Now Playing at reason.tv: The Future of Libertarian Politics featuring Bob Barr, Mike Gravel, Wayne Allyn Root, and Vern McKinley

If you missed yesterday's excellent reason HQ debate about "The Future of Libertarian Politics" featuring Bob Barr, Mike Gravel, Wayne Allyn Root, and Vern McKinley, have no fear!

Just click above to watch a 10-minute version.

The event drew a good amount of press. Read some of it here. For the embed code for this video, click here.

Comments

albertwasaman | May 21, 2008, 12:23pm | #

Is Root constipated?

And somebody should just put Gravel down like an old dog.

Colin | May 21, 2008, 12:40pm | #

Someone needs to educate Root about the Burr trial.

Having said that, he was still the best of the three. I don't even know why that Vern dude was up there.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 12:42pm | #

Barr also has his legs crossed in a feminine fashion. Maybe that's meant to reassure the LP types who think gay marriage is the #1 issue facing America right now.

Ali | May 21, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Root is scary! Plus, the Boston Tea Party was essentially one of the earliest anti-globalization, pro-protectionist demonstration.

Mike | May 21, 2008, 1:07pm | #

Sign of impending apocalypse? You decide...

ChrisO | May 21, 2008, 1:17pm | #

I actually liked Gravel better after watching that video. Is he off his rocker? Quite possibly, but in an entertaining way.

Jorgen | May 21, 2008, 1:23pm | #

I love how Root shouts about what a great communicator he is in a way that makes everyone who watches have seizures. It's going to have to be Barr or Ruwart

Jim Melloan | May 21, 2008, 1:27pm | #

Draft Andre Marrou!

Quattro | May 21, 2008, 1:31pm | #

Why am I not surprised that phonytarian Bob Barr gave an evasive mealy-mouthed answer on the drug issue?
Gravel may be wrong on many issues but he was the only one who didn't bullshit us.

Brock | May 21, 2008, 1:31pm | #

And, Barr's answer to the WOD question was?

kwais | May 21, 2008, 1:39pm | #

Well now I know how to pronounce 'Weigel' and 'Gravel'. I thought the latter was pronounced the same as that stuff you mix with cement.

These videos are informative.

Warty | May 21, 2008, 1:40pm | #

Holy shit, Mike Gravel is Saul Tigh.

kwais | May 21, 2008, 1:44pm | #

I like Gravel and Vern's answer on immigration.

kwais | May 21, 2008, 1:45pm | #

The only one that comes close on the War question that I like is Vern.

kwais | May 21, 2008, 1:50pm | #

The first agency these people would get rid of is the Department of education?

I mean yeah get rid of it by all means. But it is more evil than the DEA and the IRS who directly violate the civil liberties of millions of Americans each year?

Have these people not been reading Radley Balko?

kwais | May 21, 2008, 1:56pm | #

I read Bobb Barr's answer about the drug war to be that he supports legalizing all drugs, but understands it cannot be done in one fell swoop.

I would have liked him to mouth exactly that answer.

Crazy and over enthusiastic Root's answer seemed good too, as did Gravels.

But Gravel was generally nutty.

I think I kinda liked Vern best here.

kwais | May 21, 2008, 2:01pm | #

Where was Orange Line Special with his camcorders and his questions that will sink any presidency?

kwais | May 21, 2008, 2:05pm | #

I would have liked to hear a question about gun control too.

Like what they plan to do about the ridiculous gun laws. Which gun laws they will get rid of. Which gun laws are reasonable.

ChrisO | May 21, 2008, 2:06pm | #

Holy shit, Mike Gravel is Saul Tigh.

You're godsdamned right he is. All he needs is an eyepatch and a flask full of ambrosia.

Ali | May 21, 2008, 2:07pm | #

In my book, from best to worst: (1) Vern, (2) Gravel, (3) Barrr, (4) Root.

Tim Cavanaugh | May 21, 2008, 2:13pm | #

Jesus Suckin' Zeus, Weigel! You become a libertarian so you don't have to wear ugly ties.

kwais | May 21, 2008, 2:19pm | #

I would have liked Barr to talk about how McCain is a RINO, and Gravel to talk about how Obama and Clinton are corporate shills, or something to that effect.

