Medved: A Pox on "Losertarians"!

The film critic/talk radio guy goes off on the capital-L crowd, in this interview with John Hawkins. Sample:

[T]hey cheapen whole definition of politics…You're talking about thousands of people over election after election, wasting their time, accomplishing absolutely nothing. See, I take politics very seriously. If God forbid, there had been a switch of 300 votes in Florida, if 300 people had voted differently or if 500 Republicans had decided to stay home, we would have had a very different President right now. This is serious business.

These people are of course exercising their rights, but I think it's about time, particularly with a party that has been around as long as the "Losertarians", for people to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. They're not gaining support, they're losing support. [?]

[B]asic logic here, you do not influence a major political party by leaving it. You influence a major political party by staying in it and fighting for the ideas and the candidates you care about. This is so simple that my 11 year old son can understand it, but obviously there are a lot of "Losertarians" who don't get it.

The reason I enjoy talking to these guys on the air is because they are so utterly incapable of answering the question, "Ok, what have you accomplished with all of your activism?" The answer is absolutely nothing except electing a bunch of ultra-liberal Democrats and big government types like Maria Cantwell.

Comments

[Brian Hawkins]

If Medved (remember him?) thinks L/libertarians are so ineffectual, he sure is devoting a fair ammount of time and energy into ridiculing us.

Ever notice how nobody in the "mainstream" bothers to criticize the Natural Law Party, the Constitution Party, or even the Reform Party (anymore)? But Republicans sure seem to have a lot to say about libertarians these days...

Wonder why that is?

[Brian Hawkins]

By the way...no relation to John.

[PLC]

Hey y'all - in case you haven't figured it out, Justin is kidding. He just takes on ludicrous positions on the internet to get a rise out of unsuspecting rubes. I've done it myself plenty of times; it's fun when you're really bored.

I know this because it would be impossible for anyone to both be as stupid as he pretends to be, and to continue to remember to breath.

[Justin Raimondo]

Such as the position that a magazine that takes hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years from neocon moneybags has its editorial policies determined by said moneybags? Yeah, that certainly is a ridiculous position, ain't it?

[Wendy Rimley]

Justin dear,

If you want them to get your name right you should remind them that it's really Dennis, not Justin. Why did you make the switch anyway?

[Justin Raimondo]

At the age of 16, "Justin" seemed cool.

[PNAC Infiltrator]

Dennis:

1) who cuts the checks for anti-war.com?

2) If all libertarians are anti-war and to be pro-war is neocon, and since you supported the war in Afganistan, are you not a warmongering neocon?

Ha ha, Dustin is a Bushitler follower! He supported bombing the Taliban!

[Jay]

Hey Max, can you pass me down a beer?

[PNAC Infiltrator]

Final question:

3) why doesn't anti-war.com have comment boards, so we can poop on them? You poop on everyone elses!

[Ned Flanders]

Medved - what a weenie!

[Justin Raimondo]

But only Stephen "Ahmed Suleyman" Schwartz and the mad bombers over at the Jewish Defense League -- which has a whole web page devoted to Little Ol' Me -- have fixated on that particular biographical detail.

[Justin Raimondo]

We supported the war in Afghanistan? Maybe you should put down the crack pipe, bud.

Who cuts the checks at antiwar.com? Our readers. It's kinda like PBS, except it's voluntary: we have pledge drives every so often. Average contribution: waaaaay under a hundred bucks.

[Joe Majsterski]

R. C. Dean:

Okay, now THAT was actually a straight-up neocon diatribe. Thanks for making it explicit so those playing at home could make the distinction. Now, consider all the new information coming to light that shows Saddam didn't have WMDs, and was just playing tough to impress and scare his Middle East neighbors. There are no WMDs; the only problem with Saddam's game was that it worked too well, as everyone really did think he had WMDs. Also, he really was not chummy with some of the more extreme religious groups; no matter how many times people repeat this, it is still not true.

[Mark Fox]

In the interview, Medved explains some of lefty Hollywood behaviour as a result of former teenage weaklings still trying to demonstrate their manood. Much similar activity is found in this thread.

The labels chosen for me by Medved or Raimondo are secondary to how I define myself. The principles inspiring me are reasonably summarized as libertarian, yet the world and life are so much richer and more complex. I am opposed to anybody invading anybody else, but also I see the vast benefits of the action. Strict alignment with my principles is not a requirement fo my applause for favorable results.

It is fun sometimes to call each other names. Much is revealed through the epithets we yield. What do you choose to call me?

[Wendy Rimley]

No JDL bombers here darling, I can call you Justin or Dennis or Rainman, whatever you like.

By the way, I don't mean to prod, but what in the heck made Justin seem cool? Ok, it's arguably better than Dennis, but you could have done much better. Or at least you could have done the last name to match like Justin Sane.

[John Hood]

To anyone else left reading this thread -- but not Justin, as I am writing at at least a sixth-grade level:

The word "neocon" is ubiquitous for a good reason, and has entered the American political lexicon whether you like it or not.

The word "neocon" is ubiquitous for a bad reason -- because reporters and talking heads don't know anything about the Right and got something stuck in their minds that doesn't make actual sense.

Of course the term has "entered the American political lexicon," in the correct meaning, but what is now happening is that a new version of the word is entering the lexicon that illustrates nothing but the foolishness of the user.

Libertarianism isn't a theology. It's a philosophical leaning within which many well-meaning people can and do debate specific applications. There are pro-Iraq war and anti-Iraq war libertarians, pro-abortion and anti-abortion libertarians, and so on. If this wasn't true, then libertarianism would consists of about a dozen overweight geeks working at copy shops and tech-support centers in college towns and ruminating about their lot in life and the statist conspiracy to stymie their revolution.

Fortunately, most libertarians grow up, live in the real world, and exercise their rational faculties. Even the ones who work at organizations funded by Bradley, Koch, and Scaife. They debate ideas, not the penumbras of conspiracy theories and the reverberations of LP schisms of interest to no one but the pitiable participants.

[Justin Raimondo]

Mark Fox, I'd like to introduce you to Wendy Rimely....

[PNAC Infiltrator]

You didn't write "Kill 'em - and Get Out" in October 2001?

http://english.pravda.ru/world/2001/10/01/16641.html

You are not affiliated with the Center for Libertarian Studies? Does Lew know you troll sites all day instead of working?

[Wendy Rimley]

Mark Fox? Ewww, I hate Canadians.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Jean Bart forgets that France was founded by the French.

[Justin Raimondo]

"Kill 'Em and Get out" did not endorse the Afghan war, which is still going on. The title says it all. But being a "PNAC infiltrator" (uh huh...), I guess English isn't your native language. Perhaps you and Wendy Rimely might want to speak to each other in your ... native tongue.

God, this was fun! As much as I hate to do it -- before Matt Welch Himself showed up for the party! -- I really MUST be going. And to all you warmongers out there: think about applying for a grant from the neocon foundation of your choice. There's money to be made .....

[Matt]

R.C. Dean: Joe is right. The reasons you gave for supporting the war were nothing but neocon soundbites. And like all neocon soundbites, they are only half-true. You also go wrong by calling our enemy "Islamist nutballs". By lumping in groups you know next to nothing about, you are willfully remaining ignorant as to who our enemies really are. Insist that taking out Saddam was central to the "War on Terror" if it makes you feel better, but if you think we're taking out the enemy and making our country safe, I've got a bridge in Baghdad to sell you.

As far as Mr. Medved's concerns, I would have only one question: have you gotten what you wanted by voting for Republicans? Have you effected change from within?

[PNAC Infiltrator]

Sorry buddy, but you endorsed the use of aggresive force against a sovereign nation. You warmonger!

"Perhaps you and Wendy Rimely might want to speak to each other in your ... native tongue."

Before anyone accuses Dustin of implied anti-semitism, I should let you know that I am sure he didn't mean Hebrew.

[Jean Bart]

Oh this is so amusing - I am reminded of dog eating its innards. 🙂

[James Merritt]

Rather than complain about the interpersonal skills of some Libertarians, Jason Ligon and others who think as he does might try joining the party and improving the "gene pool." Every party has a "shrill element." That element tends to predominate in small parties because such people have the motivation and thick skin to keep at it; they also tend to get media coverage and become the public faces for small parties, because they fit into the worldview of journalists and media pundits who habitually relegate all alternative parties and many independent candidates to the fringe.

Need I remind anyone that the collection of colonists known today as the "founding fathers" was a very motley assortment, including a sizeable "shrill element"? Look what they did, how long it took, and how much it cost them. Focus on the common goal, people. Work together, even with those from whom you'd normally disassociate yourselves, to achieve the goal.

I've paid attention to the LP for over 20 years, now. I've seen those who bought into a Medved-style line leave the LP to join the major parties, in order to "work within the system," only to burn out after a few months or years of beating their heads against the politics-as-usual brick wall. Sometimes, they came back to the LP, sadder but wiser. Sometimes, they became apolitical, declaring the overall system to be beyond hope and help. In the meantime, and despite the pooh-poohings of people like Medved, the LP has made steady, albeit slow progress, and its members have done a lot of good along the way.

The LP and my credit union savings account haven't shown me a lot of return over the years, but they have shown a steady net return, and both have contributed solid, sustainable infrastructure in support of goals that are important to me. In the credit union's case, the goal is a stable and vital local economy, and a strong community. In the LP's case, the goal is the promotion of freedom and liberty. Schemes to get rich quick or get power overnight just aren't viable (though sometimes, such things do happen, just as sometimes, people win the lottery!).

