5.08 @ 9:32AM|#

"Yes, thank you. I wish the paleocons and Neo-Marxists would stop portraying servicemembers as either victims or as perpetrators of worldwide evil. . . ."

You don't think the US military acts in service of evil abroad? Had any other country done to Iraq what the US has, the US would rightly condemn it as a war of aggression and atrocity against human rights.

Anthony Gregory|4.5.08 @ 9:32AM|#

"OK, but I should be able to have that choice. My body is my own; if I choose to give to another in a contract, that's my choice, not yours. . . ."

Yes, you should have that choice! Including the choice to change your mind. That's what inalienability of rights means.

|4.5.08 @ 9:37AM|#

"Rules of war" also seemed to be a nebulous and sort of timid statement.

"All right, guys, look...we're going to blow the fuck out of you. But we're going to try to be sure we don't kill little Johnny playing in the backyard or Grampa smoking his pipe. We're just going to try to kill anybody who is holding a gun and pointing it at us, or in our general direction. We're going to kill you, and we're going to hurt you, but we're going to be gentle about it.

"Also we won't use any mustard gas, or napalm, or nuclear weapons. We won't spray you with smallpox. We could, you know, but we won't. Maybe some of us even want to do that to all of you, but many degreed armchair-generals back home probably couldn't groove on that so much, and hey, we don't like being called dirtyfighters.

"So we're going to kill you, okay? We're going to blow a lot of you to fucking smithereens and turn a lot of your land and property into piles of smoldering rubble. There will be some pissing and moaning back home about how messy it all is, but we're actually going to enjoy pounding you to dust. Our rules help us do that.

"Just know that if we kill little Johnny or give Granny 3rd-degree burns all over her legs, it wasn't on purpose. Probably. If we think it may have been on purpose there will be an investigation. Groovy?

Good."

D.A. Ridgely|4.5.08 @ 9:40AM|#

I'm not quite sure what, but I think all them conspiracy theorists are up to something.

|4.5.08 @ 10:02AM|#

What if we effectively ignore you? Starting 3, 2, 1 . . . .

Kalinka|4.5.08 @ 10:59AM|#

Calling what we're up to in Iraq "war" is like calling a brutal and violent purse snatching a "prize fight"

Edward|4.5.08 @ 11:20AM|#

Fatdruckandstupid

Yeah, but Eisenhower was a commie?

Kolohe|4.5.08 @ 11:27AM|#

The point is, you have a right to quit your job. A term of service is a violation of the inalienability of rights.

Even if you flip burgers, you need to give two week notice. I feel sorry for whomever hired you at your job, with your 'screw you guys, I'm going home' work ethic.

And the military has these quaint notions of honor and commitment, which are a little stronger than just 'it's time to make the donuts.'

|4.5.08 @ 11:30AM|#

Hey Edward, how can you be a member of a party that used to support slavery?

VM|4.5.08 @ 12:06PM|#

"Even if you flip burgers, you need to give two week notice."

no you don't. nor do your employers.*


*YMMV depending on "at will state" or whatever it's called

John Winger|4.5.08 @ 12:09PM|#

"And the military has these quaint notions of honor and commitment, which are a little stronger than just 'it's time to make the donuts.'"

yah yah, Sgt Hulka. Those words mean so much to a man who scrubs garbage cans.

(it's really precious this hyper military talk)

|4.5.08 @ 12:25PM|#

Poor Ron Paul, he must not be aware of the foundings of the John Birch Society which claims to be for God, America and apple pie but the truth is far more sinister.

One of the founding members of the JBS was Revilo Oliver who denounced Christianity as a "spiritual syphilis," was a member of the Institute of Historical review, the notorious Holocaust denying journal, was also a member of the National Vanguard(a neo-nazi group)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revilo_P._Oliver

|4.5.08 @ 12:27PM|#

You don't think the US military acts in service of evil abroad? Had any other country done to Iraq what the US has, the US would rightly condemn it as a war of aggression and atrocity against human rights.

Did I say I supported the Iraq war? No. I mean, hell, even though (Godwin's Law, I'm fully prepared to drink) Nazi Germany and the S.S. were evil and filled with war criminals, do you think everybody in the Wehrmacht were war criminals? Some of the NVA were war criminals, some not. Same with the Japanese in WWII. Is it hard for you not to paint everybody with a broad brush? Is my view of the world too "subtle and nuanced"?

