Comments on: Libetarianism Co-Option Watch

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:59:32 +0000

Jeff,

On the whole yes, but I can’t think of any reason why a VP choice would cause me to vote for a Presidential candidate I otherwise wouldn’t vote for.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:49:04 +0000

Given that the Vice-Presidency is, constitutionally, a nearly powerless office it barely matters to me who any nominee picks as VP as long as they’d be qualified to fill the position of President in the historically unlikely event that they’d be called upon to do so.

If Paul gets the nomination, his VP choice will be very important; he'll be picking the future flag-bearer. Wouldn't you want to make sure he picks someone more libertarian, not less?

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:15:48 +0000

Leanne:
If Paul wins the primaries, it will be because he managed to erase the stain of his association with certain groups or had some other sort of a Sister Soujah moment. If he manages to pull of an upset in the early going, you can be certain that his ties to those groups will become the defining issue of his campaign, whether he wants it to be or not.

You can rest assured that the second he does that, all the libertarians who have left him will be back on board, even if we don’t think he’s perfect.

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:45:42 +0000

Leanne,

Given that the Vice-Presidency is, constitutionally, a nearly powerless office it barely matters to me who any nominee picks as VP as long as they’d be qualified to fill the position of President in the historically unlikely event that they’d be called upon to do so.

By: Leanne

Leanne — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:40:18 +0000

Let’s just say that Ron Paul wins. There seems to be a trend of Libertarians wanting to distance themselves, which is kind of sad. Think about it, if you were Ron Paul, would you want to pick a Republican vp or a Libertarian vp? Ron Paul is a long shot, but it might be the closest a Libertarian gets to the white house either as president or vp.

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:22:49 +0000

Mike,

All that means is that he’s in Fifth place behind Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:48:21 +0000

Ron Paul is rising and Fred Thompson is going down in flames… http://truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm

By: KGB

KGB — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:07:01 +0000

Ron Paul is on target. The US policy of terrorism against muslims in general and Palestinians in particular for the past sixty years came back as 911. The US and Israel must recognize Palestinian sovereignty, and pay reparations for the US supported 1948 invasion by Zionists. Palestinians must have equal rights to live in their own country and vote. Anything less is hypocricy. One billion muslims in very wealthy nations are keenly aware of US Israeli hypocricy and they are as unlikely to forget over the coming sixty years as they did not forget over the past sixty years. The big difference is that muslims now have nuclear weapons, modern industrial societies, and oil wealth. Prudence suggests making amends. Wars of aggression and terror against Iraq and Afghanistan were precisely the wrong policy.

By: uhm

uhm — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:28:03 +0000

The Iranians wanted to talk to us right after the Iraq war when everything was going good for us. We should have taken them up on it. I would’ve went for that agreement. If they are a threat to our oil then the only logical course is to kill them.

Keith, I’ve heard people say that but I haven’t seen a credible source about it. Then why would the government want to spray and kill the poppie?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ac35906e-0aeb-11dc-8412-000b5df10621.html

We don’t have enough troops in Afghanistan is the problem. I’m against aid to Pakistan unless the aid bears fruit and I’m wary of spreading the war there. I agree with you that the War on Terror has been a waste of money. Either the government is finding an excuse to secure our oil, hoping the Arabs will tire themselves out, or is a complete idiot and is only interested in making businesses surrounding the Military Industrial Complex money, appeasing nutty supporters in the process.

People around Sibel Edmonds say Al Qaida made money off heroin. Then it went to Turkey where they made money off it too and bought weapons from us. Yet, Congress won’t let her speak. She has offered to go on TV and tell us the forbidden information but the Mainstream Media isn’t biting in the US.

By: zagalo

zagalo — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:02:13 +0000

If you are not an anarchist, you are some sort of statist and you can not be consistently pro liberty.

That being said, the closest thing to anarchy in reality is federalism. Since federalism, meaning a weak and virtually non existant federal (or imperial) government, means competition amongst states. In anarchy there is competition regardles of geography but libertarians should take moving from one state to another in the case of federalism.

Competition amongst states with similar language and culture is what caused Industrial Revolution in Europe and same competition made the US the most properous and free state in the world.

Whatever Ron Paul is, it is enough for him to be a federalist for libertarians to support him. It is not relevant what he thinks on other issues. If he can put the power in the hand of the states, the states will have to adopt libertarian laws or they will lose population.

That is why these debates amongst libertarians on whether to support Ron Paul or not is plain stupid. Every libertarian, should be backing Paul with all hes got.

By: Kaligula

Kaligula — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:43:50 +0000

Doug:

Paul’s position is that marriage should be a private contract, no government involvement at all. That quote inidicates he opposes government coercion to redefine marriage….

By: Cleaner44

Cleaner44 — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:52:21 +0000

Ron Paul is steam rolling his way to the Republican nomination. He dominates in straw polls, debate polls, fund raising, web traffic and grass roots networking. I have created a website to support this statement.

Please visit http://www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge the evidence for yourself.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:59:04 +0000

“Two simple tenants of libertarianism: laissez-faire free markets and non-coercion. Everything else is people latching on to buzzwords.”

I know this wasn’t what js290 was referring to, but I think it’s worth pointing out that attempts to silence any discussion of Ron Paul being something less than the incarnation of John Galt are explicitly a violation of the non-coercion tenet.

By: Keith

Keith — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:51:06 +0000

UHM—Man are you serious. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS.
Osama is winning..hum! Listen UHM you seem reasonable…You’ve been what they call hoodwinked my friend. Osama is our new Hitler..You know war on terror..Trillions from the treasury not for you and your kids. From you and me to steal..Like the war on drugs, $400 Billion and no reasonable end in sight. The Taliban in Afghanistan had completely eliminated poppy(heroin) production by 2001. This year they are set for a world record harvest..WE’RE THERE UMH…Torah Bora we had Osama cold and let him slip into Pakistan..Pakistan has nucs and we sent them $10 Billion (with a B) that’s your money you seem to be playing the fool?

By: js290

js290 — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:14:54 +0000

Two simple tenants of libertarianism: laissez-faire free markets and non-coercion. Everything else is people latching on to buzzwords.