I am the great satan!

 I just donated $31 to Bob Barr. I think he has a really good chance of getting some media attention and moving people in our direction. I would love a smaller government voice to be in the debates.

 

disclaimer: I know he is not even close to being perfect, but is a step in the right direction.

ChaseCola:

 I just donated $31 to Bob Barr. I think he has a really good chance of getting some media attention and moving people in our direction. I would love a smaller government voice to be in the debates.

 

disclaimer: I know he is not even close to being perfect, but is a step in the right direction.

 

Ehhhhhhhhh...

There are worse things you could've spent it on.

I told you... I told you, reformists this is what would happen when you started supporting Ron Paul.

 

majevska:

There are worse things you could've spent it on.

 

Like what? Literally donating it to Satan?

 

 

Bob Barr has a lot of explaining to do before I support him in his quest to become the Liberterian Candidate for president.  I want his opinions on the following and I am especially concerned about his opinion on the terrible War on Drugs.

1. War on ?, Drugs, Poverty, Crazy People Living In Caves, Commies, , etc

2. Federal Anti-Reserve and stealing money via inflation taxes.

3. Energy policy

4. Patroit Act and its partners from the Alien and Sedition Acts until Now.

5. Foreign Aid.

6. Environmental Policy.

Niccolò:

Like what? Literally donating it to Satan?

I'm sure Satan doesn't need money

 

Barr is pro-war.  I couldn't donate to him anyway, but I definitely will not be supporting his campaign in any other (agoristic) manner.

 

Niccolò:

majevska:

There are worse things you could've spent it on.

 

Like what? Literally donating it to Satan?

 

 

yep

Beyond Niccolo's points, there are questions here even for a reformer. Suppose Barr does get into the debates, something no previous LP candidate has done. Would this be good or bad? Well, there are people who don't know what libertarianism is - what conclusion will they draw when Barr speaks about DOMA, advocates sanctions, encourages the use of foreign aid for fighting drugs in South America, mentions his past with the CIA... This is beyond the conclusions they will draw just from seeing him there - such as that libertarians agreed with the Clinton impeachment and are a-ok with his get tough on crime mentality. So, right off the bat no leftist will be able to think about libertarianism without picturing Barr, an effect that poor candidates in the past didn't have, simply because they weren't well-exposed. Also, libertarians, such as yourself, will be deluded into supporting him, as the LP candidate. I just read an LRC article where Dr. Block said that, as a libertarian, he is committed to supporting the LP candidate - how many think that way? Now, in Dr. Block's case, this won't result in him embracing Barr's non-libertarian stances, but not everyone thinks as clearly. If someone has libertarian instincts, but wants to be well-accepted in "polite society" they will have the excuse they need to embrace warfare. Now, Niccolo does have a point that the Barr fiasco is an expected result of the Paul candidacy. First, it encouraged libertarians to work within politics, and accustomed them to mixing in conservatism with their libertarianism. It moved libertarians a step to the right, which opened them up to the next step - Barr. Next, it brought lots of conservatives, including far-right JBS types, into libertarianism, laying the groundwork for the paleocon takeover we're looking at if Barr is nominated. Niccolo has made me think carefully about whether or not Paul was worth it. I think he was, but that this argument does give me reason to think. At the same time, I don't necessarily accept Niccolo's suggestion that this is an inevitable consequence - I think even if we say that the Paul campaign led to this, it remains a possibility that we could have had the Paul campaign without this. In fact, I think we can still fight it. That's why I wrote my LRC article on Barr the other day. It's also why LP radicals are building sites like badbarr2008.com , which the OP might care to look at. I am advocating that Ruwart be nominated, but I understand the heavy temptation Barr presents even to real libertarians - "wow, a candidate people have heard of! Who was a Congressman!" That's why I have suggested that the hardcore present Gravel as a fallback plan, a compromise. He is more of a classical liberal than Barr is, has as much if not more name recognition, was an elected Senator, and will not alienate the left. He's better than Barr, I propose.

 I'd rather have a lefty libertarian esque candidate like Gravel instead of a righty fascist esque like Barr.

Although Gravel scares me with his MOB-ocracy idea

The only LP candidate that is worth anything to minarchist directions is Christine Smith. She should not even be in the LP

JAlanKatz:

I just read an LRC article where Dr. Block said that, as a libertarian, he is committed to supporting the LP candidate - how many think that way?

I'm not sure that line in article wasn't tongue in cheek.  I find it difficult to believe Dr. Block would vote for a LP candidate over say RP if he was the GOP candidate.  Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

 

 

I only supported RP because I didn't know as much as I do now.  Even when I did, I did not like Bob Barr at all.  Even reformists are scratching their head at Barr.

Why not Ruwarchy which you cannot spell without WAR?

liberty student:

JAlanKatz:

I just read an LRC article where Dr. Block said that, as a libertarian, he is committed to supporting the LP candidate - how many think that way?