[JDM]

What a bunch of bullshit. Thank God there's some of you out there who've figured it all out, and are intellectually fearless in your defense of liberty. You're all real life heroes.

Has anyone ever written a good study of libertarianism on psychological grounds? I've only recently begun to understand the degree to which the need to be able to arrive at a single unambiguous answer seems to drive you people. The more I read libertarians, the less libertarian I become.

Now go back to your grandmothers' basements and finish off that dime bag. You must have at least one issue of The X Men you haven't yet read for the 23rd time.

[R. C. Dean]

Exactly where on the chain of logic did I go wrong, anti-"neocons"? Was it:

(1) National defense is a legitimate function of government.

(2) Defeating our enemies (those who are waging war on us and killing us by the thousands) is a national defense function.

(3) Going overseas to defeat our enemies is permissible, and invading other countries with whom we are at war and/or who give aid and comfort to our enemies is permissible.

If you don't have principled libertarian objection to any of these concepts, then I don't see how supporting the war in Iraq is in principle inconsistent with libertarian ideas. The war in Iraq can be justified as nothing more than the application of these concepts in the real world.

Your objections strike me as being more in the nature of factual disputes (e.g., al Qaeda is unique and unconnected to Saddam Hussein or other Islamist terrorists) than anything else. We can argue over facts and risk assessments, but unless you take issue with one of the concepts listed above, I don't think you can say that it is impossible for a libertarian to support the war in Iraq.

BTW, dismissing the case for war as "neocon soundbites" advertises the shallowness of your thinking more than it refutes the case itself.

[JDM]

J.B.,

"Oh this is so amusing - I am reminded of dog eating its innards."

That's so apt, it's almost poetry. Did you come up with that line yourself?

[Wirkman Virkkala]

Well, this quickly degraded, didn't it?

I am loathe to agree with Medved, who, like Rush Limbaugh, usually plays the part of a moronic Republican partisan. But I agree with him: the Libertarian Party hasn't done much, and they lose election after election. Getting a few nonpartisan local offices doesn't make up for the amazing waste that the party displays every election.

This was obvious to me after the Clark defeat in 1980. When the time is ripe for a massive protest vote, someone with a less self-marginalizing vision will step up to the plate and take most of those votes (John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot later on).

There is almost no possibility, now, of a breakout into the mainstream. In the minds of the American people, Libertarians ARE Losertarians, and the stink of failure will never leave. The LP should dissolve. Libertarians should concentrate on issues for a while, and maybe try a few new parties, in hopes that one of them will hit it big, and quick.

If a minor party doesn't hit it big, quickly, then it will never amount to much. That's the lesson I take from the history of the Liberty Party, the Free Soil Party, and then the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party is stuck in Version 1.0, when it needs to reorganize, drop the name, adopt a new platform and set of goals, and try something new. If the abolitionists had stuck with the Liberty Party, election after election, they would never have freed the slaves. (Of course, America would likely never had a civil war, either, or become a natioalist monstrosity, but that's another issue - the Whig/Republican issue - that doesn't bear on my point.)

Now, I like the Libertarian Party. I have mostly fond memories of it. I still vote for its loser candidates (why vote for a more totalitarian "winner" when my vote doesn't count anyway? it never makes sense to vote for anything but your conscience - but tell that to your average voter: he's too dumb, or she's too ditzy).

But when even Michael Medved makes sense about it, you know its time is up.

[Garrett J]

Perhaps John Hawkins thinks we're better off with the "small government" that Republicans and the Bush administration have given us so far. But he is right about one thing. Voting your conscious and voting for the government you believe in really does cheapen the whole definition of politics. I'll take major party corruption and deceit, thank you very much.

[Justin Stoddard]

R.C. Dean,
Please point out to me when and where Saddam Hussein and his Army killed thousands of Americans.

The United States had every right, even an moral obligation to go after Al Qaeda (I'm no pacifist). However, I fail to understand the connection between Saddam and UBL.

If a person down the block kills my wife do I have the right to take over my next-door neighbors house, even if he ideologically agreed with the killing? Can I kill his children? His Wife? His Dog? If you live on the same block, can I come over to your house and take 20 bucks out of your pocket for the trouble, even if you don't agree with me?

If Saddam Hussein recruited those hijackers and supplied material support for the Sep 11th tragedy then, by all means, let's take him out.

However, as everyone knows by now, he had no such connection.

You may well be a freedom lover...I don't know. However, freedom can't come at the point of a gun. The question of freedom for Iraq and the Iraqi people is pretty much a decision the Iraqis must make.

-Justin M. Stoddard

[Joe Majsterski]

JDM: Nice troll, but I'm not hungry.

[rst]

Oh no, a political party that whores itself out to the highest bidder! Whatever will we do? Vote for Nadir?

(pun intended)

I gotta agree with RC on Iraq, Hussein repeatedly and publicly stated that the United States was the enemy of Iraq. Moreover, the cease-fire called for in UNSCR 687 after Gulf War I never came to pass. The war went on; that the world stopped paying attention is its own fault.

[Jason Ligon]

"Focus on the common goal, people. Work together, even with those from whom you'd normally disassociate yourselves, to achieve the goal."

I have given a good deal of thought to this. What I keep coming back to is that there are a couple of different kinds of people I'd normally disassociate with. Some of them are LP members, and some of them are Republicans (of which I am technically one). The question is tactical, not ideological. Which method gets me closer to where I want to be? The tragedy is that as an LP member, you have to spend all of your time trying to prove that you aren't insane. At the FEE (www.fee.org) conference in Vegas a few years back, Ron Paul spoke about this issue. In essence, he argued that in his current incarnation as a Republican, he can serve as the 'go to' guy for limited government inclined congressmen. He has established at least a single loud voice and quite a few mutterers on our team. Bottom line, this is not going to happen by way of the LP. The chances of accidentally electing an ideological adversary are too great, AND the LP is now in too deep PR wise to dig out. As much as the base loved it, the Harry Browne campaign discussions were not helpful. He is too passive-aggressive to deliver a reasonable sounding message.

I don't know what to do, I just want some hope.

[Wirkman Virkkala]

I should have clarified: I agree with Medved only halfway....

If the LP is a waste of time for libertarians, it does not follow, as Medved implies, that libertarians should join the GOP and attempt to make the GOP more libertarian. Maybe they should have, years ago. But now? You'd have to have a strong stomach, in my opinion, to work with the Bush people, and all these neo-imperialists (neocons). I couldn't do it. Though I welcome those who do. I just doubt they will ever succeed at much. The neo-imp agenda is (as Justin Stoddard points out) utterly at odds with libertarian ideas.

Also, the linked interview with Medved includes a lot of nonsense about Islam. Medved wears his Zionist blinders proudly, and proclaims idiocies and infamies in its cause. The idea that the Islamic East wants to see America die rather than merely change is idiotic. If America were to become less imperialistic and more just in its dealings in that area, most Muslims would welcome it. But, given American firmness of resolve to play the corrupt cop-on-the-bloc, OF COURSE many Muslims want America to die. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of the neo-imps, and insures that they can "always" justify their costly, big government incursions into the East.

So, for my part, I would never give a dime to a Republican, not until they spurn the neo-imperial agenda.

And I have some sympathy for the Muslims, for, though I'd like the GOP to change and shed every last shred of neo-imp ideology, I'd much rather it died, replaced by a better party, with more noble coalitions.

Alas, the better party ain't gonna be the LP. And we'll see if they GOP changes. Perhaps after a humiliating defeat in the mid-East? How many innocents must die before Medved and his ilk wise up?

[rst]

The question of freedom for Iraq and the Iraqi people is pretty much a decision the Iraqis must make.

like the question of freedom for American black slaves had to be addressed by American black slaves? Why couldn't black Americans just throw off the yolk of slavery and free themselves? It sounds like a decision (and an effort, I guess) that would have best been left to them, right?

[Justin Stoddard]

rst,
Slavery in America was an American problem, and in the end was and still is being solved by Americans. Do you think America would have tolerated England or France, or Russia coming to our shores, killing thousands of Americans in the process all in the name of freedom? More likely, North and South would have united to repell them back to their respective countries.

-Justin M. Stoddard

[Brendan]

Whoever made up this "Justin Raimondo" character is just brilliant, but I think you should tone it down just a little bit to make it more believable.

[Jean Bart]

jdm,

Actually, the notion of a dog or other canine eating its innards as metaphor for such infighting is likely very old. As I recall, the first time I saw it in print, etc. was as a means to describe/define what Derrida's term "deconstruction" means. Though I think the animal inquestion at the time I first saw the phrase was a hyena; I was going for less exotic animals. 🙂

[CK]

I didn't know voting for the party that represented your philosophy cheapened politics. Thank you, Michael. From now on, I'll simply vote for whoever is winning the polls.

As for electing ultra liberals and big government types... I didn't know it was our fault that most Republican candidates are as soulless, hollow and ideologically vacuous as the Democratic candidates. If Medved and the rest of the Republican lot that pays lip service to the concept of big government voted libertarian, the situation would be much different.

[JDM]

It may have been a troll, but it was honest, minus the grandmothers' basements thing - which is probably only about 50% accurate. I would say the intellectual dishonesty among hard core libertarians is as high as any other group of true believers. I'm not one to take message boards seriously, but some of you folks are something slightly less than sane.

[Sharky]

The problem here is definition. There are several types of people who use the word libertarian:

1) Individuals whose core beliefs are more libertarian than anything else, but whose political leanings may vary.

