The End of Liberaltarianism
So Obama loves huge government, is prosecuting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq pretty much along Bushian lines, hasn't closed Gitmo, and hasn't done anything about "don't ask, don't tell." And now, my foolish "liberaltarian" friends, comes the coup de grace. From the AP:
The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.
Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.
The provision on business records was long criticized by rights groups as giving the government access to citizens' library records, and a coalition of liberal and conservative groups complained that the Patriot Act gives the government too much authority to snoop into Americans' private lives.
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law, based on his past expertise in constitutional law. Back in May, President Obama said legal institutions must be updated to deal with the threat of terrorism, but in a way that preserves the rule of law and accountability.
In a letter to lawmakers, Justice Department officials said the administration supports extending the three expiring provisions of the law, although they are willing to consider additional privacy protections as long as they don't weaken the effectiveness of the law.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Because you can't have enough friends, I caution against using the behavior of this or any administration as a test of the strength of liberal or conservative fusion with libertarianism. The continuities in American governance are nearly total. The distinctions between how the parties govern are vanishingly small. A president's behavior when in power tells you more about power than it does about his or her ideological upbringing.
I reserve the right to be more annoyed at the party that's more douchebaggy about it.
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't here for the power.
End?
When did it begin?
so, what's the difference between Bush and Obama now, aside from the obvious. (Obama is way taller)
Are the "business records" involuntarily seized by the federal government under the so-called Patriot Act?
If so - a curse on all those who voted for this shit. Russ Feingold displayed a set of testicles if I recall - can't think of another.
Let Obama make war,torture,spy on Americans and raid those Cali dope dispensaries.We're rollin' in cash thanks to the Liberaltarian REVOLution.
Um... give me a minute... uh...
*cough cough* Ron Paul.
As Sean wrote, something has to exist before it can end. Liberaltarianism was nothing more than a pipe dream among libertarians who wanted to gain acceptance with the cool kids.
The fact that it sunsets and requires re-authorization is due to Dick Armey, who was pretty good as a libertarian for someone in leadership. (Comes from his economics background.) Too bad he's gone.
A little bit better on pot raids, maybe?
Oh, more fun in the same category:
FCC to Further Investigate the Janet Jackson Super Bowl Nipple for fines.
(Obama is way taller)
He's not that much taller. I've been in The Presence and was disappointed to find him less a really-tall-and-kind-of-slim guy than a kind-of-tall-and-really-skinny guy.
John Thacker - He's not gone, he's doing some good with Freedomworks - look at all the reason coverage of that little march this past weekend. He may not have a seat in congress, but he sure did put fear into a whole shitload of his former colleagues.
I've been in The Presence and was disappointed to find him less a really-tall-and-kind-of-slim guy than a kind-of-tall-and-really-skinny guy.
That's what she said!
only 2 inches difference? wow. i always figured GWB was shorter than six foot. must be poor posture.
A president's behavior when in power tells you more about power than it does about his or her ideological upbringing.
In other words, "I'm not going to undo any of the fuckups of prior administrations, but I'm damn sure going to use every opportuinity to implement totally new fuckups (ideological and otherwise) of my own for posterity."
and hasn't done anything about "don't ask, don't tell."
HAHAHAHA!
What a great libertarian ideal! Demanding being allowed to fight Israel's wars while being openly gay!
They don't let White Nationalists into the army either. Reason, take up the cause!
He's not that much taller. I've been in The Presence and was disappointed to find him less a really-tall-and-kind-of-slim guy than a kind-of-tall-and-really-skinny guy.
At least he's significantly taller than Nicolas Sarkozy.
Anyone who thought this guy was going to behave any differently is a total fucking idiot.
"*cough cough* Ron Paul."
Ron Paul is the answer only if the question involves bigoted newsletters and flirting with Trutherism.
The distinctions between how the parties govern are vanishingly small.
You're not about to try to sell me the banned book America Deceived, are you?
"What a great libertarian ideal! Demanding being allowed to fight Israel's wars while being openly gay!"
Hey, I think you meant to type in http://www.stormfront.org
Obama is being presidential.
Nipplemancer,
Bush can throw.
Anyone who expected any of the presidential candidates not named "Ron Paul" to voluntarily give up even the slightest degree of power to control, investigate, intimidate, harass, or otherwise lord it over the populace was sadly mistaken. And yes, some of us could have predicted this.
He's not that much taller.
You are a racist!
Am I missing something here? Obama and Libertarian have NOTHING in common, IMHO.
Libertarian = minimal power to government.
Obama = maximum power to government.
A "Libertarian" who at any time thought Obama belonged in any public office has a gross misconception of either Libertarianism, or Obama, or both.
"In a letter to lawmakers, Justice Department officials said the administration supports extending the three expiring provisions of the law, although they are willing to consider additional privacy protections as long as they don't weaken the effectiveness of the law."
This is becoming the dominant, and tiresome, meme of the Obama Administration on almost every issue: "I am willing to discuss any compromise proposal that involves me getting exactly what I want."
i always figured GWB was shorter than six foot. must be poor posture.
It's the whole Monty Burns persona.
*insert pic of GWB with steepled fingers and evil grin*
So long to perhaps the dumbest fucking political alliance in recent history, from the libertarian standpoint.
