Comments | theonetrueruss: Bob Barr?

theonetrueruss

Bob Barr?

May 25, 2008 18:01

Ok, so as many of you probably know I cast myself as a Libertarian. I've been watching the Libertarian National Convention on C-SPAN this afternoon and they have selected Bob Barr as the Libertarian nominee for President in the 2008 election. I am trying to decide wether or not to continue my support. Bob Barr has a history of voting and being on ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

nausved May 26 2008, 16:03:59 UTC

The only reason I don't call myself a libertarian is because of the Libertarian Party. The bulk of the party is far, far too rightwing and authoritarian for me, and I don't want to be associated with it in any way.

I just call myself a liberal instead, since that word implies most of my libertarian positions (abortion, drugs, immigration, imminent domain, rights of the accused, etc., etc.) without aligning me to any particular party.

logiphage May 26 2008, 22:10:30 UTC

The problem with that is that the left is far more authoritarian.

What is it that you think the LP seems to want to force you to do?

If authoritarianism is your real concern and you think the LP is too much so, then you've really no place to go but some flavor of anarchism.

theonetrueruss May 27 2008, 12:19:51 UTC

I do agree.. I'm just concerned about the future of the party and commitment to liberty that people like Bob Barr have.

nausved May 27 2008, 21:04:37 UTC

Er...the Libertarian Party doesn't want to force me to do anything. I'm not even a member of the party. What do they care what I do?

However, the views held by many of its current and former members (including some prominent individuals, such as Ron Paul) conflict with my own and, as such, I choose not to be associated with it.

The left is generally associated with protecting the rights of individuals, as well as providing various protections necessary to achieve such ends. This is my big issue; all of my political views are auxiliary to my opinion that every individual should be given as much freedom as possible, without infringing on the freedoms of others. (This, by the way, makes me far from anarchist. I am perfectly supportive of any government action, as much as any anti-government action, that serves this end ( ... )

logiphage May 28 2008, 01:07:26 UTC

Libertarians don't care what you do so long as it does not impinge on the freedoms of others. That's what distinguishes them from the left and the right ( ... )

logiphage May 28 2008, 01:14:11 UTC

Well to be more exact, RP is not a libertarian although he has many positions which happen to coincide with libertarian positions. He doesn't see that his religion gets him into profound trouble with libertarian ideals and basically mitigate the separation of church and state. Pro life, anti gay, etc all do that though he doesn't recognize that's his religious indoctrination not sound philosophy, much less sound libertarian philosophy.

nausved May 28 2008, 17:07:11 UTC

"For example. The right wants to protect your right to self defense, at least in theory. The left wants to protect your privacy, at least in theory. Both sides have participated in abrogating those rights. Neither is uniformly happy with you being free ( ... )

logiphage May 28 2008, 18:11:07 UTC

Ron Paul is a former LP member and I'm a former democrat. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions based on either of those observations;)

Ron Paul is decidedly not universally supported by libertarians

The support he does get is simply because he's the closest thing, similarly with Bob Barr.

RP does not represent libertarians nor the LP, and it's mistaken to consider homophobic Ron Paul as any representation of libertarians as it is to consider racist Obama as any representation of the left.

However even RP or BB are far less authoritarian than any of the real candidates running. So, again, I'm not sure how you can consider libs, the LP, or any candidate self described as libertarian as 'too authoritarian'. Compared to Obama? To McCain? To Hillary? Now you may not believe BB is as libertarian as he has reinvented himself, (nor do I) but at least he's giving libertarian philosophy lip service.. atm anyway ( ... )

nausved June 4 2008, 16:19:36 UTC

I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I have been in the process of moving.

I accept that Ron Paul is not universally supported by Libertarians (nor libertarians as a whole). But he is (or, at least, was) very widely supported. If I were to go around calling myself a libertarian, many people would mistake me for a Libertarian and very likely assume that I am (or ever was) a Ron Paul supporter. Am I wrong?

Likewise, I am in no way, shape, or form a supporter of Bob Barr. But if I called myself a libertarian, many would assume I was, since he is the Libertarian Party's nominee.

As I have been saying all along, I do not call myself a libertarian-as accurate as that term may be-because I do not want to be mistaken for a Libertarian (a subset of libertarians who do not satisfactorily encompass my views). I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing against here.

As for political expediency vs. ideological integrity, this is the beauty of third parties. They don't have to worry about political expediency, because they're not ( ... )

logiphage June 5 2008, 21:58:27 UTC

I don't mind calling myself a libertarian because most people have no clue what that even is, much less the distinction between Libertarian. They may know there's such a party, but if they don't know the distinction they almost certainly don't know wtf either means anyway, and hence I don't worry too much about their opinion ( ... )

nausved June 5 2008, 23:17:18 UTC

"I don't mind calling myself a libertarian because most people have no clue what that even is, much less the distinction between Libertarian ( ... )

logiphage June 6 2008, 20:19:03 UTC

The right doesn't like McCain because he's so moderate. Definitely don't see any basis for calling him a neocon. Neocons, or 'law and order liberals', are basically fascists. They want social control and fiscal control, they are basically the left paradigm married to right ideology. Boomers grown up and who miss the glory days of their youth but don't want their own kids (or anyone else) to have that freedom. Ugh. The exact opposite of libertarians ( ... )

nausved June 6 2008, 21:19:42 UTC

I guess we'll have to see with McCain. I strongly, strongly suspect that he will follow in the footsteps of Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr.-expanding the federal government, increasing national debt, and impairing individual liberties-as his platform seems to indicate. You may or may not agree with his foreign policy, but aggressive involvement in foreign affairs is an earmark of the neoconservative movement; it is one of the defining differences between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives. (Note: This is something that troubles me about Obama as well, but Obama does seem overall less interested in militaristic action.)

"Replace the word 'Black' with 'White' in the document and it becomes abundantly clear."

I happen to disagree. Taking particular interest in white people is not inherently racist. The only reason white pride is associated with racism is because most of the people who celebrate being white are racist in addition to being interested in their race. Note that being proud of having European ancestry-e.g., all those ( ... )

logiphage June 6 2008, 22:51:19 UTC

Saying 'us first' always mean 'yall second'. It's logically axiomatic. Whether you have the word black or white in there I find it repulsive. Have you read Cone? Wright isn't making the stuff he says up, he references Cone like Cone wrote the bible and affords him equal authority. But to Wright, it seems Cone did write the bible.. from the TUCC web site: "The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology." Lovely book, in which Cone states "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him." (emphasis mine ( ... )

nausved June 8 2008, 02:48:45 UTC

"Saying 'us first' always mean 'yall second'."

Are they saying "us first", though? Believing that Group A should have XYZ is not the same as saying Group B should not ( ... )

logiphage June 10 2008, 23:23:28 UTC

"Are they saying "us first", though?"

Yes they are. Well more really, they are saying "us only", and "not them". It's a racist manifesto for a racist organization. The racism in the copy on their website is solidly confirmed when you hear the actual sermons. The racism in the copy on their website is solidly confirmed by the sources they admit they draw from.

"It's a dated book, written toward the end of the Civil Rights Movement. When people read such books, they keep in mind the historical context and reject the parts that don't fit with their modern perspective."

It may be dated to you and I, as evidenced by the fact that we're not the ones using it as a reference for making racist value systems. They are. It's clearly not dated to [i]TUCC[/i ( ... )

Back to all threads