2) Libertarians (big L) who support the particular political agenda of the LP. Medved is clearly attacking this group.

3) Movement libertarians, who think they are part of a grand "libertarian movement" -- full of factions, purges, cadres and official theology. Usually Ex-Honchos in the LP, they consider the individualists and the LP as "traitors." The best example on this board of a Movementarian is Justin Raimondo.

[JDM]

JB,

Well good job anyway. The die hards probably imagine lions tearing out the innards of hyenas instead. Or maybe just other infirm lions.

Whatever will become of our freedom when its true defenders are locked in such bitter infighting? Distressing.

[thoreau]

JDM-

I more or less agree with you. I want smaller government because it seems that smaller government would make life a lot better for me and most other people. I didn't derive that conclusion from axioms formulated by Rand, von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, or some other libertarian philosopher. I don't look at smaller government as a moral imperative that need not be justified by its (positive) consequences. I just think smaller government is a good idea because it seems like it would work. And I think that even somewhat smaller government would be a good step, I don't just denounce anything short of Libertopia as fascist.

Even worse, I think that supporters of small government should be able to honestly disagree over various matters without being tarnished as "not being real libertarians." For instance, on the matter of Iraq two people could agree that wars should only be fought when necessary for self-defense but disagree over whether this particular situation has reached a stage where war is in fact the only solution. (I'll pause as both sides toss rotten tomatoes.)

So yeah, I guess there is a lot of insanity among (l/L)ibertarians (small-l and big-L).

[Jean Bart]

JDM,

Have you ever read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer?"

[Jean Bart]

Enculer un Vache! In one hour, over one hundred posts! Is that a new record?

[Anonymous]

Dear Reason staff,

I will cancel my subscription to the magazine if you do not ban Raimondo from these comment boards. He has ruined reason.com for me. Thank you for your time.

[Sam Grove]

I've known Justin from way back, and personally, I've always liked him, but even when I agree with him, I don't like the way he 'debates' issues.

As a long time libertarian, I oppose the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
Government screws up everything and we can watch it all over again... and again.

[Kevin Carson]

John Hood,

Actually, the emergence of the term "neoconservative" in the mainstream press was a good thing. Before then, the self-identification of people like Kristol was taken at face value, and they were referred to as "conservatives" without comment. The reason was that the press was too historically illiterate to realize that there was ever a time when mainstream conservatism was non-interventionist and opposed to large standing armies, or when interventionism and the national security state was identified with Cold War liberalism.

Justin Raimondo,

Unfortunately, though, the term "neocon" is used so broadly as to have no meaning, in many cases. Being pro-Israel and hawkish has been a dominant faction of the New Right since Buckley's National Review was founded, right up until the triumph of Reaganism. The second generation of neocons, as you call them, are really more of a hybrid in which the neocon and New Right elements are becoming indistinguishable. The southern GOP leadership (like Lott and Delay) is one exception; among them, the old anti-labor and anti-government Reaganite element in the mix is much stronger than the neocon element. The rabid pro-Israelism is more a function of their dispensationalist lunacy (actually pretty off-putting to genuine neocons) than of any alleged neocon sympathies.

[Kevin Carson]

Oops. I meant, "dominant feature of the New Right."

And BTW, people like Medved are GOP mirror-images of the unthinking shitheads in the Democratic party who still resent Nader. The "argument" (if you want to call it that), in both cases, is "choose from what's put in front of you, like a good little boy." Oh, yeah, if you want to motivate a professional politican to change, there's nothing like obligating yourself to choose the "lesser of evils." Political hacks are always much more likely to do your bidding when they regard you as a captive constituency.

Medved's recipe for reform: keep crawling back on your belly, and maybe the party establishment will finally get tired of kicking you.

[Anonymous]

thanks kevin!

movementarianism lives!

[Matt Welch]

Boy, did I pick the wrong morning to have a three-hour doctor's appointment....

Thanks as always, Raimondo, for the laugh. I've been called many strange names over the years, but this is the first time I've heard "neocon."

[Kevin Carson]

And CK's argument that liberal victories are the fault of GOP establishment candidates, on account of their being so soulless and vacuous, sounds almost identical to the Naderite jibes about Gore's loss.

Right on, in both cases. If you don't want voters taking their business elsewhere, then DON'T BE SUCH A WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT!

[Anonymous]

yeah right Matt -- we all know what "doctor's appointment" is a codeword for meeting with your Elders of Neocon masters.

[Matt]

R.C. Dean:

Actually, you went wrong on all three counts, but I'm not going to quibble about that. Assuming all three are true, attacking Iraq still went against libertarian principles. The eplanation is as follows: Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack on us that you spoke about. Secondly, nobody, including you, has yet to identify who our enemy is. "nutball Islamists" just won't cut it, and to use your phrase, that terminology reveals the shallowness of your thinking. Even radical Islam is not our enemy - only those radical Islamists (assuming that's what they were) that attacked us.

You're acting like the Iraq war is a direct application of the priniciples you outlined. It doesn't even come close. We attacked a nation that never did anything to us. Somehow I just can't imagine how that would be within libertarian principles.

[JDM]

JB,

No, but maybe I will. It may provide some good material for mocking others. Although, from Amazon, it looks like it's about *mass* movements, which indicates that it would probably fail completly to give any insight into Libertarianism.

Thoreau,

"I think that supporters of small government should be able to honestly disagree over various matters without being tarnished as "not being real libertarians.""

They can. The people you describe are all Republicans. (Not *every* Republican.) Most (probably all) of the young Republicans I know, none of whom are Young Republicans (and aren't actually all that young anymore,) are mainly so because they want smaller government. There are more people doing more for liberty within the Republican party than in the LP.

The very thing that makes someone a libertarian (as defined by the people who describe themselves as libertarians) is their adherence to the specific dogma of the other libertarians. There is no room for disagreement. The idea that such libertarians are the ones who know best how to apply the principle of individual liberty to the world, or that they are the only ones who do, or that they know how best to defend it, is a fabrication of their own making. It's important to them for their own reasons - mainly, I've concluded, psychological.

So, you see, a collection of shut-in idealogues claiming that you aren't a "real libertarian" can't really be described as "tarnishing" you.

[R. C. Dean]

JSM - The United States had every right, even an moral obligation to go after Al Qaeda (I'm no pacifist). However, I fail to understand the connection between Saddam and UBL.

This is where we depart from discussing principles and start arguing facts and risk assessments.

I think there is pretty decent evidence that Saddam had a working relationship with al Qaeda, although I doubt that Saddam had anything very directly to do with 9/11, but that is a factual argument, not one on principle.

I also think that the entire Islamist terror network is interrelated, and that as a criminal network it has all kinds of reasons to set up false fronts and obscure these connections. That, too, is a factual argument, not one from principle. I don't think the distinction between Hamas and al Quaeda is one that we need to worry about, for the same reason the FBI doesn;t worry about t5he distinction between the Giottis and the Gambinos.

A principled argument along these lines might state that "the US has the right to go after only its immediate attackers, not but their allies and supporters." I don't hear you making that argument, but you could be.

As for However, freedom can't come at the point of a gun, I beg to differ. As far as I can tell, freedom has frequently come from the barrel of a gun. Tyrants rarely go peacefully.

[James Merritt]

Jason Ligon says, "Bottom line, [success] is not going to happen by way of the LP....the LP is now in too deep PR wise to dig out."

The problem for me is, people have been saying that kind of thing about the LP for at least two DECADES now. Yet the LP continues to go through phases of relative success and relative failure; the net result today is that there are hundreds of Libertarians in office and making a difference now, whereas there were only a few tens when I started watching. Many court cases have been successfully fought, many taxes have been successfully opposed, and much good has been done. I believe that such a difference could not have been made, even by the same people, working within the two major parties. Ed Thompson scared the hell out of establishment pols in Wisconsin and got a Libertarian on the statewide elections board with his showing in the gubernatorial race. This will result in at least some changes that will be good for minor parties and independent candidates.

LP candidates have apparently cost the GOP enough close races that the latter is pulling out the stops to get the strays back in the fold. But, with a majority in congress and holding control of the White House, do Republicans actually COURT libertarian voters by taking real steps to increase freedom and actually reduce the size, power, and scope of government? Has Ron Paul become a major player in Congress! NO! Every day, the GOP shows that it is merely willing to speak the words of liberty to entice gullible voters into staying in their camp. When it comes to actually doing something with the power the electorate has given them, it is another story altogether. For their part, the Demos talk a good game on civil liberties, but they're ready to ban guns outright, to impose speech codes on campuses and in the workplace, and to "engineer consensus" on matters such as the environment, transportation, and education (the democratic approaches to which all entail increasingly higher taxes).

Ron Paul is someone whose views and accomplishments I respect greatly. Being a practical medical man, he decided to get elected by any means necessary, and to have at least an inviation to the adult's table once in congress; for him, in his district, this meant running GOP. It is hard to argue with success, and I am truly grateful for his presence in Congress, but it doesn't appear as if anyone of a truly libertarian persuasion has been able to duplicate Paul's accomplishment within the GOP, so I don't think "the answer" is as simple as getting a lot of libertarians to become active in the Republican Party. Having one Ron Paul on the team is like the Demos having that other Paul, Wellstone, on their team. With Paul W. gone, the Demos are now looking to Dean and Kucinich (sic?) to fill the gap and serve as the legitimizing "conscience" of their Party, as an antidote to the threat posed by the Ralph Naders of the world. But having more than one or two such people in prominent positions is probably not good for either party's business, so I would not expect a "work within the system" strategy to pack the Congress with libertarians, soon or ever.