Hyacinth | May 21, 2008, 2:21pm | #

Well now I know how to pronounce ...'Gravel'.

It's Boo-kay'

prolefeed | May 21, 2008, 2:24pm | #

Agree with Ali's ordering, based on the questions asked. If had asked about health care, I suspect Gravel's answer would have plummeted him to the bottom of the heap.

Wow, what a weasel answer on the WoD for Barr.

I think Root is confusing volume with communication -- scale back on the uppers, dude.

Can we have the Vern guy run as the LP presidental candidate in four years? Or Flake or Broun?

Why the heck couldn't Ruwart show up for this? Hard to support someone who can't show up for important events.

Kirsten | May 21, 2008, 2:39pm | #

I am so embarassed for your publication. This is shameful.

t. j. | May 21, 2008, 2:40pm | #

i don't think gravel is libertarian enough but he isn't as socialistic as the democrats he ran against before he switched...i guess. he gave the most blunt idealogically correct answer to immigration of the 4 guys. and he got more applause then the others. i think the party needs to go for entertainment value over purity for this election cause none of these guys are as libertarian as one would like. gravel's a liberal, barr's a recovering neo-con (but not enough). i don't like sports broadcaster voices so that automatically disqualifies whats-his-name. the republican i'm not sure why he was there if he's not running for the nomination. plus i don't like any politician who name drops reagan too much.

BakedPenguin | May 21, 2008, 2:42pm | #

Or Flake or Broun?

Broun? Sweet Georgia Broun? The guy who thinks soldiers shouldn't read Playboy?

svf | May 21, 2008, 2:58pm | #

i think the party needs to go for entertainment value over purity for this election

maybe Stanhope will throw his hat back into the ring... wheeeee!

Citizen Nothing | May 21, 2008, 3:09pm | #

"maybe Stanhope will throw his hat back into the ring... wheeeee!"

That would be awesome, but the universe is not so benevolent, I fear.

Bramblyspam | May 21, 2008, 3:12pm | #

This was the first time I've seen or heard Root. He made me cringe, he sounded phony and out of touch with reality. I really hope the LP doesn't nominate him.

Barr was the only one up there who you can sell to the mainstream as being qualified to be president. He's no libertarian purist, but I don't want another purist that 99%+ of the public will dismiss out of hand. I want someone who will take strong steps in the right direction and has a shot at getting 5% of the vote. Barr fits the bill.

I liked Gravel on immigration, but he's old, nutty, too recent of a convert, and downright anti-libertarian on issues like socialized medicine. As for Vern McKinley, I wish him all the best, and I fervently hope that people like him manage to take back the republican party from the pro-war, big government religious nuts.

Ali | May 21, 2008, 3:19pm | #

Agree with Ali's ordering, based on the questions asked. If had asked about health care, I suspect Gravel's answer would have plummeted him to the bottom of the heap.

Ditto.

I think Root is confusing volume with communication -- scale back on the uppers, dude.

He's speaking to his base, err, basically, um, Eric Dondero.

prolefeed | May 21, 2008, 3:40pm | #

Based on this follow-up afterward, Gravel is the only candidate I won't support for president:

"Yes, I think people have a right to a sound economy, to health care, and to education," he insisted. "Yes they do, because they have a right to freedom. You can't have freedom unless you have the other three. How are you going to be free if you have no money? You're not free -- you're just a drunk in the street. How are you going to be free if you're sick? You're sick like a jerk. How are you going to be free if you're dumb? You're too dumb to participate in freedom. Freedom means education. Freedom means health care. Freedom means a sound economy."

He acknowledged that he was old enough to know that he doesn't have all the answers, which is why he would leave it to the people.

"But what happens when 300 million different voices and people disagree with each other?" I asked him.

"You rule by majority," Gravel said.

"Well, what if the minority doesn't want to pay for someone else's health care?"

"Go to another country," he said.