The Libertarian-Conservative alliance was pretty stupid as well and that lasted a long time.
"The Libertarian-Conservative alliance was pretty stupid as well and that lasted a long time."
How is that? Libertarianism and American conservatism have a lot more in common than differences. The very definition of conservatism is to uphold the best traditional values, and in the United States, those just happen to be libertarian values.
What has changed is that the conservative party attempted to counter the rising popularity of the liberal party by emulating it. That is what was stupid.
I know that I am wasting my time here, but I have to say that there is certainly an enormous difference between enjoying same-sex partners and whether believing that an all white nation should be carved out of the US. That difference seems especially relevant with regard to military service.
The very definition of conservatism is to uphold the best traditional values, and in the United States, those just happen to be libertarian values.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Dick Hoste, hurry up and kill yourself.
Has no one noticed it's "liberal-tarianism" and not "liber-tarianism"? Sheez, next it'll be ranting about "violins on TV"...
Seriously, it doesn't matter who you vote for, all that matters is that you don't vote.
Difference between Obama and GWB: Government spending for stimulus instead of tax cuts/rebates for stimulus.
Advantage -- Bush. At least people got to spend his stimulus for what they personally wanted, not for some "shovel-ready" fantasy of a state roads department bureaucrat.
To summarize, calling an event a terrorist attack is no longer OK, but tearing up the constitution in the name of fighting terrorism is fine.
Look, it's pretty simple, even ignoring any presumed Maximum Leader tendencies on Obama's part:
A big terrorist attack is the weak flank of Obama's top priority of implementing socialism (by means of fascist economic tactics if necessary) -- that is the single biggest vulnerability he has doing that, hence that being the only exception to an otherwise Carteresqe-ly clueless forieng policy.
The Libertarian-Conservative alliance was pretty stupid as well and that lasted a long time.
Perhaps, except that Conservative and Libertarians have a more fundamental agreement on how freedom works. Liberals don't understand the relationship between economic freedom and individual liberty. Liberals just happen to favor a libertine social scheme, but they don't get that it's the freedom from coercion that enables this libertine lifestyle.
Conservatives at least get the bedrock - the economic freedom part - even if they bitch and moan about the attendant libertine enabling.
Warty,
Are you white?
Well, you're on a libertarian site, so probably yes.
Whether you are or not, do you believe whites have the right to their own countries? To remain majorities and have the culture be shaped by white political ideals, white art and entertainment, without complaints that police arrest too many nonwhites or there are too many whites on TV or the school system is biased because whites do too well or lesson plans talk too much about dead white males or whites happened to have higher incomes than nonwhites (leave aside the fact that it's never a "problem" when Asians or Jews do better than whites)? Do whites deserve a country where their success of their children isn't seen as something that needs to be solved by government? Do they deserve a right to preserve themselves as a unique biological group, the way we preserve species and subspecies of plants and animals from mixing?
If I replaced "whites" with "blacks" or "Chinese" would you have a problem with that?
If you're nonwhite I can understand, while admonishing, the jealousy that you feel towards whites and your desire that they be destroyed. But if you're white, what motivates you to seek your race's destruction?
For the record, I don't desire the extermination of anybody. Who are the haters here?
"A president's behavior when in power tells you more about power than it does about his or her ideological upbringing."
It really is about the system. And our democratic system crushes minority opinion--that's about half of what democracy's all about. The other half being about removing leaders periodically (and replacing then with similar leaders produced by the same system).
The only rational response to a system that uses elections to legitimize the marginalization of minority rights like this is to withhold our votes.
Seriously, to all those who voted in the last election, libertarian or otherwise, our leaders are using the fact that you voted for them to legitimize crap crap like this...
So, please, when the next election comes around, do your patriotic duty. Don't vote. Otherwise it's all "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."
I know that I am wasting my time here, but I have to say that there is certainly an enormous difference between enjoying same-sex partners and whether believing that an all white nation should be carved out of the US. That difference seems especially relevant with regard to military service.
Latino separatists are allowed to join.
"Liberals just happen to favor a libertine social scheme, but they don't get that it's the freedom from coercion that enables this libertine lifestyle."
Not true. It takes, and has taken, government coercion to enable the libertine lifestyle. For instance, laws requiring private actors such as employers and landlords to not discriminate against transsexuals etc.
Government should not discriminate but private actors must be able to, or there is no freedom worth the name.
".. believing that an all white nation should be carved out of the US.
That would not have needed to be contemplated if the elite was not so determined to transform America (a formerly white country) into a multiracial and multicultural wonderland.
Warty,
Conservatism is defined as "a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes." The United States was founded by self-described liberals, whose philosophy most closely resembles modern libertarianism. American conservatism, by its definition, is therefore in many respects an attempt to preserve the same principles that libertarians value.
That the conservative "leadership" has gone completely astray from those principles over the last few decades does not change that. I'm not a conservative, but I can appreciate the common ground we share with conservatives. How has any connection with conservatism hurt libertarianism? Do you think that Goldwater conservatism is not closely aligned with libertarianism? Ron Paul is probably the most recognized politician with some libertarian views. I doubt he would have that recognition if he never "aligned" himself with the conservatives. The same can probably be said of all the Republican Liberty Caucus congressmen. I doubt most would have been elected to Congress had they run as Independents, Libertarians, or on some other third-party ticket.