And the military has these quaint notions of honor and commitment, which are a little stronger than just 'it's time to make the donuts.'

Yup. I also didn't think this was a hard concept.

(it's really precious this hyper military talk)

Yeah, I know right. I'm a support soldier and it says so in my handle.

And still, even though I don't agree with the war, the fact that Task Force 20 and the 101st killed Uday and Qusay kicks ass.

George Dance|4.5.08 @ 12:30PM|#

Yeah, yeah, "everybody knows" the JBS is all wackos, conspiracy nuts, and racists.
Hmmm ... come to think of it, that's the same smears that some people have been trying, for a few months now, to make sure "everybody knows" about Ron Paul as well.
Do you really think that any of his supporters are too obtuse to spot the very same smear campaign when it's done to someone else?

J sub D|4.5.08 @ 12:52PM|#

Liberty is an unalienable right. Indentured servitude was banned by the 13th amendment. This should apply to the military. No other boss can kill you for quitting, contract or no.

Should we legalize desertion?

|4.5.08 @ 12:55PM|#

Should we legalize desertion?

No. But for the record, I've never seen anyone get shot for missing movement.

|4.5.08 @ 1:13PM|#

No. But for the record, I've never seen anyone get shot for missing movement.

Hell, when was the last time somebody was executed for cowardice or desertion? Private Slovik? They will send you to Kansas for a lengthy spell, though. Neither McDonalds or the New York Giants can do that. I'm certain that most all intelligent folks realize that the Armed Forces are unique from a civil rights standpoint. Does any other occupation receive jail time for urinalysis failures? Cops just maybe get fired. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines get felony convictions.

|4.5.08 @ 1:13PM|#

Your right. Ron Paul should just bend over for McCain now that the nomination is settled. Jerk.

|4.5.08 @ 1:19PM|#

The point is, you have a right to quit your job. A term of service is a violation of the inalienability of rights.

So you're going to deny me the liberty to sign a contract that has a term of service on it, all in the name of defending my liberty?

"we had to destroy the village in order to save it"

Anthony, if you really believe in liberty, then you should believe in my right to sell my liberty to the government.

GILMORE|4.5.08 @ 2:01PM|#

CD | April 5, 2008, 1:13pm | #

Do you really think that any of his supporters are too obtuse....

No.

I think the word you were looking for was "many of his supporters are too obtuse..."

|4.5.08 @ 2:46PM|#

One of the founding members of the JBS was Revilo Oliver who denounced Christianity as a "spiritual syphilis," was a member of the Institute of Historical review, the notorious Holocaust denying journal, was also a member of the National Vanguard(a neo-nazi group)

Which is why you don't give your kids palindromes for names.

|4.5.08 @ 2:57PM|#

So George where is the "smear" by pointing out that one of the founders of the JBS was a rabble rouser anti-Christian racist holocaust denier??

|4.5.08 @ 3:11PM|#

George Bush sucks...thats all anyone needs to know. I believe it is a smart move to get as many conservatives as possible to support him. Ron Paul is slowly becoming the voice of conservatives in America.

The next step is to purge the Republican party of neo-conservatives!

|4.5.08 @ 3:21PM|#

Revilo Oliver also wrote for National Review in its earliest days.

Being a regular on the gun show circuit for over 20yrs I've met hundreds of Birchers because they usually have a table at Gun Shows to pass out their material. Birchers are anti statist. pro freedom, and pro constitution.

Raimondo does a good job

GILMORE|4.5.08 @ 3:31PM|#

Art-P.O.G. | April 5, 2008, 2:46pm | #

""One of the founding members of the JBS was Revilo Oliver...""

Which is why you don't give your kids palindromes for names.

Now thats funny.

p.s. the pool game was awesome last night. I ran the show for hours until the ubiquitous "hot chick who is also a good shooter" showed up and lowered my guard.

and by "guard", I mean, I spent more time looking at her ass than the table.

It was so worth it.

John | April 5, 2008, 3:11pm | #

George Bush sucks...thats all anyone needs to know

Damn John... I would have been surprised to hear this from you in 2003-2004.