I'm not sure that line in article wasn't tongue in cheek.  I find it difficult to believe Dr. Block would vote for a LP candidate over say RP if he was the GOP candidate.  Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

 

 

 

Walter Block: International Man of Mystery.

I smell an expose, I do, I do.

liberty student:

JAlanKatz:

I just read an LRC article where Dr. Block said that, as a libertarian, he is committed to supporting the LP candidate - how many think that way?

I'm not sure that line in article wasn't tongue in cheek.  I find it difficult to believe Dr. Block would vote for a LP candidate over say RP if he was the GOP candidate.  Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

 

 

 

Walter Block: International Man Of Mystery

I smell an expose, I do, I do.

liberty student:

JAlanKatz:

I just read an LRC article where Dr. Block said that, as a libertarian, he is committed to supporting the LP candidate - how many think that way?

I'm not sure that line in article wasn't tongue in cheek.  I find it difficult to believe Dr. Block would vote for a LP candidate over say RP if he was the GOP candidate.  Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

From the context, it's clear that his remarks were predicated on the assumption that McCain is the Republican candidate. Which happens to be a virtual certainty.

--Len

 

Ok fine, but he makes the point that voting LP is something that libertarians do.

As a libertarian, I must of course support for the presidency of the U.S. in the upcoming election whoever is the candidate of the Libertarian Party. (It’s a libertarian thing; you wouldn’t understand.)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block99.html

Seems sarcastic to me.

billott1:

Bob Barr has a lot of explaining to do before I support him in his quest to become the Liberterian Candidate for president.  I want his opinions on the following and I am especially concerned about his opinion on the terrible War on Drugs.

1. War on ?, Drugs, Poverty, Crazy People Living In Caves, Commies, , etc

2. Federal Anti-Reserve and stealing money via inflation taxes.

3. Energy policy

4. Patroit Act and its partners from the Alien and Sedition Acts until Now.

5. Foreign Aid.

6. Environmental Policy.

 

 He has changed his mind on the war on drugs(at least at the federal level)

I am not sure about the rest, but what I do know is that he will not expand the governments role in anything and is likely to support decreasing the governments role on these issues. That means we will gain liberty with him, and not lose it in other areas. That is a step in the right direction IMO. But what Barr has most to offer is his voice in the debates(if he is in them). For example, while Mccain and Obama bicker about whether to keep the governments role in healthcare the same or expand it Bob will argue to decrease it.

JAlanKatz:

 

Beyond Niccolo's points, there are questions here even for a reformer. Suppose Barr does get into the debates, something no previous LP candidate has done. Would this be good or bad? Well, there are people who don't know what libertarianism is - what conclusion will they draw when Barr speaks about DOMA, advocates sanctions, encourages the use of foreign aid for fighting drugs in South America, mentions his past with the CIA... This is beyond the conclusions they will draw just from seeing him there - such as that libertarians agreed with the Clinton impeachment and are a-ok with his get tough on crime mentality. So, right off the bat no leftist will be able to think about libertarianism without picturing Barr, an effect that poor candidates in the past didn't have, simply because they weren't well-exposed. Also, libertarians, such as yourself, will be deluded into supporting him, as the LP candidate. I just read an LRC article where Dr. Block said that, as a libertarian, he is committed to supporting the LP candidate - how many think that way? Now, in Dr. Block's case, this won't result in him embracing Barr's non-libertarian stances, but not everyone thinks as clearly. If someone has libertarian instincts, but wants to be well-accepted in "polite society" they will have the excuse they need to embrace warfare. Now, Niccolo does have a point that the Barr fiasco is an expected result of the Paul candidacy. First, it encouraged libertarians to work within politics, and accustomed them to mixing in conservatism with their libertarianism. It moved libertarians a step to the right, which opened them up to the next step - Barr. Next, it brought lots of conservatives, including far-right JBS types, into libertarianism, laying the groundwork for the paleocon takeover we're looking at if Barr is nominated. Niccolo has made me think carefully about whether or not Paul was worth it. I think he was, but that this argument does give me reason to think. At the same time, I don't necessarily accept Niccolo's suggestion that this is an inevitable consequence - I think even if we say that the Paul campaign led to this, it remains a possibility that we could have had the Paul campaign without this. In fact, I think we can still fight it. That's why I wrote my LRC article on Barr the other day. It's also why LP radicals are building sites like badbarr2008.com , which the OP might care to look at. I am advocating that Ruwart be nominated, but I understand the heavy temptation Barr presents even to real libertarians - "wow, a candidate people have heard of! Who was a Congressman!" That's why I have suggested that the hardcore present Gravel as a fallback plan, a compromise. He is more of a classical liberal than Barr is, has as much if not more name recognition, was an elected Senator, and will not alienate the left. He's better than Barr, I propose.

 

 Good point. However, Gravel couldn't even be called a left-libertarian either, since he supports a "Fair"Tax, nationalized health care, and world government. I think it would be better for all the libertarians to get behind Ruwart or Kubby.