Daunting as it may seem, I think that the best hope for liberty, and the LP, is "fluke and stick." That is, keep throwing candidates of higher and higher quality at the electoral wall; some will adhere (win) by what opponents will describe as electoral "flukes." No matter. As long as those candidates do a creditable job in office, perhaps being re-elected once or twice (i.e., "sticking"), they will 1) establish libertarians as a credible alternative, demonstrating the falsehood of the "wacko" stereotype; 2) set the stage for their own political advancement to higher office as libertarians.

This isn't just a theory, it is a current work in progress, as more and more of the hundreds of elected libertarians are re-elected or elected to new offices after other terms expire.

I wouldn't write the LP and its chances of success off so blithely...

[James Merritt]

Sure, it would be nice to say that we had elected a Senator, or several House Reps, a governor (we got a lot closer than people realize with Ed Thompson in Wisconsin last year!), or -- dare I dream? -- a President. But we HAVE elected state reps, county supervisors, mayors, city council members, school board members, sheriffs, DAs, and many other local office-holders: Many hundreds of them over the past decade or two, in fact. Quite a few of them have been RE-elected, as people have realized that the sky doesn't fall when Libertarians become government officials; rather, a lot of good gets done. Elected Libertarians and party activists have saved taxpayers millions of dollars throughout the past several decades, and have saved the citizenry from a fair amount of government waste and stupidity, by opposing and helping to defeat needless laws. Some Libertarians have gladly presided over the lowering of their own salaries, or the outright elimination of their official positions, all in the name of REALLY making government smaller, less costly, and less intrusive. This may not amount to a big enough splash to impress Mr. Medved or his Libertarian-bashing guests, but I guarantee you that it is more of a difference than those people could have made, banging their heads against the wall of politics-as-usual in EITHER of the major parties.

Medved and his fellow nay-sayers would know all of this, if they took the time to study the facts -- or if they even cared about facts. What they seem to care about is reducing the citizenry to cattle and herding them in a direction that someone in authority has chosen; accomplishing that goal rarely requires a command of facts.

If he wants to play fair, Medved should put Harry Browne, Steve Dasbach, Gary Nolan, Ken Krawchuck, Bill Masters, Steve Kubby, Jim Babka, Ed Thompson, Judge Jim Gray, or any of a host of other articulate and passionate Libertarians on the air. I don't have a whole lot of hope that this will happen, of course, as "playing fair" does not appear to be the object of the game.

But let's get one thing straight: every elected Libertarian at the local and regional level is one step closer to success at higher electoral levels, and every RE-elected Libertarian is one step closer yet. It is taking a long time to break through the thick wall that the two major parties have erected against competition, just as it took the US a long time to make a dent in the other side's wall during the Cold War. But once a crack appeared, it wasn't very long before the whole thing crumbled to the ground. The last thing that Libertarians need to do is lose heart and give up, especially as the kind of scoffing and ridicule heaped upon us by self-appointed arbiters of taste such as Medved is indicative of microfractures in the facade that precede collapse. If the GOP really WERE in control, and not threatened by our opposition, they wouldn't CARE about our little fringe group of Libertarians, would they? Medved would have much bigger fish to fry.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win." - M.K. Gandhi

All the GOP has to do to crush the Libertarians utterly is to talk the talk and walk the walk of liberty. As it is, they talk the talk (sometimes) to get elected, the walk in a different direction once in office. The Libertarians are here to tell them to keep on walking, because Americans who want and believe in liberty don't need faint-hearted, two-faced friends like that.

[dhex]

oddly enough, i just finished reading "the true believer" this morning on the subway. very good, though obviously dated, and has the sort of quality which makes it so popular amongst professional "skeptics." people can read the book, go "ohh, i recognize that trait! yeah, [group x] is just like that" and ignore the existence of the tendencies in the book in their own lives and favorite groups. but outside of the 1950s view of the world which sometimes pops up, hoffer was very strident and effective in making his case.

[Matt]

"I also think that the entire Islamist terror network is interrelated, and that as a criminal network it has all kinds of reasons to set up false fronts and obscure these connections"

You've got no basis to make such a claim. This is pure speculation, speculation that if true would lend credence to your argument. It happens, however, to be false.

[joe]

Jeez, Raimondo, I've spent more than enough time defending people on this board of bogus antisemitism charges, but what exactly am I to make of this...

"But being a "PNAC infiltrator" (uh huh...), I guess English isn't your native language."

or "The neocon moneybags are firmly in control."

or '"Useful work," indeed. But on whose behalf? The Israeli "art students" you so tenaciously defend are no doubt grateful for all the "useful work" you've done for them.'

You know your opposition is eager to make an antisemitism charge, and you still write shit like this? WTF?

I think you laid down with dogs. And I think you woke up with fleas.

[Dan]

Many court cases have been successfully fought, many taxes have been successfully opposed, and much good has been done.

When has the Libertarian Party successfully opposed a tax that wasn't also opposed by either the Republican or (I guess it *could* happen) Democratic Parties?

Libertarianism is an ideology. As an ideology, it makes sense. As a political party, it doesn't; it's a simple reality that minor parties can only act as spoilers for the major party most like them, in a winner-takes-all system. If you want to be an ideologically and morally pure person living under a government you hate, by all means vote Libertarian, or Green, or Communist, or whatever. If you want to live under a less-hateful government, however, you'd better get with the program and work to move either the Democrats or the Republicans in the direction you want.

I think virtually all taxes and government services should be eliminated. I can either vote Libertarian (basically indistinguisable from staying home from the polls); or I can vote Republican. In general, the latter is more likely to result in me having lower taxes, and a smaller government.

Of course, it helps that the Libertarian Party took a steep dive off Nutbag Falls sometime in the mid-90s. 🙂

Disclaimer: I used to vote Libertarian before I grew up.

[Anonymous]

I didn't know Reason magazine was in the grip of the Global Zionist Media Conspiracy. Thanks for cluing us in, Dennis!

[Jesse Walker]

Nice as it is to have him compliment me, I can't figure out what prompted Justin's eruption in this thread. Did he think Matt linked to the Medved interview because he agreed with it? I would expect our readers to take it as a given that "Michael Medved says" means "you might get a giggle out of reading this." Matt voted for Nader, so I don't think he's either biased against third parties or interested in advancing any GOP line.

[Jesse Walker]

As for the Libertarian Party, my views on that subject are here.

[Anonymous]

Joe,

Can you really deny the Dems have moved left? Look at Al Gore's stance on Iraq -- as VP, he was basically a hawk. Now he's a dirty hippie. At the beginning of the primary campaigns, Kerry, Dean and Edwards all supported the war Even Lieberman is moving left, on taxes and a few other things.

[Truth9-11]

I see the Likudniks have had a fun smearing Raimondo today - typical neocon tactics. You have been on his case for years, attacking his character.

No matter, the truth is out. We know where you get your marching orders, it isn't Moscow anymore (hint: they are building a wall around it). You neocons will be exposed for the fascists you are.

[Jason Ligon]

I will try to express myself another way.

I believe that little 'l' libertarians like Friedman, Cato, and your average Reason contributor have more traction in public discourse than big 'L' Libertarians.

You can count advances by guys like Norquist on tax policy, RPPI on privitization (California's power debacle probably set them back 10 years, but the effort is still being made), the frequency with which Cato analysis is cited, and so on as little l successes.

In terms of having national influence, I don't think there is any doubt that think tanks matter. What strikes me is, on the one hand you have RPPI proposing a budget for California to eliminate their debt, but on the other you have the LP and guys like Browne wanting to dismantle everything in one year. It is not surprising that people don't take the latter position seriously, and it is perfectly rational in a democracy for people who support the former position to distance themselves from all of the screaming.

Media operates in soundbites. Such generalizations are generally unfair. That said, the operation of a democracy is the act of selling yourself to the voter. Just like you don't see Firestone tires advertized anymore, maybe you shouldn't see too many Libertarian politicians, either. The label is now a liability.

[thoreau]

Well, here's an idea to test two hypotheses simultaneously:

1) That Libertarians (note the Big L) aren't cranks insisting on all or nothing

2) That GOP elected officials really do want smaller government

I recall hearing that in the past year the Washington state LP threatened to run spoilers against any Republican legislator who voted for a tax increase. I don't know how many in the GOP complied, but the tax increase failed.

Perhaps a state party (maybe the one in WA) could issue a list of demands to the GOP. Probably not the entire LP platform, just a selection of things that are politically feasible but also significant steps toward smaller government.

The state party could say that any GOP politician who votes in accordance with the announced agenda will face no LP spoiler in the next election. Any GOP elected official who acts against it will face a spoiler. Depending on the political situation and the strength of the state party it might make sense to issue different demands to different officials (e.g. some agenda items would make sense for a state's Congressional delegation but not state legislators, and vice-versa).

Anyway, the precise details aren't relevant to this discussion. The point is, the LP could say "Show us that you really do care about smaller government and we'll stick to local races in the next election cycle." If a state chapter did such a project it would debunk the notion that Libertarians don't care about real-world politics. On the other hand, if this idea was floated to state chapters in a serious forum where the leaders and organizers heard it, and they rejected it, it would support the notion that the LP doesn't live in the real world.