Now, it's like, "no duh".

Matt Welch (you know, that Liberal guy? :) has a good editorial in the latest issue about the fracturing of the GOP coalition

it's on the front page now
http://www.reason.com/news/show/125451.html

|4.5.08 @ 3:33PM|#

and by "guard", I mean, I spent more time looking at her ass than the table

Did you get her to touch your "cue stick"?

GILMORE|4.5.08 @ 3:41PM|#

William R | April 5, 2008, 3:21pm | #

Raimondo does a good job

Yeah, but the bitch wont swallow.

that was uncalled for, I know. But he is a total prick. Who thinks journalism involves constantly trying to discredit publications/writers who deviate ever so slightly from the perceived 'party line'? He's so concerned with his own purism that he alienates more people than he attracts to the basic ideas he thinks he's promoting.

Basically, he's a dick, and he'd be kicked out of the kegger regardless of how perfect he thinks his credentials are.

Frankly, the difference between him and the writers for this mag is that Reason is less concerned with playing 'politics' than simply calling a spade a spade. Birchers are fundies. No one likes fundies. They're gay. In the "not homosexual, but really lame" way.

GILMORE|4.5.08 @ 3:43PM|#

Art-P.O.G. | April 5, 2008, 3:33pm | #

Did you get her to touch your "cue stick"?

now you're being puerile.

Thats *my* game.

Lew Rockwell|4.5.08 @ 3:46PM|#

Anthony Gregory,
Talking to these children accomplishes nothing. If you continue to hang out here I will be left to assume that you have developed a drug dependency and a fondness for aborting babies.

|4.5.08 @ 3:51PM|#

Nice try, whoever you are, trying to make Lew Rockwell look bad. Like some sort of cult leader or something.

|4.5.08 @ 3:54PM|#

But for a second, I considered the fact that Edward and "Lew Rockwell" may be the same person.

Edward|4.5.08 @ 4:08PM|#

Art-P.O.G


You considered the possibility, not the fact. You were wrong. Moron.

GILMORE|4.5.08 @ 4:10PM|#

Lew Rockwell | April 5, 2008, 3:46pm | #

Talking to these children accomplishes nothing.

Seriously though, maybe they'll take his advice?

...

i'm actually not sure if that would be much better, or if i'd get bored from not having people to slap silly anymore.

GILMORE|4.5.08 @ 4:13PM|#

Art-P.O.G. | April 5, 2008, 3:54pm | #

But for a second, I considered the fact that Edward and "Lew Rockwell" may be the same person.

....
then =
Edward | April 5, 2008, 4:08pm | #


Oh, thats so funny.

Or sad.

|4.5.08 @ 4:23PM|#

Corrections: I confused the *fact* that Edward was a troll with the *possibility* that he was "Lew Rockwell". Another example of such an all too human failing would be mistaking the *fact* that he is a sad, bitter man with the *possibility* that he might one day say something of some value to someone somewhere.

|4.5.08 @ 5:04PM|#

NAU in just four years?

It is incredible, but just four years from now -- if the CFR template is followed -- the United States may cease to exist as an independent political entity.

Read more about the NAU

That quote is from the "Where we Stand" page of the Birchers' web site. Kinda sounds like Lonewacko conspirational paranoia, doesn't it? I am not going to dance with these fools.

|4.5.08 @ 5:33PM|#

Pshaw. I'd forgotten about that Eisenhower line from the JBS.

If Ron is actually on board with them...well, he may have just lost my futile protest vote on April 22nd.

|4.5.08 @ 5:54PM|#

I noticed Raimondo left out Oliver entirely in his Taki blog.

Also it is about time for people to keep think Robert Welch was some harmless patriotic founder of the JBS who was just alittle over zealous about communism.

He was a fraud. He spent his whole life calling the Rockefeller's traitors and communists yet Welch sold his Welch Candy company to Nelson Rockefeller in 1963 and his family farm and Welch chose the principal officers of the John Birch Society from his acquaintances at the Council on Foreign Relations

Welch was truly the L Ron Hubbard of politics.

Famous Mortimer|4.5.08 @ 6:42PM|#

"Just say no to politics!"

