Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves…”     Lysander Spooner

January 29, 2008

Quote Of The Day

by Doug Mataconis

Why libertarians always seem frustrated by the Republican Party, from Cosmo’s Brain:

I have come to learn something very important about the Republican Party and libertarians: the big tent welcomes libertarians only when it suits their convenience to do so (which is about every even numbered year). When those same libertarian principles Republicans champion are applied to issues like drugs or morality, then Republicans do not want to hear what libertarians have to say. Rudy Giuliani believes in expansive executive power; Mitt Romney is more pro-business than pro-free market (somebody should tell Mitt that being a businessman and being an economist are not the same thing); John McCain would gladly sacrifice civil liberties in the name of “clean government;” and Mike Huckabee, well, he is a statist who calls himself a conservative. To add icing to the cake, none of them truly care about unity or bringing about any real, significant changes to Washington. None of them seem to share Barack’s desire for unity and change. Like Hillary and Edwards, I feel that they would rather go down in flames and claim they stuck to principle than compromise with others to reach a viable solution (or trade-off) concerning some of America’s problem; whether anything gets down is of secondary importance to them.

Yea, that about sums it up.

H/T: Publius Endures

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/29/quote-of-the-day-16/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

5 Comments

  1. Barack’s desire for unity and change apparently involves punishing companies that outsource jobs, imposing gun control, starting socialized medicine, and increasing foreign aid. That kind of change we can do without.

    http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm

    As much as I despise the GOP right now, I don’t think their flirtations with libertarians are anywhere near as fickle as the Dem’s overtures towards us. The Dems aren’t likely to ever embrace economic liberalism (which is the most important policy for government to follow) and without that we have absolutely no future. After the GOP gets kicked around and purged a bit more we’ll have a place at the table with them again. It will always be an imperfect relationship, but until the LP pulls its head out of its ass (which will probably never happen) that’s just life in a two-party system.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 29, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
  2. Like Hillary and Edwards, I feel that they would rather go down in flames and claim they stuck to principle than compromise with others to reach a viable solution (or trade-off) concerning some of America’s problem

    I could live without compromise. Seems everytime politicians smile and say they came together to pass something, citizens get screwed. Give me a few more of those loud, tireless, stubborn voices any day.

    Comment by trumpetbob15 — January 29, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
  3. trumpetbob,

    I can handle loud, tireless and stubborn…just so long as they live up to the standards they preach and don’t surround themselves with incompetents and scumbags. It’s a continual roadblock libertarians have with politics, we get a lot of guys running for office who have great ideals but they often haven’t got the first damned clue of how to get them implemented or how to find people who can help them. That’s the problem with idealists, they tend to be pains in the ass and not so good at developing people skills or working with others and unless you’re able to work with others (while still holding onto your ideals) you won’t get a hell of a lot accomplished. Basically we need a lot fewer Ron Pauls, Lew Rockwells, or Michael Badnariks and a lot more Jeff Flakes, Barry Goldwaters or Ronald Reagans.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 29, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
  4. Thanks for your comment, UCrawford. I’m stymied by libertarians that constantly keep signing on to democratic cantidates for “gridlock” or “change.” The two constant planks of (D) are a willingness to redistribute income (and admit it) and use government as a lever to control the economic behavior of people (I use economic very broadly.)

    I can’t remember who said “liberty without the economic means to carry it out is worthless” or somesuch. Maybe most libertarians are retired folk or poor disaffected college students and don’t mind professionals and corporations constantly getting bent over by the (D).

    As to your second comment, I endorse that too. I can look the other way when a Georgia (R) rep votes to keep liquor sales on Sundays dead, since he continually votes for lower taxes and better concealed carry laws.

    Comment by Jmarsh — January 30, 2008 @ 4:31 am
  5. Jmarsh,

    Actually, I don’t look the other way when Republican politicians vote for blue laws either…that’s partly why a lot of Republicans I’ve known consider me a pain in the ass, even though I take their side more often than not. :) Being an idealist usually means you’ll lock horns with just about everybody from time to time, some more than others. But it’s okay to be an idealistic libertarian so long as you don’t use that idealism to push everyone else away and have a realistic plan for bringing those ideals to fruition.

    Whoever made that quote you cited was right though. “Liberty” without prosperity isn’t much more than the freedom to starve to death.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 30, 2008 @ 7:55 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML