Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger L. Simon

Time for Libertarians to Put on Their Big Boy Pants

August 24th, 2014 - 8:53 pm

ayn_rand_b-52-8-24-14-1

I have always had a certain sympathy for libertarianism and it has only grown during the Obama administration. Who could believe in big government living under the fiasco of this man’s presidency?

And I am certainly not alone.  Libertarianism, if we are to believe none other than The New York Times, has become quite chic.

But paradoxically, during this same time frame, it has become perhaps even more evident that one of the apparent tenets of libertarianism — a kind of neo-isolationism — is, well, to put it bluntly, insane.  In the era of the Islamic State (not to mention a dozen other similar murderous,  increasingly global organizations we could name or are being invented as I write), anyone who believes we can roll up the gangplanks to create the perfect libertarian state and everything will be just ducky is living in dreamland.

But a fair number of libertarians are.  As an example, one of the leading spokesmen for the movement (I’ll be gracious by not naming him, because he’s probably embarrassed at this point) was quoted as likening the problem of Islamic terrorism to herpes — I guess he meant an annoyance you can live with if you find the right partner (who doesn’t behead you).

Do those same isolationist libertarians think that one Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, current leader of the Islamic State, was kidding when he said “See you in New York” when let out of detention camp in Iraq in 2009?  If not, what do they propose to do about it?  Wait until he is in New York?  Maybe Eric Holder will arrest him.  Or maybe he’ll blow up the Stock Exchange and sink the free market.  Or one of his now thousands of minions will. Do you want to sit back to wait to find out?  And what about all the unknown unknowns lurking out there?

Top Rated Comments   
Let's just get our terms straight.

You don't like isolationists. Well, not all libertarians are isolationists.

The strongest, most uncompromising anti-Islamist speech I ever heard was delivered by Yaron Brooke of the Ayn Rand Institute. He's the only speaker I've ever heard say out loud, "This ENEMY must be CRUSHED."

It's true that libertarianism has huge areas of overlap with isolationism--so do conservatism and liberalism.

Many of us small-l types who just want government out of the bedroom and out of the boardroom also believe in a vigorous national defense. We recognize the danger and evil of Islamofascisim.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
yea yea blah blah blah...let's go to war. The only problem is that all of the people always calling for the next war are completely adverse to actually declaring war and they will NOT declare who the enemy is and what is the end state we will see when we win.\

Instead we try these neo con phony baloney deals where we are going to transform an area that has been tribal for the last 50,000 years into the next Switzerland. I am a libertarian and I am all for destroying our enemies. I know who they are Roger....do you? Are you willing to actually destroy the people that need destroying or are we simply going to do the same song and dance of Islam is peace...like Georgie Bush was so fond of reminding us.

All the while he is holding hands with the Saudi King who is most responsible for the terrorists.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
That is such a load of crap. Libertarianism is simple recognition of the fact that when a bunch of clueless moralists try to use the police power to force people to live by their arbitrary rules it always goes wrong. Things that are wrong in essence have consequences and rational actors don't do them. Irrational people cannot be saved from their own idiocy.

99.7% of the "conservatives" who have any issue with libertarianism other than isolationism are people who can't get over the idea that being a virgin until marriage is important only in the absence of birth control and responsible behavior. If you believe that God is the source of all law, and rationality is of no consequence because man has no right to question it, then you will distrust libertarians. It's that simple.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (265)
All Comments   (265)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Libertarianism is a theoretical concept that's not even possible as a form of gov't. Why anyone acts as if it's any different from a religion or gov't in a science fiction novel is beyond me.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
What the hell do you think the constitution was? The major enlightenment philosophers prior the the French screwing it up were effectively libertarians. The movement isn't new it's old. It was formed when some young conservatives went back to the well.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Classical Liberalism does not = Libertarianism
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wow. Such a devastating argument. It's every bit as devoid of content as a COEXIST bumper sticker.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
What sense does it make to "call out" a group that isn't the slightest bit responsible for the problems we have today?

What's next? A column blasting the Amish?
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Roger, I'll make this as clear as I can. There are several reasons I now support the libertarians. I do not agree with their entire platform, however, I find myself more in accord with them than EITHER the Democrats or Republicans who, quite simply, are a bunch of lying fools.

I believe in border security and immigration enforcement, the two major parties, by their actions obviously DO NOT. I believe that the war on drugs is a complete failure and that people should be guided by personal responsibility. I also believe in a strong DEFENSE, and not to involve our country in MEANINGLESS wars that kill Americans for no reason. I believe in fiscal responsibility. The Democrats want to tax and spend us into oblivion and the Republicans seem quite content to go along with this approach.

Finally, the kicker for me is that I strongly believe in SMALLER government. Neither of the major parties have actually done anything to make our government shrink. This country was built on the backs of individuals and, if it's to succeed, needs to once again understand this fact. Otherwise, we're headed for the dust bin of history.

So, Roger, It's time YOU put on your "big boy" pants.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Skeet Shooter, you do know that Libertarians believe in open borders, don't you?
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
This is like saying, "You know all Republicans are pro-death penalty." Or, "You know all Democrats believe in taking care of the troops."

I understand trying to define a political ideology by issues, but people of the same ideology/mindset can have differences.

People can have similar worldviews and reach different policy positions.

I am generally considered "conservative." I am pro-life and oppose the death penalty. Why I am still considered a "conservative" is the reason I oppose the death penalty, which doesn't line up with traditional Left/liberal opposition.

I think the issue most libertarians have with Roger's piece is that he wants to set up strawmen. "If you're libertarian, you must subscribe to the beliefs I declare libertarian." he then knocks down the over-simplified rationale that he provides for their position. He doesn't seem inclined to really listen to the other voices, such as those in the comments, who say, "I am libertarian and you are providing a misleading depiction of my beliefs and here's why."

As such, I think that's why some libertarians have said, "Hey, that wide open border and roll up the plank isolationism is wildly inaccurate." Roger made a pretty flimsy article. Draw your own conclusions why. He's made arguments against positions they don't uniformly hold and ignored the unifying intellectual philosophy of libertariansism. Smaller goverment. Increased liberty. Provide for yourself. (If I am to understand them correctly).
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Have you read the Libertarian platform, Anchorman? It's not like they hide it.
"The twin pillars of a sane foreign policy are:
(1) Building positive relationships, with an emphasis on free trade, and
(2) Avoiding negative relationships, with an emphasis on military non-intervention."

The libertarian party's position on immigration is mendacious. They seem to believe that most American citizens are descended from illegal aliens.
http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Lewis, et al. As you may have noticed I'm a pretty strong defender of libertarian principles, however, I, like others like to call ourselves "small L" libertarians. Thank you for actually trying to check a relatively authoritative source on libertarian principles. You have no idea how frustrating it is to be accused of believing all sorts of nonsense that are utterly contrary to libertarian thought, however, the reason we say "small L" is that the Libertarian Party is insane.

I am a Republican, we get with like minded folks like you, debate each other until consensus is reached (occasionally losing our tempers like I do frequently with social conservatives). Still, we elect a Presidents and members of congress. We move issues that in turn move the world. The LP occasionally elects a dog catcher or a water commissioner.

I am for open borders, consistent with good order (think Ellis Island updated), WHEN AND ONLY WHEN the welfare state is dead and buried with a stake through its heart. I mean really dead, like our ideology owns Hollywood and the Universities dead.

In theory, this would be great. The economy would be screaming for workers, we would be a free people with the melting pot melting again, and we would be welcoming the most adventurous and industrious people from every culture here to add their gifts to ours AFTER they assented to all that we know makes this nation great.

Until that great day, I want the damn immigration laws enforced and the repeal of Kennedy's family reunification law that holds our immigrants down to low information voters from Central America. Unlike the LP I'm not stupid. We need to tear down the welfare state *in order* or else we will cause disasters that will take our agenda off the rails.

You are 100% right to be terrified by immigration as it is handled now. It's a scam to create Democrat voters. No sane "small L" libertarian should disagree, although some will desperately desire to find a means to tell these folks we are not their enemies, but that is when our fellow Republicans need to remind us not to get ahead of ourselves.

We libertarians are not "Utopians" because what we want to build *can work*. Liberty with a strong rule of law works every time it's tried, BUT we are philosophically inclined and sometimes need to be reminded of the realities of the work, particularly with regard to the order in which it must be done.

This is our major collision with the Social Conservatives. In the society as we would have it, there would be a hell of a lot more Christians. Christianity is the most powerful worker of good in human history whatever it's flaws. Presented in a nation where it is not actively scorned by the self appointed elite, it would be a pivotal force as its various sects and flavors each explored how to best bring knowledge to the faithful and light to the spiritually destitute. That would be an amazing thing to see and to participate in. However, this requires that no religion be allowed to take up the police power. That is the way of the enemy. At least that is our opinion. As we have to rebuild our society in order, and we have to respect that order, so do our allies and friends.

I hope this is helpful.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am a small-L libertarian, Hornspe. When I was younger I voted L for every office that they ran for on my ballot.
At some point -- when I was about 40 years old -- I realized that Libertarians were a radical, modernist party. They wanted a form of government that had never existed on the face of the Earth. Liberty may be a natural product of an evolving human society, Libertarianism is not. Also Ayn Rand was a classic radical European philosopher, more in the mold of Marx than Locke.
As some smart fella wrote not too long ago, what Libertarians have in common with the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century is that they imagine only two social actors of any importance -- the individual and the state. Other institutions, like church, family, and trade associations, are relics of the old Man that need to be discarded before we can break our chains and move into a golden, happy future that is creation by an effort of will.
I think that is nuts. If that makes me a so-con, so be it.
I know most people who call themselves libertarians don't agree with what Ayn Rand, the radical philosopher, taught, but the Libertarian Party does.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
There are only social actors in society, *with regard to the police power*.

Individuals may be pot in jail, not institutions and only one institution may deprive a person of liberty. All the other institutions you mention are critically important in the development of society, but they are, in a just society, simply voluntary associations of individual actors, none of whom have rights outside of contract rights that are an emanation of individual rights. Groups are an abstraction without meaning when it comes to rights. You can't make being a Nazi illegal because then you have to define being a Nazi and that gives too much discretion to a potential dictator. It is necessary therefor to punish the criminal behavior that Nazis and other loathsome people do without regard to their motivation, and trust that people will further consequence Nazis in the world of free association with the requisite shaming and shunning.

Being a libertarian is defining the relationship of the citizen to the state and *then* participating in a society where one may only get ones way through voluntary interactions, either individually or collectively. Your desire to join a Church and demand with moral conviction that the laws of god be obeyed does not make you a SoCon. Advocating a society where the government does not allow me to say "no" or delivers a consequence other than the simple natural consequence of my behavior does, just as eliminating those natural consequences by spreading their cost on others by means of legal force makes you a leftist.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Case in point:
"2.10 Retirement and Income Security
Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government."

Not "individuals, families, businesses, and other associations", just "individual, not government". These Libs are mad.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
How exactly do you hold a family accountable, with the police power, for the failure of a member to plan their retirement? Why would you forbid a business from opening until it could fund pensions for its employees? Until you do either one of those things by force, you are still a libertarian. As soon as you do either one using the law you are an Authoritarian. If you don't advocating strongly encouraging people to save for retirement in every relevant place you can you are stupid.

Put another way, exactly how do you impose a responsibility on a group without imposing it on an individual, and if you do, why are you trying to hide that behind the fiction that the state can act against a group without acting against each person in it?
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
This is why there's no point in talking to libertarians. they exist in a never-ending hogwash of hypotheticals.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes I do and not all Libertarians are "open borders" types..... As I said in my post, I agree with them on more issues than either the Dems or Repubs. You do know that Republicans keep campaigning on "smaller government" and never deliver, don't you?
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Then you should support small L libertarians in our efforts to assume some leadership in the Republican Party. Get involved locally. You would be surprised how influential you can be.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Small l big L, what childish nonsense -- your party supports open borders. Your philosophy supports open borders. The leading intellectuals and major donors in your movement make open borders a central vision of libertarianism, though they're also dishonest enough to lie about it when it's convenient.

Reason, CATO, the Koch brothers, Freedomworks -- these are radical open-borders activists, though the Kochs do pretend their other funded venture, AFP, has "no position" on the border while trying to get the Tea Party to take no action on amnesty.

Maybe you're not really a libertarian, though you argue like one.

6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
I vote for the most conservative candidate who can win in national elections. Libertarians cannot say the same.
One of the problems with Libertarianism is that they view all levels of government as being the same. All are good, or bad, according to how well they align with libertarian principles. This is silly and against the principles of free association. If I want to move to a community that bans drugs or abortion, I should be able to do so. Libertarians won't be happy until every hippie has access to marijuana and every perv has access to porn.
The enemy is a federal government that has escaped its bounds. It is a contradiction to want a smaller government, yet insist that that government has the right to overrule local government in matters like immigration and drug laws.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
That is a reasonable criticism of the LP, although one must make exceptions for basic rights. I would assume you would not leave free speech or gun rights to local preference. As to drugs, there are still dry counties (I think it's silly but not unconstitutional).

Federalism is actually a libertarian instinct, but remember, they may advocate for something you want to restrict locally, but unless they want judicial preemption, you are not at odds in terms of being able to have differing ways of life in different localities.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Put on your own big boy pants and understand libertarians would not support rebuilding Iraq with sharia enshrined in their constitution. And since your approach is so sophisticated, change your diaper and understand that libertarians would have supported those seeking freedom in Iran.

"Conservative" George Bush has one big achievement: Barack Obama as pretensident. Libertarian principles in foreign policy could not do any worse what that dynamic duo has wrought.

Loosen your tights, super-genius.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Pants? I am wearing blue jeans. Is that not good enough? Whenever I hear the squeal, They are Isolationists, I have to laugh. That is code for: Unrestrained govt spending by the MIC. Say what you really mean, Roger. And speaking of pants, you militarists/imperialists need to change your smelly diapers. You are dangerous & offensive to the American taxpayers!
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
So you want people espousing and infantile and fantasy-based ideology to grow up.

Good luck. The libertarians have permitted their own movement to be infested with LaRouchian troublemaking Marxists because they're not paying attention and they don't know history.

None of their leaders are even consistently isolationist -- instead, they are siding with enemies of freedom, siding with anti-Americanism, and they aren't even paying enough attention to perceive they're being played by them.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Seriously...Just taking a wild guess here, but you're a SoCom right? Okay, if we have "allowed our movement to be polluted by LaRouche" (god...it's been forever since I heard the name of that idiot Trotskyite) then I'm gonna saddle you with Rushdoony and the whole Christian Dominist movement. Handmaid's Tale anyone?

How about actually buying a clue and learning what libertarianism is rather than just making sh!t up. We are not espousing infantile or fantasy based ideology. Our ideology is pretty damn simple. The least possible government consistent with rule of law is the most government that actually works. This is because no matter how little power you give the government there is some wannabe fascist who will, within a very short time, weasel his or her way into power and begin to misuse it. Basically our philosophy is that you can't trust anyone because of public choice and regulatory capture theory. That's called erudition based on experience. It's isn't divinely inspired (fantasy) or utopian twaddle (infantile).
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
I was likely reading Ayn Rand before you were born.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
The problem of course is that most Libertarians can not even decide on what Libertarian means It seems to depend on whether you talk with a libertarian with a big L or a little l...Obviously most Americans might not like the idea of a bloated and ineffective government, but I have not seen any indication that they are prepared to give up entitlements or the FDA or the FBI etc. And while Americans might say they are war weary, they also do not like to look weak,nor do they like to see the world slide into chaos. They also get nervous when some mass murdering fanatic promises he is going to come to our country and kill people. Not Rand Paul of course. He could care less.

Libertarians might rail against the NSA, but if there was an attack tomorrow more Americans would be concerned with the inability of our intelligence service to prevent that attack than would be concerned with data mining. Now the new hobby horse is police militarization. As if people are being mowed down in the streets by a repressive regime.

Well, maybe they can get drugs legalized and then if and when something really bad happens they can call their drug dealer to come save their ass instead of the big bad government. I am sure they will get right on that.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
I wrote a good response to this above. The small L big L stuff is about the Libertarian Party which I was a member of for about five minutes. Honestly, Ronald Reagan was the greatest practical libertarian in history based on what he *did*. Another way to determine this is to get a copy of "Reagan in his own words" and see what he cared enough to write about, assuming that if he didn't write about it he didn't care about it (in the public space).
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Reagan wasn't a libertarian. That's the thing: there is reality, and it's not about a movie or a pill: it's about party and policy and platforms. These things exist, and you can change their names all you want, or screech nonsense about Margaret Atwood, who later talked about the burka being cool -- she's just a Christian-hating leftist idiot with prose style.

Reagan: not a libertarian
Atwood: not a libertarian
Open Borders: libertarian
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
What attack has the NSA ever prevented? According to the insider reports I've read exactly 0. I could paraphrase your first paragraph and replace Libertarian with Republican and it would be no less the truth than what you wrote. Republicans cannot even decide what Republican means. Are you a big R republican or a little r republican? Does your last paragraph apply to all the Republican politicians that have come to their senses and which to decriminalize pot? Do you assume they are all drug users? You are just a nasty jerk if you ask me.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is no coincidence, that a libertarian foreign policy would basically be the same as our present suicidal, pro-Islamic, Anti-freedom, anti-American foreign policy. We have now come to the point where the Far Left and Far Right merge- not just in Anti-Semitic "Anti-Zionism", marching together in Occupy rallies, not to speak of the suicidal insanity of gay marriage and drug legalization. This is for a very simple reason- both the far Left and far Right operate from the same basic philosophical premise. Not that the moonbats of the Left are objectivists, or Paulists are socialists. But both ideologies are derived from a fundamentally wrong premise- the secular atheist assumption. This worldview obtusely negates something that is the most obvious and glaringly observable facet of the Judeo-Christian worldview that once dominated in a saner world- that man is inherently sinful, prone to evil, and our only protection is force. So, in their blind, stubborn gobsmacked negation of the obvious, we have both Paulist loons and Obama moonbats claiming that ISIS and other bloodthirsty fascist terrorist groups exist only because the US has somehow provoked and invaded their rights, that if we all just crawled into our shells and played pretendworld, that all the mean ole baddies will all go bye-bye. We have come the point where our republic and our lives are not just endangered by islamofascists, but a half-educated (to be kind), media-driven, childish population brought up on a worldview of infantilism and fantasies.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Bullsh!t. Libertarianism acknowledges that we have a particular alchemy in the Anglosphere and to a lesser degree in the rest of the developed world that allows for the transcendence of tribalism. Everywhere else the national pastime is butchering their next door neighbors to avenge slights to the dignity of their great great grandfathers. We tried the neo conservative "everyone wants to be free" Utopianism (I even supported that, god help me). It doesn't work. The third world isn't a pest hole because no one ever imposed order. The British and the French did that ages ago to no effect. It is a pest hole because that is how the inhabitants choose to live.

It isn't isolationism to let them. OTOH, the Ayn Rand Institute suggested using nuclear weapons in
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
No one is advocating any "everyone-wants-to-be-free" utopianism. That idea proceeds directly from the non-Biblical, Secularist, Enlightenment fallacy I already mentioned. The Judeo-Christian worldview acknowledges that millions are perfectly content with slavery, butchery, oppression and savagery. It also acknowledges two more things- the high moral demand to help those that really do want freedom, and the even more basic idea that you have every right to defend yourself, even if that means going to where the butchers are and eliminating them en masse.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
I got cut off writing the above. Basically I was going to suggest that
libertarian philosophy is very hard core when it comes to defense after you are attacked. Even the LP advocates massive retaliation. A libertarian response would have been to go Roman on them.

There is an issue (theoretically) in terms of preemptive force. Libertarian militants believe that it is morally correct. I happen to be a libertarian militant. I personally wanted hell to rain down on the Taliban and the Saudis. The House do Saud made this entire mess by funneling vast sums of money to the Wahabbi and making them a power in the Islamic world when as late as the 1930's they were barely known at all, save for their management of Mecca.

We made a mistake in Iraq, and I supported it right down the line. I thought the Iraqis would want to see their children grow up free more than they would want to murder their neighbors. I was wrong.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Like Stecve Green said, a libertarian I respect....Iraq would have taken 50 years to make it truly democratic and western. I say it would have been worth it. I am afraid history will prove me right.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
I actually agree with that, but I know my country. We are not in a place where we can make that king of commitment. Not with the left actively trying to destroy our culture to make way for their Utopian Horsesh!t.