Live by it. Get it tattooed on your lower back.

EDWEIRDOOOOO\'S TATOO ARTIST|4.5.08 @ 6:59PM|#

EDWEIIIRRRDDDDOOO HAS "SAY YES TO THE WEIBSKOBOLD, OH, ALSO, SAY NO TO POLITICS" TATOOED ON HIS BACK AND BUTTOX. AND THE TATOO IN THE MIDDLE WITH THE BAD BREATH IS OF ANDREW MURPHY.

NJ|4.5.08 @ 7:11PM|#

Got to love Raimondo. This is the same guy who used the Paul-Bircher link in an attack campaign against Paul in 1988. What a fraud.

Anthony Gregory|4.5.08 @ 7:39PM|#

"Anthony, if you really believe in liberty, then you should believe in my right to sell my liberty to the government."

Should a person have a right to sell his liberty to a private individual? If not, it is completely unlibertarian to say that a government would have a right to buy your liberty, where an individual wouldn't. Government can't possibly have any rights not delegated to it by individuals. So if the military is acceptable -- putting aside its job description and funding -- then so too is indentured servitude, including the selling of oneself into slavery to someone likely to order that he kill himself.

|4.5.08 @ 8:53PM|#

In 1963 the National Biscuit Company, now Nabisco Brands Inc., bought Mr. Welch's company. Mr. Welch was a director of Nabisco from 1963 until his retirement in 1978. His son, James O. Welch Jr., of Short Hills, N.J., is president of Nabisco.

Mr. Welch is survived by his wife, Vedna, of Delray Beach and Osterville, Mass; his son; a daughter, Deborah W. LaGorce, of Middleburg, Va., and three sisters, Helen Tucker of Louisburg, N.C., Fanny Hall of Southern Pines, N.C., and Lina Morton of Raleigh, N.C. An older brother, Robert H. W. Welch Jr., founder of the John Birch Society, died Jan. 6


So much for the theory he sold out to Rockefella

|4.5.08 @ 8:57PM|#

William, he sold his Welch Candy company to the Rockfeller family in 1963.

Kolohe|4.5.08 @ 9:28PM|#

"yah yah, Sgt Hulka"

Actually I'm navy. We don't have sergeants.

Kolohe|4.5.08 @ 9:32PM|#

VM-

Noted, I stand corrected. I should have guessed otherwise the lyrics to song mad famous by Donald Lytle don't make sense.

Brandybuck|4.5.08 @ 10:00PM|#

NAU in just four years?

Conspiracies are for people who have no memories. The names of their conspiracies change, but timetables are always the same. Why should I believe them now when their predictions have been wrong every single time?

I will bet any Bircher one ounce of gold that the NAU will NOT HAPPEN in four years. It's a simple bet. If on April 5th, 2012, the nation states of Canada, Mexico and the US have relinquished sovereignty to an EU-style North American Union, then I will pay one gold American Eagle bullion coin to the winner.

Kolohe|4.5.08 @ 10:46PM|#

Brandybuck-
Good point.

Loss of US sovereignty is like fusion, always about 10 years away.

|4.6.08 @ 12:46AM|#

Bingo doesn't exactly tell all the story regarding the JBS. They are not anti-totalitarian exactly just anti-communist. They were very friendly toward Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal during their prime. It seeks to kimit government in some ways not other ways. And they don't lean libertarian at all. They are moralists of the Right who believe govt. should enforce the moral law of God. They are for the war on drugs. They are against equality of rights for gay people. They support censorship of "obscenity".

They are off in fantasy land on wack conspiracy theories claiming that Satan got a group called the Illuminait (which was actually relatively classical liberal in their views) to mastermind a plot to take over the world. The Illuminati, they say, still exists and they run the banking conspriacy (that Paul loves to drone on about), they are behind the alleged CFR plot, the alleged Bilderberger plot, etc. They are the supposed mastermind behind the communist conspiracy, the Freemason, just go on and on. They have open distributed the material of vicious anti-Semites like Nesta Webster. Numerous top anti-Semites got their start with the Birchers.

The Birchers were big on finding communists under every movement against the status quo -- such as the civil rights movement which they claimed was a communist led plot.