J., you can't conserve something that's been dead for generations, insofar as it ever existed. Libertarianism is far enough out of the mainstream that we can safely think of ourself as radicals.
Dick Hoste, don't ask me questions. Just kill yourself, honky.
Not true. It takes, and has taken, government coercion to enable the libertine lifestyle. For instance, laws requiring private actors such as employers and landlords to not discriminate against transsexuals etc.
Not true. It takes, and has taken, government coercion to force acceptance of the libertine lifestyle at the end of a gavel.
Freedom from legal coercion enables the lifestyle itself. Whether an employer wants to hire that person doesn't bear on whether or not that person can be a libertine.
KOS! calling daily KOS...you guys are all hypocrites, hacks and full of shit..calling Daily KOS!
Hey, Dick,
I'm proudly miscegenating (married) with an Asian because I hate my own white race. I also provide a small waystation for illegal Mexican immigrants who recently crossed the border. I try to get all my black and Hispanic buddies hooked up with white girls I know. I have a dream is that someday everyone will be the same shade as Tiger Woods.
I hope this message hurts your soul, Dick.
Do whites deserve a country where their success of their children isn't seen as something that needs to be solved by government? Do they deserve a right to preserve themselves as a unique biological group, the way we preserve species and subspecies of plants and animals from mixing?
At the risk of feeding a troll, let me just point out that there is no biological basis to the concept of 'race', as any biologist will tell you. All human beings interbreed, and there are no pure races (particularly 'whites' and 'blacks', as their members have been interbreeding for several hundred years).
There are cultural differences, but those too have interbred, as anyone who listens to Jazz or Broadway music (or rap, or country music..) can tell you.
Race and culture are not objective categories, and no public policy should be based on them, as any libertarian can tell you.
Lumpenfurher Dick Hoste has personally tried to address the continuation of the glorious white subspecies but due the combination of his inability to obtain consensual sex without paying for it and limited finances the white race is desperately imperiled and needs our help.
I'm not the elite.
Nor is the multiracial neighborhood I live in.
I can't follow you.
"J., you can't conserve something that's been dead for generations, insofar as it ever existed. Libertarianism is far enough out of the mainstream that we can safely think of ourself as radicals."
Sure, true liberalism as the founders viewed it has been in a long, slow decline since probably the early 1800s. But conservatives in large part want to move in the direction of classical liberalism. Libertarianism as a singular philosophy may not be mainstream, but pretty much each of its positions taken individually are supported by a fairly significant minority if nothing else. In many cases it is by conservatives, in some by liberals. I think the core of conservative principles are roughly analogous to libertarian ones.
Anyway, Hayek put it better than I could, comparing American conservatism and libertarianism (which he calls liberalism in the classical sense):
"This difference between liberalism and conservatism must not be obscured by the fact that in the United States it is still possible to defend individual liberty by defending long-established institutions. To the liberal they are valuable not mainly because they are long established or because they are American but because they correspond to the ideals which he cherishes."
You're taking it to an absurdity to claim that there's no biological basis. Yes, you can talk about all these things in terms of populations and clinal distance, but if you create a phylogenetic tree of humans, you group various clades into regions that do closely resemble the lay concept of "race." People just don't like using that term now, understandably, substituting "population," and there are no bright lines, but there is some biological basis.
Humans were separated by long distances and bred apart for many years. The idea of a "race" as something objective is certainly not true, but you can find plenty of markers and genetic carriers that exist in people with a somewhat common ancestry, and they are correlated with the subjective idea of "race." Certainly they don't fall along precise concepts of "race," as any time you break people further down into smaller ethnic groups you can find differences between the ethnicities, but to pretend that the vague human idea of "race" isn't correlated with certain traits is silly.
For example, blood types certainly do have different distributions. I'm A-; if you know that someone is visibly what people would call the white race, it's much, much more likely that they would be Rh- and possibly a donor for me than if they're visibly Asian. That's why China was begging for white people to donate blood before the Olympics, in case they needed to transfuse to tourists. Yes, it's true that African-Americans are much more likely to be Rh- than Africans, but if you argue that that is the result of interbreeding, you're making it the exception that proves the rule.
My mother is a pediatric bone marrow transplant nurse. They absolutely recognize race in one sense, in that they're always trying to get more donors of Asian and African descent, because people are more likely to match someone with a similar "racial" or ethnic background, crude though the concept of race may be.
To the extent that people are racist or whatever and recognize "races" as existing, or simply don't travel much from their hometowns, it will affect how they choose to breed and will cause races to exist in the sense of certain traits being more likely to be present in certain groups who also tend to share physical characteristics and national background and/or ancestry. To the degree that globalization exist and people do interbred, race will exist less. Race is definitely much less meaningful than it was hundreds of years ago, when peoples and populations were more isolated.
This is true, but there's a big difference between saying that there's no such things as objective categories, and that there's no biological basis whatsoever. I agree that the concept is not useful for public policy, of course.
You say you're a libertarian linguist. A language (versus a dialect or creole or what-have-you) is not exactly an objective category either. Nor is the definition of "species" in biology (particularly with things like ring species, where A can interbreed with B, and B with C, but not A with C), nor exactly when speciation occurs. (I am not arguing that the incredibly minor genetic differences between groups of humans comes anything close to the differences between species.)