Likewise, if most GOP elected officials actually complied with a reasonable list of demands (e.g. repeal some of the most noxious gun laws and cut all taxes by 10%) then the LP claim that "There's no difference between the Dems and GOP" would be bolstered. On the other hand, if most GOP elected officials refused to comply then the GOP emperors would be shown to have no clothes.

More ambitious variations are possible. Maybe the LP could learn to run spoilers against Democrats by learning how to appeal to traditional Democratic constituencies like ethnic minorities and union workers (e.g. point out that an allegedly pro-union politician does you no good if he still takes 40% of your pay via income taxes, social security taxes for a program that won't even exist by the time you retire, various sales taxes, etc.), as well as civil libertarians and whatnot.

Anyway, the point is, turn the spoiler effect to good use.

[matt]

"....or I can vote Republican. In general, the latter is more likely to result in me having lower taxes, and a smaller government."

Dan,

When exaclty have the republicans made government smaller? Did I miss it? When was the last time Bush vetoed a spending bill? Government is growing faster now than under clinton and that's with a republican house, senate, and president.

[thoreau]

Two corrections:

1) when I said "...if most GOP elected officials actually complied with a reasonable list of demands (e.g. repeal some of the most noxious gun laws and cut all taxes by 10%) then the LP claim that "There's no difference between the Dems and GOP" would be bolstered

I should have said:

...if most GOP elected officials actually complied with a reasonable list of demands (e.g. repeal some of the most noxious gun laws and cut all taxes by 10%) then the LP claim that "There's no difference between the Dems and GOP" would be undermined

2) "Comply with a list of demands" sounds bad. How about "enact a list of reasonable reforms"?

[Jean Bart]

thoreau,

Afraid of seeming a little too much like "Dog Day Afternoon?" 🙂

[Mark Bahner]

"I do think it's very telling that the "Losertarians" have all decided to have a mass migration to New Hampshire to try to takeover that state. Good luck to them and I think that's a much more useful way to use their time than trying to run morons for President."

Bwahahahaha! This from a guy who supported *G.W. Bush* for president...a president who is beyond a doubt one of the most mentally challenged presidents ever elected!

Tell you what, Michael Medved, you ignoramous...you persuade G.W. Bush to allow the Libertarian candidate for president into the presidential debates in 2004, and let The People decide who is the moron!

[thoreau]

What's "Dog Day Afternoon"?

[s.m. koppelman]

I can think of plenty of unflattering ways to describe Cathy Young's and Ron Bailey's contributions to Reason -- and "pay-for-play" does come to mind especially with the latter -- but calling any of the current Reason regulars a neocon is beyond strange. Calling Matt Welch one doubly so.

[Mark Bahner]

"If he wants to play fair, Medved should put Harry Browne, Steve Dasbach, Gary Nolan, Ken Krawchuck, Bill Masters, Steve Kubby, Jim Babka, Ed Thompson, Judge Jim Gray, or any of a host of other articulate and passionate Libertarians on the air."

Better yet, Mr. Medved can get G.W. Bush to come debate any of those gentlemen. 🙂

[Mark Bahner]

"We have, like it or not, a two-party system in the U.S."

Well, let's see. Republican. Democrat. Libertarian. Constitution. Green. Reform.

Hmmmm...the way *I* count it, that's more than two.

[Mark Bahner]

"Libertarians can disagree on this issue (the war in Iraq)--as bizarre as libertarians siding with fascism seems to me--without pointless epithets like neo-Con being tossed about."

Yes, I agree completely. And there is also no need to talk about "siding with fascism."

I assume the author of this post doesn't advocate that the U.S. U.S. invade Cuba and North Korea and China and Iran and Myanmar...but that doesn't mean that the author "sides with" communism or fascism.

[Jean Bart]

thoreau,

"Dog Day Afternoon" is a film; it features, amongst others, Al Pacino. Pacino's character, along with his brother as I recall, try to rob a bank, an act which turns into a nasty hostage situation. They make a "list of demands," one of which is that Pacino's brother get a sex-change operation. The film came out in 1975 or 1976.

[Mark Bahner]

"If you want to live under a less-hateful government, however, you'd better get with the program and work to move either the Democrats or the Republicans in the direction you want."

The Libertarian Party will move BOTH Democrats and Republicans in the direction we want. All it will take is a well-spoken "celebrity" candidate for president...e.g., Larry Elder or Deroy Murdock.

[Kevin Carson]

R.C. Dean,

Not even government is "a legitimate function of government." Even the legitimate functions of self-defense, when carried out through a State, will in practice be twisted to further the class interests that control the State.

[Anonymous]

This Mark Bahner guy is pretty delusional.

Libertarians have the same problem every fringe group has -- they overestimate the number of people who agree with them. I'm a Libertarian, but there's a reason 99% of people aren't. In most cases, they don't agree. Now maybe, if libertarians were better at getting their message out, that figure might be 90%. But still.

[Anonymous]

so you are saying it would have only served class interests if the state had defended us from 9-11?

[Anonymous]

Kevin, that makes you an anarchist, not a libertarian. That's ok, I guess, but you'll have a hard time convincing most of us.

[Mark Bahner]

"This Mark Bahner guy is pretty delusional."

Interesting post from someone who apparently doesn't even know who he is. (Posting ad hominem attacks anonymously...THAT really earns my respect. :-/)

"Libertarians have the same problem every fringe group has -- they overestimate the number of people who agree with them."

All Libertarians needed was for ~500 people who really wanted to vote for Al Gore in 2000 to have actually voted for Al Gore (instead of mistakenly voting for Pat Buchanan) and we would have properly cost G.W. Bush the election.

And I can just imagine the hissy fit Michael Medved would have had about THAT! (It's really too bad it didn't happen...@#$% butterfly ballots!)

"I'm a Libertarian, but there's a reason 99% of people aren't."

Yes, they either like Big Government, or have been fooled into thinking that a vote for Republicans (except for the Honorable Ron Paul) is NOT a vote for Big Government.

"In most cases, they don't agree."

Yes, the vast majority of people either like Big Government, or have been fooled into thinking Republicans support small government.

"Now maybe, if libertarians were better at getting their message out, that figure might be 90%. But still."

If Harry Browne had gotten 10% of the vote in 2000, I guarantee you that both the Democratic and Republican parties would have been pulled in the Libertarian direction!

[chthus]

"At LA's Palisades High School, Medved... led a campaign to turn the football field into a rice paddy," What the hell was that all about?

[Franklin Harris]

Medved may get his wish, what with the pro-Dean libertarian faction and all.

What do you mean that's not what he meant?

[CK]

> I can't figure out what prompted Justin's eruption in this thread.

[WLC]

According to Medved, we're "losing" support. Odd. In 1993 we had 93 Libertarians in office, now we have 599.

I'll give his thoughts all the attention they merit.

[David 2]

Michael who?

[Argyles]

Medved hasn't had anything interesting to say since "The Golden Turkey Awards" and "The Hollywood Hall of Shame."

[Peter]

Medved seems to assume that if Libertarians did not have other Libertarians for whom to vote, they would vote Republican. Not so. Many would not vote at all. I would more likely resort to voting for Democrats more often than Republicans because Democrats in practice tend to be slightly more respectful of at least some individual rights. Republicans tend to have different ideas about how to run everyone's life and business (here and abroad) with the money they take, but they actually spend more than Democrats when they are in control.

Occasionally there is a Republican who tries to spend less than the Democrats want, but even then, on closer examination, the facts do not fit the hypothesis that Republicans are more fiscally conservative or hostile to big government. Usually, a Republican governor wants to spend less than the Democrats do on the Democrats' pet issues, so when the Democrats control a legislature, the Republican governor looks somewhat prudent. But put that legislature in Republican control and spending goes way up, because now the money will go to enforcing or promoting a Republican or conservative's notion about how you should live.

And the Republicans never have the willpower to get rid of a Democratic program or agency, even if the Republican Party was on record opposing it at the outset. Once the Republicans control, they simply fill the agency with their own, and continue taxing people to pay the salaries. Tell me: Now that the Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, has the Department of Education been abolished? Has its budget been reduced? Has even the rate of growth of its budget been cut back?

And here is one answer to Medved's question ("what have [Libertarians] accomplished with all [their] activism?"): Carla Howell's 2002 Massachusetts ballot initiative to completely end the state income tax (about 1/3 of the state budget), by garnering about 46% of the vote and actually getting a majority in many legislative districts has made it politically impossible to raise taxes in Massachusetts.

Every ad or op-ed promoting it, every ad or op-ed opposing it, and all news media coverage of it, identified that initiative as a Libertarian Party proposal.

And every Republican candidate for Governor, Lt. Governor, or state legislature was on record AGAINST it.

[Anonymous]

GOP Definition
--------------
Ass-kisser: (n) See Medved, Michael

[John Hood]

I think Medved is wrong but not for the silly reasons offered above. The LP is no closer to winning a significant election than it was when it started; perhaps it is farther away, which I think was what Medved was saying about the party losing ground.

We have, like it or not, a two-party system in the U.S. We always have, and unless we change the winner-take-all process, we always will. What third parties have historically done is move the main parties one way or the other. If you are enough of a factor in an election or two, one of the omniparties coopts your message, or at least enough of it to pull in the voters that are truly in play (yes, there are some who won't vote if given two flawed choices, but many others will).

The Liberty Party in 1844 got a significant number of votes in a few states. The Free Soilers did, too, a couple of cycles later. The shards of the Whig Party then repositioned to embrace a moderate version of abolition and became the second party, the GOP. In the late 1800s, the Populists gained enough support to move the Democrats to the left. Same deal for the Progressives and the Republicans a decade or two later.