As someone who was a Bircher prior to becoming a libertarian I can assure they are NOT similar, they not the same thing. They don't believe in social freedom. And whatever the "official" JBS line, when they held chapter meeting, when the meeting was over the anti-Semitic literature or racist material often came out from under the table to be read and promoted "unofficially". That was common and frequent. JBS coordinators would often go off and do their own anti-Jewish conspiracy lectures on the side.

Sam: The Birch society didn't take the name of their founder. Their founder was Robert Welch. The JBS was named for a fundamentalist Baptist missionary who was killed in China. Welch claimed that Birch was the victim of the Cold war.

The Wine Commonsewer|4.6.08 @ 12:53AM|#

William, he sold his Welch Candy company to the Rockfeller family in 1963.

I believe that is an urban myth. Robert Welch's candy company went bankrupt during the depression.

Robert Welch went to work for his brother, James, who also owned a candy company. If memory serves he invented Sugar Babies and Sugar Daddies.

Robert retired in the mid-1950's and founded the JBS (1958?).

James (not Robert) sold out to Nabisco in 1963 and was a director until the late 1970's. James Jr is Nabisco's current CEO.

Some say that Nabisco was owned/controlled by Rockefeller, but even if true, doesn't come into play since Robert Welch didn't own the candy company, wasn't ever on the Board of Directors, and retired several years before the company was sold.

And, I don't care anyway, except I am persistent about urban myths. None of us do ourselves any favors to trade on anything other than the facts as best we can determine them.

That's why I don't pay attention to Justin Raimondo, too many times when he has made pronouncements that I knew, for an indisputable fact, to be absolutely false.

When you know for a fact a pronouncement from Raimondo is false, it calls into question every other pronouncement ever made.

|4.6.08 @ 1:09AM|#

Danger Mouse, your excuses covering for the Reason Folks are getting weaker and weaker. Does the wife still do education work for them?

|4.6.08 @ 1:41AM|#

Wine, That all may be true but what is undeniable is that Welch allowed a nutjob like Oliver to help create the JBS. The JBS claims they stand for "God and Country" and upholding Christianity, yet one of their co-founders was not only anti-Christian but supported eugentics(the same stuff they accuse everybody who doesn't follow their society line). If nothing else, this is a group that thinks the lying boozer Joe McCarthy and his amoral evil side kick, Roy Cohen are American heroes. Nuff said.

Joseph Marzullo|4.6.08 @ 3:51AM|#

olohe,

Public education is communistic. That's why it fails!

Oh, and you're a socialist fool.

|4.6.08 @ 3:56AM|#

then so too is indentured servitude, including the selling of oneself into slavery to someone likely to order that he kill himself.

OK...J sub D said this earlier in the thread...

I'm certain that most all intelligent folks realize that the Armed Forces are unique from a civil rights standpoint.

Anthony, when a person joins the military, they have to swear twice to "defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, (both) foreign and domestic." It's not a normal job and never has been. I suppose you'd have the entire military function like civilian contractors? No, I suppose I'm too much of a "little l" libertarian to find that palatable.

|4.6.08 @ 4:00AM|#

Oh, and you're a socialist fool.

Because everybody knows name-calling isn't foolish! Unless you're Mr. T and I'll give you a pass.

Guy Montag|4.6.08 @ 7:57AM|#

The timing between the untimely death of William F. Buckley, Jr. and this revelation. Very suspect order of events sayz I.

GILMORE|4.6.08 @ 9:50AM|#

Joseph Marzullo | April 6, 2008, 3:51am | #

Oh, and you're a socialist fool


YEAH!!

All of you! Communists! The ones who think me or JBS silly! Yous coommunists!

Guess why people think fundies are idiots?

See previous

MR T|4.6.08 @ 9:52AM|#

I pity the fool that hates on the John Birch Society

|4.6.08 @ 11:25AM|#

Joseph Murzullo wrote,

"Public education is communistic. That's why it fails!"


Thomas Jefferson,

"Of all the views of this law [for public education], none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe as they are the ultimate guardians of their own liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:206

"The expense of the elementary schools for every county is proposed to be levied on the wealth of the county, and all children rich and poor to be educated at these three years gratis." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Correa de Serra, 1817. ME 15:156

"[Surely no] tax can be called that which we give to our children in the most valuable of all forms, that of instruction... An addition to our contributions almost insensible... in fact, will not be felt as a burden, because applied immediately and visibly to the good of our children." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:422

Well you get the drift, I guess old Tom Jefferson was a commie, uh??