That's a good Hayek quote, but it's much less true now than when he was alive. It reminds me of an interview I saw of Milton Friedman circa 1960, where he says that he's the true liberal because he wants to increase human freedom, and so-called liberals are the true conservatives because they want to retain the anti-freedom New Deal programs.
But conservatives in large part want to move in the direction of classical liberalism.
Now that their team's not on offense, sure. We'll see what happens after the next change of possession.
Warty,
I see that contemplating your own self-hatred is too painful.
At the risk of feeding a troll, let me just point out that there is no biological basis to the concept of 'race', as any biologist will tell you.
This PC garbage unfortunately is what passes as thought amongst the young. As I've shown, the biological differences between the human races are greater than between some species.
I'm still waiting for a defense of the mainstream position that whites are the only thing ever produced by biological evolution that doesn't have a right to survive.
DickArmey is one of our greate$t $tate$men, not ju$t in Congre$$ but now with the liberty-loving FreedomWork$. Plu$, he'$ one of the geniu$e$ behind the Tea Partie$. His support for illegal activity is perhaps only exceeded by the support given by liberals.
And, speaking about all-white nations, another common point libertarians and liberals have is their unwillingness to oppose or their support for race-based power. Let me know how many times Reason has spoken out against, for instance, the National Council of La Raza.
Shut the fuck up Lonewacko
It always amazes me how libertarians are always skeptical and never fooled by liberal gestures towards their ideology, but almost always fall for even the barest lies of the conservatives.
Every tea party protester who voted for McCain only wants limited government because McCain didn't win. Just like alot of liberals were all for limited government several years ago when Bush was at the helm.
So Obama is the "death of liberaltarianism" but conservatives "will uphold the best traditional values" if we could only get them in power, they swore they'd stop hitting us after the last time.
One thing I'm sure of is that I will never, ever be disappointed by Barack Obama.
-jcr
Hayek wrote that in 1960 in an essay called "Why I Am Not A Conservative". Your last sentence is about the Republican Party being on defense, which I agree with, but I was only describing conservatism generally. As I said earlier, I think the GOP has strayed from the principles associated with conservatism. I think there are a lot of self-avowed conservatives who are disaffected with the Republican Party. There were a few shown in the Reason.TV video of the DC Tea Party, and I think it is a general trend.
Limited government and dissatisfaction with Republican leadership is only a trend until they have power again. Keep in mind most of the people who are dissatisfied with the Republican party now, even if they hated Bush, were only angry with domestic spending. The insane amount of military spending and foreign wars are completely fine with conservatives.
As were the decades of deficit spending. Really the bailouts only piss them off because it's not spent fighting something.
I think you're getting pretty optimistic about the chances these people will actually aid in reducing the size of the federal government once they're the base of someone in power. Everyone is for limited government when they no longer think they're in control of the government. What we're seeing here with the liberals, limited government rhetoric then completely ignoring it once in power, will happen to conservatives too.
I still have a hard time understanding the massive amount of wishful thinking required on the part of libertarians to think conservatives really want limited government. They only want to limit the parts they don't like.
So is your point that conservatives are less bad than liberals? I agree, but fuck them anyway.
Feel free to reword that last sentence at your pleasure. You know what I mean, fuckbags.
pyromanfo, I don't know if you're one of the many iterations of he Tony/Edward/Lefiti troll, or if you're just some ignorant rube who just learned to use the intertubes. Either way, here is a little of the straight dope:
1) Anyone can self-identify as a libertarian. Most of them are "libertarians, except for [statist policy x]." Making blanket generalizations about a group as philosophically and politically diverse as that only serves to demonstrate how far your head is driven up your ass.
2) I don't recall people of a liberal persuasion saying anything about limited government during the Bush administration. If anything, they opined about the abuse of executive power with regard to torture and civil rights issues. But the response to that was usually that the guy doing the wielding was the problem, not the power itself. If you can find a few examples to refute me, I will happily concede this point.
3) You don't know what people who voted for McCain are thinking. You don't know what tea part protesters are thinking. Quit being an idiot. Just because someone votes a certain way does not give you the Jedi ability to read his or her mind.
4) If your criticism is in any way pointed at the people who write for reason or comment regularly at H&R, you need to learn how to use the search function. When you do, you will quickly find that people around here quit believing the GOP 'round about the time of the PATRIOT act.
It also keeps amazing me how libertarians in general leap at the chance to reach out to dissatisfied conservatives, but when the liberals are getting disenchanted with Obama the line is "HA! I told you we could never deal with those crazy liberals". Why are libertarians not trying to reach out to the liberal base and try to get them to fight this? They're not exactly happy with Obama's record on civil liberties. Yet he gets away with it because the only people opposing him are Republicans, the ones who wrote the laws we're bitching about in the first place. Why isn't anybody trying to stir up the liberal base about civil liberties?
Michael Moynihan! The closest thing to a Reasonoid with sense.
Even if I don't care much for the Ernst R?hm wannabes who post here. That doesn't mean I want you homos hung or have walls pushed down upon you as they do in your precious Muslim countries. And neither does Michael Moynihan!