Wallace's movement in the 1960s and early 1970s prompted the GOP to change its message to attract Southern and border whites. And so on.

While some Republicans fume about the role the LP plays in costing them close races, others are seeking ways to reposition their party to deflate the LP balloon. That means at least a modest advance for liberty. Dems are going through the same dynamic with the Naderite Greens, recognizing the vulnerability the latter exposed in 2000. The result may well be a Deaniac lurch in 2004, which will please the Greens (and the GOP, by the way).

Medved is speaking as a partisan here, I think, not as an ideologue. I mean the latter in the positive sense of the term.

[rst]

Cops are good people, it's one of the lessons that I learned many years that helped make me a conservative. Cops are on the side of civilization.

Yeah. Somebody grew up in a rich white neighborhood.

It seems this fool thinks that politics is a struggle meant for two and only two well-heeled parties. His party, and the Wrong party.

[Anonymous]

Rhetoric of desperation!

[Xrlq]

"You may well be a freedom lover...I don't know. However, freedom can't come at the point of a gun."

Somebody please tell me this comment was intended as a joke. "Freedom can't come at the point of a gun?" Where the hell do you think our country's freedom came from?

But wait, it gets better:

"The question of freedom for Iraq and the Iraqi people is pretty much a decision the Iraqis must make."

Why, of course! After all, it wasn't even a year ago that the Iraqis had a regularly scheduled election. If they didn't want Saddam in power, they should have voted for the other guy instead. For us to topple him later was nothing more than power grab by a bunch of rich Republicans trying to re-fight a political battle they couldn't win last year. Oh, wait, maybe I'm thinking of last month's gubernatorial recall. Never mind.

[Russ D]

I'll never forget Medved's embarassing version of Sneak Previews and Siskel & Ebert went the syndication route. Seems like he's been overcompensating for it ever since.

[Ron C]

Somebody needs to switch to decaf.

[mike]

Thank God for the LP. How else would I be able to cast a protest vote? Some Republicans were smart enough to see the bloc of votes among libertarians and begin to adopt some of their principles (smaller government, e.g.). The Democrats have missed that concept so far. What other way would there be to keep the Republicans on message? Commit to vote for them no matter what, per Medved? Dolt.

[Jean Bart]

John Hood,

People tend to forget that the Republican party's second major plank was "nativism."

[Justin Raimondo]

We can always count on Matt Welch -- and, increasingly, Reason magazine -- to barf up the neocon-GOP party line. Now, uh, why IS that? Just follow the money: $50,000 per year from the Scaife Foundation, more from the Bradley Foundation, and yet more from the Claude R. Lambe Foundation. The big neocon moneybags have bought what used to be a libertarian magazine, and turned it -- mostly -- into a mouthpiece for the Busheviks. Sad, really. Aside from whores like the perpetually unemployable Welch, the fate of Reason might be summed up as: They coulda BEEN somebody....

[dhex]

medved sounds like a gore 2000 democrat yelling at a green for putting bush in the white house. they miss the point entirely - you don't change a political party by playing nice. you change them by punishing them until they either adopt enough of your positions to win you over or you get enough support to supplant them.

[Jim Walsh]

We've got their attention. We're making them nervous. Keep it up. gang...

[Justin Raimondo]

Follow the Money, Part II: For documentation of the above, just go to mediatransperency.org, and type "Reason Foundation" into their search engine. Or email the editors and ask: Who's paying your salary?

[Joe Majsterski]

dhex, you've got it right.

All this fuss is due to the fact that LP votes have cost the GOP big in the last few election cycles. So now they're all saying, "Look at the mess you've made! Are you happy now that you've let *shudder* a DEMOCRAT get into office?!" And, quite frankly, yes, I am. There seems to be this idea that, if we'd just vote for them, they'd shape up, yet they're fiscally just as ridiculous as Dems. It's like government programs in general: if they're not working, you don't reward them with more resources.

[Ayatollah Usoe]

You know what cheapens politics? Treating an election like a football game, and treating your vote like a sports bet.

Just think, if 300 Libertarians didn't pull the republican lever in Florida, we'd have a different president today, and the RNC would have to rethink its strategy of taking Libertarians for granted.

[Jean Bart]

Sounds like Medved is trolling here.

Justin Raimando,

If your accusations are true, then why do folks like Jesse Walker have a clear anti-invasion of Iraq bias (its not really an anti-war bias)?

[Gordon Shumway]

Hey Justin, when pushing a website, it sometimes helps to spell it right.

[t. money]

A libertarian thinktank taking donations from private organizations? Disgusting! Everybody knows that the only thinktanks that are at all worthwhile are strictly government funded.

[Justin Raimondo]

To Matt Welch: Did I call you personally a neocon? Sorry to give that wrong impression: you're just somebody who knows where the money is.

To the guy (and Jesse Walker) who is wondering about my "eruption": the whole point of bringing up this obscure "interview" from some marginal site called "Right Wing News" (uh huh) was to publicize the ongoing neocon-Republican assault on the principled and admirable LP, which is sticking to its Rothbardian-antiwar roots and opposing this rotten war. Not only that, but the LP is leading the charge, along with Grover Norquist, David Keene, and others, against the odious "Patriot" Act, and all the other unconstitutional legal measures that are designed to transform us into a larger version of our wonderful "ally," Israel. Notice how they're going after anyone on the Right who opposes their authoritarian-Likudnik agenda: Norquist is being smeared, so is Keene's American Conservative Union, and the LP has been a particular target of late (since the election is coming up). The LP could deny the neocons control of the White House -- and they'll do anything to prevent that from happening.

Besides that, the "interview" Welch posted was filled with racist remarks about Arabs, and the same ranting drooling bigotry that one reads in Commentary magazine and the exhortations of Daniel Pipes. That kind of trash is of ZERO interest to libertarians, but Welch has been promoting it as long as I've been aware of his existence. He seems like a nice enough guy, albeit not much of a journalist, but one thing he isn't, and that's a libertarian -- as he will probably be the first to admit.

[dhex]

politics and football are very similar - have you seen a national convention in the past, oh, 100 years or so?

considering how absurd the two major parties are - they ran two former dopeheads against one another to debate who would put more poor drug users in prison, for starters - treating your vote like a sports bet is giving the fuckers more credit than they deserve.

[Anonymous]

translation: "its all da JOOS"

["J. Raimondo"]

Sorry everybody the tinfoil came off my head of I'm not even sure what I was saying. Just ignore everything I said.

[Julian Sanchez]

"The big neocon moneybags have bought what used to be a libertarian magazine, and turned it -- mostly -- into a mouthpiece for the Busheviks."

Ummm... what? Do they ship a different edition of the magazine to Planet Raimondo?

[DennisFan]

See how these corporate-fascist-trotsykist-Likudnik neocons "post" lies such as above that smear us.

These fake "libertarians" are an affront to all true Rothbardians. All they can do is whine about "tin foil" caps when Justin and myself clearly make sense. The zionists are everywhere! And they are controlling these "message boards"!

[Justin Raimondo]

To Jean Bart: Jesse Walker is a great guy, but he's an Assistant Editor, or something like that. The neocon moneybags are firmly in control.

To John Hood: No one said that the Reason Foundation shouldn't accept donations from "private" donors. But then we have the right to examine those donations, and, as they say, "follow the money." As to the use of the word "neocon" -- or neoconservative -- it is well-known that the second generation of neocons were never "liberals" (i.e. reformed Trotskyites), but so what? Neocon ideology -- Big government, American Empire, and Israel Uber Alles -- has remained pretty much constant throughout the history of this troublesome sect. The word "neocon" is ubiquitous for a good reason, and has entered the American political lexicon whether you like it or not.

[Wendy Rimley]

Read more of what I, I mean Justin has to say here. The truth shall set you free.

http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/000256.html

[Frenk]

Losertarian? HA HA HA.

From now on, i am describing myself as "Losertarian" whenever anyone asks for my political affiliation.

[Clark]

"If God forbid, there had been a switch of 300 votes in Florida, if 300 people had voted differently or if 500 Republicans had decided to stay home, we would have had a very different President right now."
This would concern me more if Bush weren't such a disaster as president.

[Justin Raimondo]

Julian: Are you denying that the neocon money in Reason's coffers has a decisive effect on its editorial policy? Puh-leeeze, spare us the outrage: if Reason came out editorially against the war, and consistently criticized That Man in the White House, you'd be out of a job faster than you can say "Sarah Scaife Foundation" -- which gave $150,000 to Reason in 2001 alone. Another hundred thou came in from the Bradley Foundation. Sure, anti-Bush and anti-war stuff is allowed in the margins, but only in the context of a "debate" -- as if this rotten war is debatable in libertarian terms! Thus, Reason is effectively neutralized, and "libertarianism" is reduced to a bunch of dope-smoking, clone-crazed, "alternative" neocons, and we have to listen to the rantings of a Matt Welch, a Ron Bailey, or a Cathy Young (she who OBJECTED when antiwar poets "intruded" on the First Lady's White House poetry slam). But, then, as an employee of Reason magazine, you can hardly be objective.

[Matt Welch]

Raimondo -- I have no doubt that you are privy to all kinds of interesting information, but you know jack-all about my motivations. I can testify, with unerring accuracy, that "the whole point of bringing up this obscure 'interview,'" was that I thought its provocative insults directed at Libertarians would be of interest to, and a point of discussion for, the readers of a libertarian magazine.