Jeremy|4.6.08 @ 1:24PM|#

What in the hell is so wrong about conspiracy theory? Libertarians continually complain about a state-corporate complex that is unaccessible, unaccountable, secretive, and prone to treating the population at large as an inconvenience at best. In that kind of environment, anybody would think there's a conspiracy against the public interest - these people used to be called libertarians, in fact.

Sure, people dress conspiracy up in exotic terms, reflecting an anxiety about these perilous times and a need to feel "in control". But that's not worth getting hysterical about - just don't mention it at your D.C. dinner parties, Mr. Weigel. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to have a magazine that Giuliani doesn't want to do an interview with.

I yearn for the time when libertarians once again call government writ large an open and dangerous conspiracy, instead of bickering among themselves about whether somebody's specific, elaborate opinion is correct or not. Radical libertarianism is not meant to be comfortable for the establishment. Sorry if that makes it hard to run a hip magazine - at least the paleos aren't posers.

|4.6.08 @ 2:01PM|#

I yearn for the time when libertarians once again call government writ large an open and dangerous conspiracy

I don't see why you have to call the War on Drugs as prosecuted now, for example, a "conspiracy". It seems enough to acknowledge that it's a bad idea.

GILMORE|4.6.08 @ 3:00PM|#

at least the paleos aren't posers.

No, thats exactly what they are. Stick-their-dick in the fan poseurs.

Kolohe|4.6.08 @ 3:28PM|#

Public education is communistic. That's why it fails!

Are you talkin to me? Then who the hell else are you talking to? Well I'm the only one here.
(sorry, just saw taxi driver for the first time last night.)

what the heck does this have to do with the price of tomatoes in Wicthita? If your point is that we shouldn't have public ed, its debatable but immaterial. (fwiw, I agree with POG)

And if we do have it, there shouldn't be separate accommodations because some are afraid they'll get cooties. Even if public drinking fountains (with fluoridated water!) are a socialistic communist bildberger plot, it then makes no sense that this water is for whites but that water is for blacks (esp since its from the same frackin source - like Duff/Duff Light/Duff Dry)

And as a practical matter, if you don't think we should be wasting money on public ed, why spend even more to build twice as many schools.

Last, speaking of fool, wtf is the deal with your website. That is the worse e-commerce pos I've ever seen.

|4.6.08 @ 7:47PM|#

No relation, unless my Uncle John has some explaining to do...

Anthony Gregory|4.6.08 @ 8:23PM|#

"Anthony, when a person joins the military, they have to swear twice to "defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, (both) foreign and domestic." It's not a normal job and never has been. I suppose you'd have the entire military function like civilian contractors? No, I suppose I'm too much of a "little l" libertarian to find that palatable."

Yes, but they don't defend the Constitution. They defend the empire, which has been an unConstitutional regime for its entire existence. In particular, there hasn't been a Constitutional war since World War II.

As for civilian contractors, of course I don't think we should have those, either.

|4.7.08 @ 12:06AM|#

Danger Mouse, your excuses covering for the Reason Folks are getting weaker and weaker.

Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long, long time.

But I thought I was agreeing with you, William R, and not defending anyone.

|4.7.08 @ 12:36AM|#

Ahh, Wm R, you mean the Raimondo crack......

Just an elaboration upon Mr Gilmore's remarks, I assure you.

Danger Mouse|4.7.08 @ 12:41AM|#

Wow, the suit still fits. After all this time. Who knew?

|4.7.08 @ 2:05AM|#

Anthony Gregory, out of curiosity, why do you think Operation Enduring Freedom was unConstitutional?

Famous Mortimer|4.7.08 @ 3:36AM|#

If Reason can piss off the Left, the Right, and the Paleo Libs, then you know that it's doing something right.

Anthony Gregory|4.7.08 @ 6:17PM|#

It wasn't declared officially. But if you buy the argument that it was Constitutional, then so are most US wars, I suppose, and the Constitution is thus not much of a limit on government power.