There can be reparative therapy for the problem of you Ernst R?hm wannabes. There's no need to kill you like they do in your beloved Muslim countries.
Long live Michael Moynihan!
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
FTR, it's important to note that Dick (like many white-nationalists), has just taken multiculturalism (which is sub-national racial/ethnic nationalism) to its logical conclusion, and applied it to whites. Wherein each rule, represent, and support their own.
White pride! Black pride! Latino pride! Same bullshit, different bottle.
pyromanfo: "So Obama is the "death of liberaltarianism" but conservatives "will uphold the best traditional values" if we could only get them in power, they swore they'd stop hitting us after the last time."
You would probably have to take up your grievances with (1) the author of this article, Michael Moynihan, and (2) the editors of the Princeton University dictionary, respectively.
Other than that, maybe you should read the entire exchange between Warty and myself instead of cherry-picking one line in an attempt to prove some spurious point of yours.
BY ALL THAT IS UNHOLY I SUMMON UNTO THIS THREAD STEVE SMITH
"So is your point that conservatives are less bad than liberals? I agree, but fuck them anyway."
Basically. The original post I made was in disagreement with the statement that the "libertarian-conservative alliance was pretty stupid". In principle (not to be confused with the actual practices of the Republican Party) on the big issues--such as the Constitution, individualism, and fiscal responsibility--libertarianism and conservatism mostly agree, and it makes some sense that the libertarians essentially caucus with the Republicans. If anything actually comes of this Tea Party movement, for example, it is probably going to be from within the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. There's just more ideological common ground there.
Re: Hugh Akston
1) I'm responding to posts about how conservatives generally uphold the best values and liberals are all sellouts, but I'm the one generalizing when I try to talk about libertarianism as a group?
2) http://www.dailykos.com/tag/PATRIOT%20Act - for instance. Not universally good stuff, but plenty of bitching about civil liberties under Bush and also under Obama
3) Simply speaking based on past data. You say in your very next point Reason gave up on the GOP around the PATRIOT act. What makes you think they've changed in the past 6 months, other than the fact that they're no longer in power and can conveniently side with anyone who is anti-establishment? At least until the establishment becomes Republican again.
4) I was specifically responding to the comments about conservatives generally having the better values, but also to the implied snark in the article towards those would would work with the left in any way. It's completely understandable, Democrats screw libertarians just like Republicans do, I just wonder why the people who hold up "Glenn Beck for President" signs at tea-party rallies don't get the same treatment.
You would probably have to take up your grievances with (1) the author of this article, Michael Moynihan, and (2) the editors of the Princeton University dictionary, respectively.
Other than that, maybe you should read the entire exchange between Warty and myself instead of cherry-picking one line in an attempt to prove some spurious point of yours.
I did read the entire exchange, I am not trying to cherry pick anything. Let me try to explain my question another way
In principle (not to be confused with the actual practices of the Republican Party) on the big issues--such as the Constitution, individualism, and fiscal responsibility--libertarianism and conservatism mostly agree, and it makes some sense that the libertarians essentially caucus with the Republicans.
Why does it make any sense to caucus with the Republicans when it's almost never helped in practice? And also, why is the left generally considered untrustworthy when in practice both parties have been equally terrible for libertarians?
I also didn't mean to imply I'm asking you to answer in particular because I quoted you, I'm just posting comments on the article.
FTR, it's important to note that Dick (like many white-nationalists), has just taken multiculturalism (which is sub-national racial/ethnic nationalism) to its logical conclusion, and applied it to whites. Wherein each rule, represent, and support their own.
White pride! Black pride! Latino pride! Same bullshit, different bottle.
Are Reason and its commentators anti-multiculturalism? Could've fooled me.
Search this website for "La Raza" and see how the group is ignored by the writers for this site while the commentators engage in a two minute hate against whomever brings them up.
This site is neutral to positive with regards to nonwhite collectivism while foaming at the mouth at white collectivism (or libertarianism espoused from a pro-white perspective).
"But conservatives in large part want to move in the direction of classical liberalism."
Classical liberals were meritocratic progressives who believed we should not be involved in foreign affairs that don't affect us. They hated conglomerated corporate power, as corporations are legal creations of the state, and they saw laissez-faire as the remedy to the elitist monopoly by decentralizing the ownership of property and ending the government protections of the elitist class. Both Thomas Paine and Adam Smith epitomized this philosophy.
Conservatism, on the other hand, has always been a movement placing social order and morality above both freedom and equality. They have also historically been the defenders of both corporations and the wealthiest class, and have tended to peddle xenophobia and resistance to racial, sexual and social progress that would upset the established political and socioeconomic order.
Conservative support for limited government has proven to be little more than rhetoric, and ties to libertarians have been superficial due to the inherent conflict between law & order, militarism, support for legislating morality, corporate subsidization, etc. and the libertarian viewpoint. Libertarian-conservatives attempt to ignore this inconsistency - when they are in power, they act conservative and when they are out, they talk libertarian - forgetting about all the government-growing and liberty-violating they did, or excusing it as necessary under the circumstances.