[Anonymous]

Justin--I'm a libertarian and I strongly support the war (and I feel Reason does not). Libertarians can disagree on this issue--as bizarre as libertarians siding with fascism seems to me--without pointless epithets like neo-Con being tossed about. But the one thing we can all agree upon is you're a crackpot.

[Justin Raimondo]

Wendy: "Useful work," indeed. But on whose behalf? The Israeli "art students" you so tenaciously defend are no doubt grateful for all the "useful work" you've done for them. By the way, your claim you we "stole" your translation of the Die Zeit piece on Israeli spies in the U.S. who were following the 9/11 hijackers is false. Do you think we'd depend on YOUR translation to be accurate? I don't think so....
I see you've moved to Seattle. That's one good thing about San Francisco's high rents: it drives out the trailer trash.

[Wendy Rimley]

Justin, I'm an east coast girl, why in the heck would I want to live in SF or Seattle? But then you knew that quite well already, silly goose.

[Justin Stoddard]

Justin Raimondo's comments aside (way aside)

One thing I've always been curious about (at least for the past year). How can you call yourself a libertarian and still "strongly support" the war in Iraq?

If you said Objectivist I would understand (kind of). But libertarian? Perhaps we are working from a different set of definitions.

[Justin Raimondo]

To Mr. Anonymous: I have some very VERY bad news for you: you can't be a libertarian and be for the war. It's like being a Catholic and worshipping the Devil at the same time. So you should probably call yourself a "Bailey-ite," or, if that sounds too much like an obscure religious sect, then you might try "Postrelian," or even a "Dynamist." But why not just say you're a plain ordinary everyday Neocon? This will avoid confusion on all sides.

[Anonymous]

He's right. If his 11 year old son cannot see his viewpoint represented in a major party, he should work to gain little while having his political position sucked dry by a more dominant group's goals.

Not all ideological perspectives will accumulate like a phase change. And the ones that do include nice little phenomena like fascism.

Great lesson for a son. I'll tell mine never to go rogue, and always do what will almost, kind of, benefit you.

[dhex]

justin - you must be reading a different edition of reason. then again, your site after perusing your site perhaps what you mean to say is that reason doesn't provide the froth and bile you desire.

[Max B. Sawicky]

Isn't this entertaining. I'm here in the left field bleachers with my popcorn. Let the games continue.

From my completely disinterested perch, I agree that Reason is way soft on Bush. Y'all should really have at 'im. You get more links from Atrios that way.

[Anonymous]

How can you be a libertarian (small "l") and support the war? Is it that hard to understand? Libertarians may generally believe in open, hands-off foreign relations, but they also believe in personal freedom. Now you have to have an army (and if you don't think so, you're too far gone to talk to), so the question is what to do with it. When you're fighting a tremendous worldwide fascist threat that openly opposes you and everything a libertarian stands for, and you free millions of people in the process, I'd call that being a libertarian.

[Anonymous]

Think about how ridiculous Raimondo's picture for "behind the headlines" is. He's the kind of guy you want to fight just by looking at him.

"No, no. Use the one where the cigarette is hanging out of my mouth. THAT'S the look I'm going for." "You sure, man?" "Totally."

Douche bag.

Hopefully the "money trail" will lead him somewhere far, far away from the rest of us.

[Wendy Rimley]

On the subject of religion, having been raised Catholic (baptized and confirmed), I wandered from the church in my teen years. I did some devil worship for a spell and was curious as to what this did to my status in the Catholic church. I asked a priest and he explained that once a member of the Catholic church, you were always a member unless you a)requested leave in writing, and it was approved by the Vatican, or b) were excommunicated. So I was a Catholic worshipping the devil, but as he said, this would likely result in my going to hell.

And yes, Catholic schoolgirls do rule.

[Justin Raimondo]

A "worldwide fascist threat"? How DARE you call George W. Bush a fascist! What are you, some kind of anti-American subversive leftie?

[Justin Stoddard]

Yes, I believe in personal freedom. As the phrase clearly implies, it is personal, belonging to me. It is my right and responsibility to protect my freedom. I am under no obligation to protect someone else's. I may choose to do so, but then again, that is MY choice. The war in Iraq has clearly taken that choice out of my hands. Whether it be money taken from my pocket to pay for the excursion (without my authorization) or the thousands of Iraqi citizens killed (in my name by proxy), this has nothing at all to do with being a libertarian (small l).

No, it is not hard to understand at all. No one has the right to initiate force upon anyone else. You certainly have the right to act in self-defense but, the last time I looked, Saddam wasn't invading Eastern Missouri.

(Just to put some moral weight behind my statements, I just finished serving a little over 11 years in the United States Army.) You may be willing to use the military to shape your ideas of "freedom" in the Middle East. However, experiencing what THAT life is all about, I am not so willing.

I, sir, am a libertarian.

-Justin M. Stoddard

[Jason Ligon]

The two party system is the result of a winner takes all election format. Third parties can become powerful enough to significantly alter the platforms of one of the two major players (ala Bull Moose), but when the dust settles, it is entirely too rational to vote against an ideological opponent who could wind up running the whole show. Last election for me was all about Not Gore, for example (let's save the Bush vs. Gore for another thread, if we can).

When in mixed company of big "L"s and little "l"s, I can't help but notice that there is a high density of really fringe players in the LP. There is a large element from the conspiracy camp, there is a large element from the anarchist camp, and there is a large element of folks who spend a good deal of effort on the drug issue, but who you suspect haven't thought the implications of lower taxes through. I find the LP as a whole to project a shrill image. Though I agree with many LP members on most issues, I find myself wanting to disassociate so as not to be included in the inevitable mass dismissal that comes from everyone the LP comes in contact with.

It is not sellable in its current form; it looks too much like a circus.

Two problems, then. The two party system gives Medved's theory of party influence increased chances, and the current make up of the LP is too shrill.

[R. C. Dean]

How can you call yourself a libertarian and still "strongly support" the war in Iraq?

Because I believe that one of the legitimate functions of government is national defense.

I believe that the Islamist nutballs have been at war with the US for some time, and that we only really noticed on 9/11. That was what was needed to raise them from the level of "irritant" to "national security threat." At that point, we went to war with the Islamist nutballs. I draw no distinction between al Quaeda and its various affiliates and fellow travellers in Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. ad infinitum - all nutballs to me. The war on Islamist nutballs is a legitimate activity of the US, in light of 9/11.

The war on Iraq is an essential element of the war against Islamist nutballs for a number of reasons. One, Saddam was one of their major state supporters. Two, Saddam had a well-documented history of making and using WMD, and the possibility of his WMD making its way into the hands of Islamist nutballs was intolerable. Three, the war against Islamist nutballs can only be won on offense, which means taking the fight to them. Four, Iraq is the strategic lynchpin of the Mideast, and we were, rather conveniently, already at war with Iraq (since 1991). With Iraq in hand, Iran and Syria (the other major state supporters of terrorism) find themselves between a rock and a very angry and well-armed hard place.

I can't think of any plausible strategy for eradicating Islamist nutballs that would not require us to take out Saddam Hussein sooner or later, in fact.

[Justin Raimondo]

Ah, yes, the (in)famous picture of me! Boy, do we get letters about THAT! From the Crunchy Granola Left: "How can you encourage smoking -- don't you know it's baaaaaaaad for you?" From the Neocon Right: "You look like a French intellectual sitting in some Left Bank cafe -- and that ain't good!" But the mash notes and requests for erotic services more than makes up for the flak, let me asssure you. Your reaction, though, is unique, albeit not unrelated to your political views. Chill out, my friend: you write like a 90 lb. weakling.

[Anonymous]

Try again, hotshot.

[Jason Ligon]

Never underestimate the ability of commenters to turn everything into the justification for the Iraq war. Didn't this start out about LP vs. Elephants?

[R. C. Dean]

"requests for erotic services"

Ya know, I always suspected Justin was a bottom.

[Jason Ligon]

Poor wording, I should have said "... the ability of commenters to filter everything through the Iraq war."

[M. Rothbard, from Heaven]

My diciple Justin and the whole crew at the Center For Libertarian Studies have contacted me beyond the grave and all I can say is this: That is FUCKING it!

All you NEO-CON lincoln-loving, south-hating, trotskyist, minarchist, warmongering, alternative lifestyle, theocratic, zionist TRAITORS are expelled from the Libertarian Movement as deviants and opportunists. PURGED! That includes you National Review traitors and you Libertarian Party Partyarch statists and especially you goat-fucking Rumsfield-controlled Reasonites! Now get the fuck out.

The rest of you march with ANSWER and do what Justin says. That is libertarianism, OFFICIAL libertarianism anyway.

Keep this up and I will randomly troll you from Heaven every day.

[Justin Raimondo]

To R.C. Dean: You sound so ... disappointed. But this "top" and "bottom" business is soooooo over (except in Britain, of course, where even the str8 guys act like fags).

[PNAC Infiltrator]

funny! I googled his name, and even anarchist wacko libertaraians hate Raimondo. Apparently he has a personality problem of pissing off everyone, not just "neocons":

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9167/justlies.html

>>The Big Lies of Justin Raimondo

For decades, Justin Raimondo has been a rabid partisan for a shifting cause. On one level, his apparent commitment seems admirable. But the moment one tries to analyze to what he is committed, one finds sand and shale. There?s no bedrock.

[Justin Raimondo]

Just as long as they spell my name right.

[matt]

Not to get in the middle of this thing but accusing Justin of "blaming the Jews" like Anon at 1127 did is just weak. If cricizing Israel and our government's policy toward it is anti-semetic then sign me up as being one big anti-semite.