Baked: I think I got the wrong name -- the person I was thinking of was one of two Congressmen (along with Flake) who voted against some bad idea noted on a thread yesterday.

kwais | May 21, 2008, 4:47pm | #

Good post prolefeed.

A good reason to not vote for Gravel.

Stins | May 21, 2008, 5:26pm | #

Gravel was absolutely right that you can't get rid of public education entirely. Being educated means being free in the world today.

Isn't it funny that public education works perfectly well in more or less all western countries but the US? But instead of making it better people want to abolish it and go back in time a couple of thousand years.

Some government will always be needed as long as you plan on interracting with other human beings.

As for his "socialized" healthcare plan, the man wants americans to decide on what they consider BASIC healthcare coverage and provide that to all paid by taxes. There would also still be competition for those who want coverage beyond that.

Then in the end, Gravels platform is all about the national initiative. It's above all his personal ideas. So we can all vote on his plans and reject them if we want. And even come up with our own instead of sitting here whining.

svf | May 21, 2008, 5:39pm | #

Gravel was absolutely right that you can't get rid of public education entirely. Being educated means being free in the world today.

sure, but you can at least get the FEDERAL government out of it and have decisions about "public education" (or lack thereof) made at the State and, preferrably, even more local level...

R C Dean | May 21, 2008, 6:12pm | #

Gravel was absolutely right that you can't get rid of public education entirely. Being educated means being free in the world today.

Since when does "a necessary condition of personal freedom" = "must be supplied by the government"?

R C Dean | May 21, 2008, 6:13pm | #

Oops, clicked too soon.

And does this mean all those kids attending private schools won't be free when they graduate?

Mondestrunken | May 21, 2008, 9:30pm | #

Root sounds like an angry motivational speaker.

Quiqqle | May 21, 2008, 10:58pm | #

I would have liked Barr to talk about how McCain is a RINO.

A LINO calling out a RINO

kwais | May 21, 2008, 11:36pm | #

Quiqqle | May 21, 2008, 10:58pm | #

I would have liked Barr to talk about how McCain is a RINO.

A LINO calling out a RINO


Good point. I would also like Barr to have been asked how he is a different man now than he was as a drug warrior Republican.

What opinions he has changed, and why he was wrong before.

Kolohe | May 22, 2008, 12:27am | #

I like Barr the best (assuming his Road to Damascus has indeed been traveled)

But I disagree here:

(paraphrase) "as libertarians we can agree that the fundemental purpose of govt is to protect sovereignty, protect the nation."

Nope.

"To preserve these [inalienable] rights, Goverments are instituted among men."

Now I fully support sovereignty as far as it goes to ensure that the government 'that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed' is sustained. (i.e. no russian paratroopers jumping into Colorado)

But for the first 100 years or so of the Constitution, there were *no* threats posed to sovereignty by the arrival of immigrants, and no limits on their numbers. (yes, citizenship was a slightly different matter). And with the various levels of restrictions in the second hundred year span, there still has been no affect on sovereignty due to immigrants.

So I don't see how somehow now 'they' will be able to take over.

And the American 'nation' has always been unique as it is constructed from an idea not a 'volk' - or so I would still like to believe.

Steve | May 22, 2008, 10:49am | #

I liked Root's answers and where he's coming from. I wish he would tone down the ego a bit though.

Barr had some sensible answers but i find it hard to trust him.

Gravel did not seem like he belonged there at all.

Brian | May 22, 2008, 10:06pm | #

Kolohe: "But for the first 100 years or so of the Constitution, there were *no* threats posed to sovereignty by the arrival of immigrants, and no limits on their numbers."

I don't disagree with you there. Maybe I'm not hearing it correctly, but my impression of Barr's position on immigration is more of a national security concern, than a "keep out the brown people" concern. I agree with that.

Controlling our border will do about 10,000 times more for preventing a terrorist attack than a war in the Middle East. Why? Because there is a HUGE unprotected border. The Mexican immigrants aren't the problem, they are just illustrative of it. If thousands (millions?) of them can cross the border undetected, what is to stop someone with a more sinister motive from sneaking into America?