"Liberaltarianism", on the other hand, is merely one of several names for an updated classical liberalism. ("Left-libertarianism" is another. I prefer the term "free progressive.") There isn't really any sort of modern left-libertarian movement, unfortunately - just scattered individuals with interesting ideas. My dream is to someday remedy that.
Classical liberalism followed the utilitarian argument that freedom would maximize social and economic progress and promote meritocracy - but certain government-created mechanisms may be necessary to guide this progress (like public schools, something which Adam Smith and Thomas Paine both advocated for). It is thus distinct from the libertarian viewpoint, which holds freedom as the only necessary end regardless of social and economic outcomes.
Libertarianism is also a philosophical relative of anarchy in its overall opposition to anything done by government, while classical liberals take a more nuanced approach. A classical liberal would argue that non-government powers like the mafia, a corporate monopoly or a pitchfork-wielding mob can be equally destructive of individual liberty and/or choice, thus, while the government should be small and should generally not be trusted, it still is a necessary evil.
I've generalized a lot, but I think the points stand, recognizing that they are generalizations.
"Why does it make any sense to caucus with the Republicans when it's almost never helped in practice?"
Would the alternative be better? How would libertarian-leaning candidates fare in Democratic primaries? Would libertarian-leaning politicians be treated better in the Democratic Party? Would they be more or less politically viable in the Libertarian Party?
"What we're seeing here with the liberals, limited government rhetoric then completely ignoring it once in power, will happen to conservatives too."
What limited government rhetoric was espoused by liberals?
"I'm responding to posts about how conservatives generally uphold the best values and liberals are all sellouts..."
Again, see the dictionary definition given for conservatism. I don't believe anyone said liberals were sellouts. But their core philosophies are contradictory to those of libertarianism. Wikipedia defines "modern liberalism" as:
"Social liberalism, a reformulation of 19th century liberalism, rests on the view that unrestrained capitalism is a hindrance to true freedom. Instead of the negative freedom of classical liberalism, social liberals offered positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare."
What part of that sounds like American libertarianism?
You peeps in your white communities don't know shit about race. They hang out in their front yard. Their FRONT YARDS! What the fuck. If that isn't proof, I don't know what is.
And then there was the ~8 year old kid walking down the sidewalk while talking to his imaginary ho on his toy cell phone. "I gonna fuck you up BITCH!" I learned everything I need to know about race from that kid.
Total enlightenment. And now I'm at peace. I've accepted the reality, and you should too.
I'll be sober in the morning...probably still a dick. But sober.
"How would libertarian-leaning candidates fare in Democratic primaries?"
They probably wouldn't get anywhere because the established modern leftist policy is based on emotionalism over economics. There probably needs to be a new party to advance classical liberalism as an anti-corporate, progressive alternative to both the failed mainstream Leftist orthodoxy and the aristocratic corporatism of the Right.
So yeah,
Fiengold bonus points as only Senator.
In the house besides Ron Paul ... Dennis Kucinich, uh,
He's a goof but he got this (and alot of other personal liberty) issues right.
Also getting this one right were Ray LaHood and Barney Frank.
Honorable mention to Barr et al.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll386.xml
It may not be nice to speak ill of the past, but Kennedy blew it.
BY ALL THAT IS UNHOLY I SUMMON UNTO THIS THREAD STEVE SMITH
STEVE NOT RACIST SHITHEAD LIKE DICK(HEAD) HOSTE OR UNDERSCHMUCK! STEVE CRO-MAGNON SEPARATIST!
You fool! Do you realize that if Steve Smith, H.F. Wolff, Dick Hoste, Lefiti and Underzog are ever in the same thread, the internet will collapse from their collective shittiness?
Shut the fuck up, Dick Hoste.
So, in short, be careful with the eldtritch arts. Trolls summoned by +5 spells sometimes go berserk, like golems.
eldritch* arts, that is.
Most feathers of The Great Peacock of Stupidity are proudly on display in this thread.
I will admit that it is amazing that all three of our link-whoring racist shitbag trolls managed to show up at once.
I am disappointed that the Fattest Troll, Tony, has yet to use this thread to suggest that we are all racist because of the race-baiters commenting here. Especially as s/h/e/it and fellow traveler Caged Lion pushed the new "One Drop" rule that if a racist shows up at an event and isn't torn to pieces by the crowd, then the whole assembly and abstract movement behind the assembly is automatically and forever agreeing with said racist.
Liberaltarianism was nothing more than a pipe dream among libertarians who wanted to gain acceptance with the cool kids.
I though it had something to do with sucking up to the democrats. What does it have to do with the cool kids?
-jcr
Underzog, how does it feel to be completely insane? I'm honestly curious.
I'm a mental health professional, and we actually don't use the word "insane" at all regarding clients, but you, Underzog...you are as close to absolutely batshit insane as I've ever seen on the Internet. So what's it feel like? Are you preparing for the Apocalypse? Is anyone who criticizes Israel your sworn enemy? Do you weep softly into your pillow at night, overcome by pity for the poor unsaved souls that won't be joining you and your psycho buddies in Heaven? Are you a Michael Medved fan? Enlighten me.
John Thacker has it right on 'race'.