[Anonymous]

I had no idea so many people listened to that sap. I think I heard the broadcast in question and I don't think he was trolling elicit a reaction. The attitude is certainly common among both parties. They pay lip service to the party platform, but they are more interested in the (R) behind the name than the actions of said politician. As much as I hate the idea of a Democrat being in office, the fact is that Republican are more motivated to work against the big-government platform when the Democrats are in office and attempting to implement it. But when it gets to the point where Republicans start losing elections because they have strayed from the fundamental essence of their party line (smaller government), it may be just the nudge they need to wake up.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and if it is okay for a Libertarian to be a big-government ecowacko, then it's certainly fine for a Libertarian to be in favor of "liberating" an oppressed people.

(I choose neither, but thanks anyway.)

[Karen De Coster]

To the person who signed on as "Murray Rothbard from heaven," and thought he was quite funny in his filthy, little parody: Why is it that Rothbard always gets creamed by those holding themselves up as libertarians? This bird might want to understand that it was the Beltway libertarians, Pseudo-libertarians, and Left-libertarians that did the "purging" of principled libertarians like Murray Rothbard.

(See Jesse Walker's great post, in his blog today, criticizing the nutcase Jack Wheeler, who wrote a horrid piece attacking Murray and other assorted right-wingers.)

[Robert Hutchinson]

I'm amazed at the tremendous percentage of people in these comments that take a typed-out name and a link to a website as proof of identity.

BTW, "Justin", you really tipped your hand with that whole "principled and admirable LP" bit. Almost laughed out loud, I did.

[J.D.]

Has everyone forgotten Washingtons Farewell Address?

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

He devotes nearly 5 pages to why an Iraq-style War and Permanent Israel-style alliance fates a Nation to impending doom.

George Washington in his Farewell Address also calls those who cheer for Israel-type permanent alliances, "dupes" and "tools". Washington also says those who oppose Israel-style permanent alliances will be "suspected" and "hated".

Bush Neocons are "tools" in George Washingtons own words!

[Anonymous]

Ridiculing people as lamers, outcasts or whackos doesn't mean they are wrong. It is entirely possible, in fact very plausible, that conventional wisdom on most topics is full of shit.

If you can't make a rational case for your beliefs, why do you believe them?
If you can, then why stoop to ad hominem, ad baculum or straw-man arguments?

[Dustin Thefurniture]

#154!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kevin Carson]

Karen de Coster,

I think the people at Lew Rockwell use the term "Left Libertarian" in a different sense than Samuel Konkin and the Movement of the Libertarian Left. The latter are pretty hard-core Rothbardians who want to reconstruct some version of the YAF anarchist faction/SDS alliance of the late '60s. Some previous LRC critiques of "Left Libertarians" caused quite a bit of confusion among the agorists.

[kevrob]

Gil is right about Raimondo and Buchannan.

Now, using Justin's "logic" about donations, am I free to conclude that Patty-Patty-Buch-Buch's 180 on free trade is an artifact of the beaucoup bucks textile magnate Roger Milliken has poured into Pat's various organizations, publications and campaigns?

BTW, war on the Taliban - perfectly consistent with libertarian principles of self-defense. War on Iraq? That depends on who is right about the extent of Ba'athist complicity in the terror network supporting al Qaeda. So far I'd say the "No go" camp was winning the argument. Present new anti-Saddam evidence, and I might change my mind, but you better make it good.

Kevin

[J.D.]

Ontheissues.org - PoliticsMatch - Test Your Political Philosophy

I have found this to be the simplest and most accurate ideology tester on the net. Much more accurate than Select-smart poll by someone named "Mithradates" many have seen.

[Anonymous]

Well, we've established that in addition to being a nut, Raimondo has more than a little trouble comprehending what he reads.

And I find it amusing for a disciple of Murray Rothbard to accuse anyone of going where the money is.

Who does pay the salaries aty CLS?

[Justin Stoddard]

I misspoke when I asserted that "freedom can't come at the point of a gun". What I meant to say was freedom (or what the Bush administration calls "democracy") cannot and should not be forced upon others at the point of a gun. I would much rather lead the world by example than rule the world by force.

-Justin M. Stoddard

[Kevin Carson]

Kodos or Kang, it's one or the other. Unless you want to throw away your vote on a third party.

[JDM]

"'the whole point of bringing up this obscure "interview,"' was that I thought its provocative insults directed at Libertarians would be of interest to, and a point of discussion for, the readers of a libertarian magazine."

As every sane person no doubt realized. Now why is the conventional wisdom on people like Raimondo that they jump to absurd conspiratorial conclusions from zero evidence?

You were just pulling the Reason staff's collective leg, right?

[mike]

"or I can vote Republican. In general, the latter is more likely to result in me having lower taxes, and a smaller government."

This is a joke, right? I can't believe someone has the nuggets to come on a Reason message board and even suggest this.

Maybe you could have gotten away with this line in 1988, but you just have to be a flat out retard to say this kind of thing now.

mike

[Gil]

I seem to recall that Raimondo is a big Pat Buchanan (anti-free-trade, anti-immigration, frequent denier of apparent anti-semitism) fan.

I find it hard to take his declarations of who and what qualifies as libertarian seriously.

[James Merritt]

While we argue here over how many minarchists can dance on the pinhead of a Republican, I note that over a dozen LP candidates won in Tuesday's "off year" election, including a candidate for city council in a major Iowa town, and several re-elections of LP incumbents. Several of those races were partisan, and in one of them, we picked up another judgeship, too. Apparently, our overall success rate this time around is 7%, since we fielded over 200 candidates in elections across the country (28 states).

Here is an excerpt from the LP release on the election results, which speaks directly to the topic of this thread:

>>>
In Hazel Park, [Andy] LeCureaux was the top vote-getter in a seven-way race for four open seats. He won 1,581 votes (17.5% of the total votes cast) to earn another two-year term -- despite being attacked by an anonymous flier that accused him of wanting to legalize "prostitution, drugs, [and] child pornography."

LeCureaux said the attack showed that the older parties are afraid of Libertarian candidates.

"One thing is clear: Elected officials from the older parties wouldn't be attacking us if they weren't afraid," he said. "I'm still not sure what it is they fear, but I am sure that they don't want an open and honest discussion of the issues."

As the leading vote-getter in the race, LeCureaux is now the Mayor Pro-tempore of Hazel Park.

[Chris Mathews]

Welch,

I just checked my watch - isn't it about time for you to blog about Noam Chomsky again? You are averaging only 14 comments a day so far this month.

[Anonymous]

Justin Stoddard,

Since democracy can't be forced at the point of a gun our efforts in Germany and Japan 1945 to 1950 were abject failures no?

I suppose in the natural order of the human world people don't want liberty. They prefer rule by despots. Are you serious?

[M. Simon]

Mark Bahner,

Bush is a moron?

As far as I am aware you do not get to pilot jets (even transports) if you are a moron. Having designed aircraft equipment for a major aerospace firm and being conversant with a few pilots I can tell you that there are not many morons in the bunch. The life expectancy of moron pilots is rather low.

On top of that he keeps getting the Congress to back his agenda (mostly). What exactly does that make the rest of our elected representatives especially the (dis)loyal opposition? Drooling idiots? Yep.

Now I'm sure you did not vote for the moron. Does that mean you voted for the drooling idiots or the perrenial losers?

I do love te Bush is a moron meme though. It disarms Bush's enemies.

There is a lot to dislike about the current Republican program. The war on drugs. The Patriot act. Spending out of control. However, all of that counts for little when it comes to Bush's major initiative - prosecuting the war. The moron has a 55% approval rating. Which makes the electorate morons or worse.

Now I suppose with your superior intelligence you know how to change the voters minds. Perhaps your trouble is that you are too smart by half.

[Tom Carson]

Go Libertarians. The Internet may indeed usher in a new political force. Not exactly sure why any educated enlightened person would support either the Republinazis or Democommies.

[Tom Carson]

J.D. is right by the way.

George Washington calls Bush Neocons "dupes" and "tools" on page 11 of his Farewell Address.

[fl student]

It's interesting to think that these neo-cons are going to probably be re-elected. I hate to admit it but the dems have no plans. They aren't actually no-war sided. The current administration has betrayed their claim to free markets but the dems would've created a much bigger mess with respect to a reaction to 9-11.

[J.D. for Liberty]

Not only have Republicans failed to read Washingtons Farewell Address, they evidently have never read the Federalist Papers.

Without a Congressional Declaration of War, Congress abdicates its Constitutional role and, by default, essentially assigns the President role of Monarch.

Federalist Paper No. 4 warned of this in near exact terms.

"But the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war.

It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people."

Note:
"thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people."

John Jay couldn't have described an Iraq style War any more precise!

It contains it all....Bush "war cabinet" thirst for military glory, face-saving family revenge for personal affronts to the Bush family from Gulf War I, aggrandizement of the GOP, invitation of future hostility, risk of national insult, and lack of voice and interest of the people.

Unbelievable.

The Founding Fathers were highly educated men, unlike todays Neocons.

[Anonymous]

Republicans want a Napoleon and Nero, not a wimp like George Washington.

[Max]

"Losertarian" was a term coined by Libertarian thinker Michael Gilson decades ago. Medved hijacked it--it means people like Medved who claim Libertarians are losing when they're winning and recommend Libertarians adopt a losing strategy.

Conservatives have been trying to hijack 'Libertarian' for years so what else is new.