Bob, Bob, Bob! You've said it. The problem isn't that we haven't seen far out libertarians, it is that is just about all we are seeing. Mike and Mike, I am going to partly retract what I said about the shell game. Bring us some libertarians who are not tainted by really ugly associations and who accept the necessity of government, including taxation. I, for one, will read what they have to say.
Diva- I have said myself that I accept the necessity of government, and the necessity for taxation. I do not accept it in its' current bloated form. My blog has been available for you to read for longer than I have been posting here. Go there and check it out. As a reminder, though, I posted here at blogcritics a public proposal I made to convert an old rail corridor into a multi-purpose trail that would be managed by the parks system. No one bothered to comment on that. I guess good policy is met with deafening silence.
Booey- In the area of civil liberties, also see my blog for discussions of my 1st Amendment lawsuit against the town of Fishers, where I live, challenging their ordinance prohibiting the placement of political signs in one's own front yard. This was done not merely so that I could place a LP sign in my yard, but so my neighbor could re-place his Kerry/Edwards sign in his yard, and for the free speech benefit of all. I should probably post that material here, too. Last year, the LPIN challenged the City of Indianapolis on a similar ordinance, and defeated the City. Since returning from Denmark, I have learned that the ICLU (Indiana chapter of ACLU) has now begun to follow our lead, observing that many Indiana communities limit political speech illegally. The ICLU is acting against the City of Noblesville on exactly the same grounds against the same kind of ordinance. Noblesville is my county seat, by the way. But I had called out the Patriot Act in a post before I left town. Guess you missed that one.
I will say that many in our party take the role of the radical very seriously. I don't play that role myself, because I don't believe it is effective in actually winning office, and since I am a county chair, my primary goal is affecting local policies and getting candidates elected. I don't believe that extreme radicalism works at the local level. What radicalism is good for, though, is moving the policy conversation in our direction, and I think this works to some extent on the national level. Politics is all negotiation, like it or not. No absolutist ever wins without military coup. So, when an anti-tax radical is included in the discussion and the negotiating starts, all involved parties will meet somewhere in the middle. The radical no-tax, no-government libertarian should understand this (even if they often tend to lose sight of it), and takes these positions for the purpose of debate. Sure, some believe in it; most don't. I think that many of the internet commentators you both see and react to have become a bit intoxicated by their rhetoric and become earnest about their radical position. I, hoever, recognize it only as a negotiation tool.
As for Al- I'll vouch for the majority of his views, but not all of them. (I'm not his Chair, by the way.) There isn't a person alive that I've agreed with totally, on everything. I don't expect or even hope to find such a person. It's funny, a few months ago some of these same blogcritics were attacking the seeming lockstep agreement of some of their opponents, calling it a lack of nuance. Now they are calling for the same lockstep agreement they attacked as proof of virtue. Well? Which is it?
Mike, I'll look for the Patriot Act post. I check this site sporadically and irregularly (although the past few days I've been much more frequent), so I usually miss any post that's not in the recent comment list above the Leaderboard thing.
The parks idea seems like an interesting one, even if it would involve tax money :) Part of the success of the Greens as a third party is that they pick up on the environmental concerns that a majority of the electorate share. Good times.
I don't like universal agreement in doctrine by any means, but I dislike misapplied labels just as much.
Article comments
26 - Mac Diva
Bob, Bob, Bob! You've said it. The problem isn't that we haven't seen far out libertarians, it is that is just about all we are seeing. Mike and Mike, I am going to partly retract what I said about the shell game. Bring us some libertarians who are not tainted by really ugly associations and who accept the necessity of government, including taxation. I, for one, will read what they have to say.
27 - Hal Pawluk
What Bob said, Al.
28 - Al Barger
Re: comment #4, Libertoids are the D&D players who always insist on playing Chaotic Evil characters....
My main D&D character back lo those many years ago as a teenager was a chaotic neutral. Specifically, the Right Reverend Zap was a cleric of Dionysus.
Feel free to add this to your psychological profiles as you see fit.
29 - Mike Kole
Diva- I have said myself that I accept the necessity of government, and the necessity for taxation. I do not accept it in its' current bloated form. My blog has been available for you to read for longer than I have been posting here. Go there and check it out. As a reminder, though, I posted here at blogcritics a public proposal I made to convert an old rail corridor into a multi-purpose trail that would be managed by the parks system. No one bothered to comment on that. I guess good policy is met with deafening silence.
Booey- In the area of civil liberties, also see my blog for discussions of my 1st Amendment lawsuit against the town of Fishers, where I live, challenging their ordinance prohibiting the placement of political signs in one's own front yard. This was done not merely so that I could place a LP sign in my yard, but so my neighbor could re-place his Kerry/Edwards sign in his yard, and for the free speech benefit of all. I should probably post that material here, too. Last year, the LPIN challenged the City of Indianapolis on a similar ordinance, and defeated the City. Since returning from Denmark, I have learned that the ICLU (Indiana chapter of ACLU) has now begun to follow our lead, observing that many Indiana communities limit political speech illegally. The ICLU is acting against the City of Noblesville on exactly the same grounds against the same kind of ordinance. Noblesville is my county seat, by the way. But I had called out the Patriot Act in a post before I left town. Guess you missed that one.
I will say that many in our party take the role of the radical very seriously. I don't play that role myself, because I don't believe it is effective in actually winning office, and since I am a county chair, my primary goal is affecting local policies and getting candidates elected. I don't believe that extreme radicalism works at the local level. What radicalism is good for, though, is moving the policy conversation in our direction, and I think this works to some extent on the national level. Politics is all negotiation, like it or not. No absolutist ever wins without military coup. So, when an anti-tax radical is included in the discussion and the negotiating starts, all involved parties will meet somewhere in the middle. The radical no-tax, no-government libertarian should understand this (even if they often tend to lose sight of it), and takes these positions for the purpose of debate. Sure, some believe in it; most don't. I think that many of the internet commentators you both see and react to have become a bit intoxicated by their rhetoric and become earnest about their radical position. I, hoever, recognize it only as a negotiation tool.
As for Al- I'll vouch for the majority of his views, but not all of them. (I'm not his Chair, by the way.) There isn't a person alive that I've agreed with totally, on everything. I don't expect or even hope to find such a person. It's funny, a few months ago some of these same blogcritics were attacking the seeming lockstep agreement of some of their opponents, calling it a lack of nuance. Now they are calling for the same lockstep agreement they attacked as proof of virtue. Well? Which is it?
30 - Bob A. Booey
Mike, I'll look for the Patriot Act post. I check this site sporadically and irregularly (although the past few days I've been much more frequent), so I usually miss any post that's not in the recent comment list above the Leaderboard thing.
The parks idea seems like an interesting one, even if it would involve tax money :) Part of the success of the Greens as a third party is that they pick up on the environmental concerns that a majority of the electorate share. Good times.
I don't like universal agreement in doctrine by any means, but I dislike misapplied labels just as much.
That is all.
31 - Bob A. Booey
"the major themes, that virtually all libertarians believe:
1. You own yourself."
Not unless I own you and your bad ideas.
How's the campaign coming, Senator? Making any criticisms of Bush on the trail?
That is all.