Before the modern era -- and yes things were fuzzy at the geographic margins even back then -- there are clearly major subgroups within H. sapiens, bundles of associated phenotypes & genotypes (aka 'race') which represent some divergence in our actual evolutionary history. In particular there are general climate/latitude adaptaptions (with some lock-in of genetic drift due to relative isolation in the past?): melanin (UV & vitamin D), differences in facial features (epicanthic fold or longer noses), and body fat distribution (more uniform for the cold).
Yes, there were (and are, increasingly) lateral gene flows between these groups, but if that were truly so great then there would be no substantial visible differences in the first place. IOW, in terms of adaptive character and coherence, there's *something* there. It's also a bit of a PC myth that 'race' (whatever fuzzier underlying statistical reality there is) is 'only skin deep'. It's anatomical,genetic and biochemical, and -- most controversially in terms of perhaps unsolvable nature/nurture arguments -- possibly psychologically when examining statistical distributions globally.
Funny how the doctors and physiologists routinely use usefully 'race' in some form in clinical or forensic settings, but according to the PC anthropology & social science types 'scientifically there is no such thing as...'
Aside from merely being multiculti lefties in general, I think a big part of it is there [justified] guilt over how the weak state of their science in the past involved them with eugenicists and racists, and they've now backpedaled even more than the actual science warrants.
[I think its similar to the way psychologists backed away from any objective look at homosexuality because of the prior barbaric treatment *they* used to perpetrate -- see the sad story of brit Alan Turing -- even though, in purely evolutionary terms at least, its a dysfunction for the individual (behavioral sterility barring extraordinary measures.) Note - I make the preceding observation in purely scientific terms, and *don't* say that that justifies criminalizing it or forcing 'treatment' on anyone.]
Do you take america down the road to communism just because barac is black. NO NO NO. Do you democrats follow barac as goble, gerhring had followed hitler. NO NO NO.
Was not the military policy of excluding homosexuals federal law .
What stopped Congress from repealing the law back in 1993? What is stopping Congress from repealing the law now ?
So I guess anyone opposed to keeping these provisions in is racist, correct?
Also interesting is that the admin is arguing that terrorists held in Bagram, Afghanistan don't have the same rights they bestowed upon the terrorists in Gitmo. But since Gitmo is going to be closed in a couple of months I guess it's a distinction without a difference?
What rights do they have under Afghani law?
Why does any of this surprise anyone? BHO entire philosophy is big government and government control over as mush as possible. He has to keep Gitmo because he has no place to send these dangerous people. He has to win the Afghan war or he will be labeled as weak. He needs the Patriot Act, not for security, but so he can spy on people (see email monitoring etc.). It should not be a surprise. This administration will flaunt the law, the consitution or whatever else alse long as it leads to move, bigger and more intrusive government. Cradle to grave is the guiding principle. Always think about what will expand this and you will know where and what this President is going to do.
YOU'RE JUST BEING STUBBORN ASSHOLEZ GAWD I HAT U GUYZ SO MUCH!!!!!!!!ARGH!!! BARACK OBAMA IS JUST CLEANING UP THE MESS LEFT BY BUSH! YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT, BY DOING THE SAME KIND OF THINGS BUSH DID, BUT WITH MORE SPENDING! IT'S CHANGE, YOU NUMBSKULLS! IF YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT CHANGE, THEN YOU'RE BITTER, RACIST ASSHOLEZ!!
I'm not. In my experience, shitbag losers like this all tend to run in the same circles. So I'll bet that LoneWhacko posted a link on his website and Rich Hoste, who may or may not have the intellectual ability to use an RSS feeder, followed the link.
That, or Lonewhacko got his feewings all huwt from everyone telling him to STFU, and ran to Stormfront for reinforcements.
Unfortunately, his idea of reinforcements consists of summoning a bunch of backwards, buck-toothed trailer-dwelling inbreeds, so the result is either hilarious or tragic, depending on your point of view.
I'm on staff at another internet forum, and once in awhile we get an influx of these Storm Front assholes. I take a great deal of pleasure in banning them and deleting their idiotic posts.
Hobo Chang Ba's 12:51 post is very good.
Liberals and libertarians can find a lot of common ground. Unfortunately libertarians tend to reject that, bizarrely, solely because of the right's rhetoric on taxes and regulations, which has never been based on libertarian principles but on doing the bidding of their corporate puppeteers. Liberals only want to grow the government insofar as it serves as the protector of people from the state of nature and various competing, undemocratic powers that exist. Conservatives have no problem with big government as long as it's waging foreign wars or telling you what to do with your genitals. Indeed the movement is only conservative in the social sense--movement conservatism has overseen the most radical transformation from the status quo in modern times. Liberals see a gross transfer of power and wealth upward resulting from "conservative" fiscal policy as being quite detrimental to individual freedom.
Right, Tony, the Democrats are the protector of the little guy.
Which is why they support confiscatory levels of taxation, prosecuting the drug war only slightly less than the Republicans, instituting byzantine, irrational gun control laws that prevent a citizen from defending him/herself, the institution of laws criminalizing "hate speech", taxing or making it outright illegal to engage in activities that the left finds morally repulsive, like smoking or eating a bacon cheeseburger, instituting energy policies that will no doubt drive up the cost of energy to the consumer, instituting idiotic trade tariffs on imported goods which will drive up the cost of commonly necessary consumer items (thereby impacting the poor the most), and doubling down on accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being either a racist, a militia member/terrorist or both.
Fuck you, Tony.
Which is why they support confiscatory levels of taxation,
35% as the marginal tax rate -- (and even if it were to go back up to hellish Clinton years of say 38-39 % for the top tier earners) is hardly confiscatory.
This is why people can't take libertarians seriously. Their dishonesty/hyperbole when it comes to economic matters is sickening.
ChicagoTom,
I assume then that you are tall enough to read God's ledger where it has recorded the reasonable marginal tax rate?
Since you hang around here a lot, being sick all the time at least helps keep the weight down.
Ok, Tom, I'll bite. What's a confiscatory level of taxation?
Also, might I add that even if 35% isn't confiscatory WRT income tax, that there are still plenty of other forms of taxation from mandatory registration fees to sales tax to certification fees that add to that level.
When I saw the news item yesterday headlined "Obama to extend key provisions of Patiot Act" I laughed for half an hour. Is there any issue left of importance to the sock puppet Left that Obama hasn't abandonded? But, all we hear from the Left is a soft sigh of resignation. Where's all the hysterical paranoia that was directed at Bush? I guess since Obama is "of" the Left, they're kinda/sorta OK with what he's doing. If Bush does it, it's BAAAAAD. If Obama does it, it's GOOOOOD.
Hey, for all you Leftists and Civil Libertarians out there:
If you have a problem with Obama's decision to extend key provisions of the Patriot Act, I guess that makes you (gulp!)...racists!!
I don't have a problem with whites, or any racial, ethnic, or religious group, having their own country, dedicated to the perpetuation and enrichment of whatever they think their own kind is. That said, I don't think that the United States should be that country. The US is a shared dream of anyone who accepts the tenets of the American credo, especially as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It is exceptional among nations by being based on beliefs in fundamental legal equality, individual liberty, and unalienable rights that the government exists to secure. This is incompatible with the perpetuation of a single dominant race, ethnicity, or religion, because the favoring of one such group in particular necessarily entails at least mild subjugation of the rest, in violation and denial of what we would recognize as their own inalienable rights and legal equality.
Anyone who shares the American dream, and wants to be American, is American enough for me. I welcome all such people here. Beware, however, of those who would describe or reinterpret the American dream as allowing for (the legal) elevation of one group at the expense of the rest, or the subjugation of some in service to all. Such people propose fundamental changes to the American dream, which, if accepted, will ultimately result in the American nightmare.
"In a letter to lawmakers, Justice Department officials said the administration supports extending the three expiring provisions of the law, although they are willing to consider additional privacy protections as long as they don't weaken the effectiveness of the law."
Does this mean that we might at least require the "Justice Department Officials" to first demonstrate the effectiveness of the law, and to make clear how they expect that demonstrated effectiveness to diminish if the provisions in question are allowed to expire?
I think the idea of "Confiscatory" taxation must be examined in the context of all taxes, fees, and mandated expenses due to government law or regulation. Weasel-wording apologists might try to make the case that a 30% or 40% marginal INCOME TAX rate is not "confiscatory," but when it is added to sales and excise taxes, the State versions of all of those taxes, and all of the costs that people must incur to comply with laws and regulations, etc., then the total bite begins to seem a lot more "confiscatory." As far as the Democrats are concerned, there has hardly been a tax that the local Demos didn't welcome -- so if they are generally in favor of the basket of taxes we have, then I would say they are generally in favor of confiscatory taxation.
These are probably the same sorts of people who cluck their tongues at churches asking for 10%.
Also do note that Tom only picked one item out of my list of grievances with the Democrats.
When did I mention Democrats?
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Transparent dodge.
No, I was speaking specifically of liberals. Democrats range from ultra-liberal to moderate/conservative. They aren't the best champion of "the little guy" in the world but they're a hell of a lot better than the GOP.
I don't have a problem with whites, or any racial, ethnic, or religious group, having their own country, dedicated to the perpetuation and enrichment of whatever they think their own kind is. That said, I don't think that the United States should be that country.
America was that country until 1965. When the immigration law passed that year, Ted Kennedy explicitly promised that the ethnic makeup of the country wouldn't change.
The US is a shared dream of anyone who accepts the tenets of the American credo, especially as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It is exceptional among nations by being based on beliefs in fundamental legal equality, individual liberty, and unalienable rights that the government exists to secure. This is incompatible with the perpetuation of a single dominant race, ethnicity, or religion, because the favoring of one such group in particular necessarily entails at least mild subjugation of the rest, in violation and denial of what we would recognize as their own inalienable rights and legal equality.
Anyone who shares the American dream, and wants to be American, is American enough for me. I welcome all such people here. Beware, however, of those who would describe or reinterpret the American dream as allowing for (the legal) elevation of one group at the expense of the rest, or the subjugation of some in service to all. Such people propose fundamental changes to the American dream, which, if accepted, will ultimately result in the American nightmare.
Latinos have never shown any interest in limited government and the free market. Why would arriving in this country as poor, marginalized minority change them?
"Liberals see a gross transfer of power and wealth upward resulting from "conservative" fiscal policy as being quite detrimental to individual freedom."
Karl Marx could have expressed the same sentiment.
Wait, he did express the same sentiment!
George W. Obama