If we were the nation we should be, we could have a debate as to whether it was in our long term interest to try to remake that place and save those people, and I'd likely say yes, but we can't right now. That's just reality.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
The rise in popularity of libertarianism can be largely attributed to the successful cultural propagation of New Left Radicalism. It's a byproduct, for those who werent completely fooled by the Marxists, they still were swayed by them that European Christendom is/was evil/oppresors and needs to be trashed in favor of a New Secular Utopian Vision.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
They didnt buy into the economic Marxism, but they bought the Cultural Marxism hook, line, and sinker.

9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Again. Bullsh!t.

Cultural Marxism devalues the culture of the west. Classical liberalism taken to its logical conclusion (which is what libertarianism is) is the PRINCIPLE PRODUCT of the culture of the West. It is all the cultural institutions of the western canon with the courage of their convictions. Within our society, we don't need to use the power of the state to make you become a Christian or love Shakespeare, or treat your own body with care because those memes are winners in the marketplace of ideas.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy for adult cultures. It doesn't work in Iraq or Syria. It requires good citizenship be modeled and taught. We have come very close to doing this several times in this country, and it may be beyond our people, but I don't think so. Not with so many interconnected and informed people who want to make their own decisions. It requires only that they fear the use of force on themselves enough to agree not to use it on others except to prevent true harm. Obviously it is the definition of harm that is the issue, but as I said, this is government for adult citizens, not dependent children.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
I really liked Bob Barr. Rand and Ron Paul...not so much.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Bob Barr is nuts. Seriously. Ask people who know him.

Ron Paul made a lot of sense, but came across as nuts.

Rand Paul also makes a lot of sense, but I agree that an isolationist foreign policy can't fly in our current world.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Bob Barr practiced fraud in his efforts to keep a child molester from being tried in a timely manner.

He lied the the court and should be disbarred for his actions, which cost taxpayers a whole lot of money. His client pretended to be severely disabled but was faking it, and with Barr's help went on to receive very strange leniency while supposedly housebound and tied to a ventilator -- and then went on to travel to another state and was found with an 11-year old. The molester even campaigned for Barr during this time, and there is no way Barr didn't know he was lying when he stood in front of a judge getting this piece of work released back into society on false grounds.

Plus Barr has very strange ties to Baby Doc. I hate to agree with Larry Flynt about anything, but Flynt had Barr's number back when.

Know your candidate.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
The only thing Bob Barr accomplished was to swing Indiana toward Obama in 2008...to our ever lasting shame.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. War does not always give over democratic communities to military government, but it must invariably and immeasurably increase the powers of civil government [NSA (just think of what people now submit to even if they aren't much aware of it), DHS, TSA (just look what people now visibly submit to), DOJ, etc., etc., etc.]; it must almost compulsorily concentrate the direction of all men and the management of all things in the hands of the administration. If it does not lead to despotism by sudden violence, it prepares men for it more gently by their habits. All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and the shortest means to accomplish it. This is the first axiom of the science.- Alexis de Tocqueville
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not fighting a necessary war can have even more terrible effects on the freedom of a country. The peace movement before WW2 was very strong. They (meaning the Western European nations and the old nations of the A-H Empire) did not want to believe that fighting Hitler was necessary. After WW2, many of them believed that fighting Stalin was not necessary to preserve their freedom.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
At this point it should be clear that Iraq was not a necessary war.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
It was a just one. That's the painful thing. We shouldn't have done it but Saddam and his whole gang needed to hang.

It would have been more effective if that had been it's sole goal. Then at least our enemies would fear us.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
We are way past that. The War of Imperial Subjugation of the States by the Central Govt of 1861-1865 already destroyed the liberties of a democratic republic...ie the US Constitution.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
You may have missed the part where the South fired the first shot and it appears you also missed the part those states had joined the United States under the Articles Of Confederation And Perpetual Union.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ahh yes, a neo Confederate singing the praises of liberty!! The lack of self awareness of some people on the right is just stunning.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank you. Well said.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
The insane insistence by some people on the Left
That a free society must treat all its members
equally in order to function, numerous examples
To the contrary notwithstanding, from the SPQR
To the CSA to the current USA.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, because full-on, whip-and-chain level human slavery was such a great way to preserve it...
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Whatever the Southern States may have been besides, they were a brake on Leviathon.

Enjoy!
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
You have read 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' and believed it, Haven't you ?
Slavery may have contributed to the fall of the South by making
cotton and tobacco more profitable than manufacturing, but on
The other hand it may be hookworm that did it.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All