State of the Discussion

The posts in play...

Left-Libertarianism and Ron Paul
()
+
Ron Paul, Racism, and War
()
+
A Very Merry Ron Paul Christmas
()
+
Alter tempore – out’s in free.
()
+
GOP 2012: Worst Candidate Batch Ever?
()
+
Not Ron Paul or Huntsman – Maybe Johnson, Maybe Obama
()
+
 

The comments...

BlaiseP

Now if only the rest of us didn't have to enter duplicate definitions for everything as in "Dialectic" and "Dialectic (Marxism)".

Tom Van Dyke
+ Until left-libertarianism talks meaningfully about reducing the size and scope of government, it's just leftism, and agreement on a small grab-bag of social issues with [. . .]
+ Lord Gawd you Libertarians are worse than the Marxists with all your specialized vocabulary. We tend to see it as "even better". If the Marxists did [. . .]
Jesse Ewiak
+ As long as we're in a FPTP system, yes, third parties aren't worth supporting. You want a more libertarian/liberal/conservative/socialist poltiical system? Elect more socialist/conservative/liberal/libertarian congresspeople [. . .]
Liberty60
+ That's rather common actually. Plenty of examples abound of people flitting easily between one radical pole to another. When I say "scratch a libertarian you find [. . .]
+ There are always other interpretations. I stand by my reading of the Sermon on the Mount, however. I am also arrogant enough to think that [. . .]
BlaiseP
+ Lord Gawd you Libertarians are worse than the Marxists with all your specialized vocabulary.  Well, I guess I must master it all if I'm to [. . .]
Liberty60
+ So in your view, those 48 are free to declare that Dei-ism is the official state religion? Or alternatively, declare that Atheism is Official State Policy? I have [. . .]
Tom Van Dyke
+ Again, Lib60, 48 or so of the 50 state constitutions aren't "neutral" on the Question of God.  He's in there. "Neutrality" is a legal fiction created [. . .]
+ This post makes a lot of sense.  Maybe by next March, when the primary season will have, probably, pointed to the likely nominee, we'll all [. . .]
TomG
+ E.D. - One reason this country is screwed up is the stupid notion that third parties are not worth supporting. I'm definitely a Gary Johnson supporter [. . .]
+ I'm not a huge fan of the term myself, actually.  I just used it since it seems to be the term du jour.  When I [. . .]
+ Mark's post explains probably the most compelling reason, at least on an emotional level, why I choose not to identify as a libertarian, even though [. . .]
Stillwater

I'm glad you wrote this addendum. It saves me the effort of posting what I already wrote saying pretty much the same thing.

Stillwater
+ The fact that Jesus was preoccupied with the next world rather than with this world is fairly well documented. It's fairly well documented by a particular [. . .]

From associating with Karl Hess in his left-wing anti-politics phase to backing Pat Buchanan...WOW Rothbard veered around rather hard.

 

 

 

+ Besides, to focus on whether such a fusionism is possible misses the point here, which is that if libertarianism can be used to so easily [. . .]
BlaiseP
+ This Fusionism term of art leaves this old cat badly confused.  Working through this bit over on LewRockwell.com leaves me even more confused. What does it [. . .]

Hypothetically, sure, I guess.  In the real world as it exists? Not a chance.

+ The fact that Jesus was preoccupied with the next world rather than with this world is fairly well documented. See, for example, the Gospels. He cared [. . .]
Liberty60
+ Fiscal Fusionism? To whom would this be remotely appealing? To the minimum wage waitress who goes without health care? To the unemployed? To anyone who [. . .]
Mike
+ Can a purely fiscal message achieve what Rothbard et al thought they could only achieve through racism and paranoia? It is wholly laughable to insist that [. . .]
+ [...] are simply not expected to lose.  Even though Obama’s approval ratings are low, there really is no ‘A-Team’ of strong contenders to go up [. . .]
+ The success of the Tea Party is important, though, to the concept of fusionism. Can a purely fiscal message achieve what Rothbard et al thought [. . .]
Liberty60

The poor will always be with us...so we shouldn't do anything about it?

Is this what passes for Christian thinking round these parts?

Liberty60
+ This is what caught my eye: " legal fictions like...the idea that “religion” refers to the Question of God itself and not merely sectarianism, doctrine, dogma, denominations." I [. . .]
+ To hear the Rothbardians tell it, the story of libertarianism is the story of Rothbard.   It was born with the Circle Bastiat in the fifties [. . .]
Tom Van Dyke
+ Trizz, Paul's essay is clumsy [and inaccurate re the Constitution as Likko notes], but it could be whipped into shape.  The opposing arguments have their [. . .]
Tom Van Dyke
+ Well, Burt, the only relevance of the Declaration is its theory of rights, that they are God-given and unalienable.  This grounds the Constitution if we're [. . .]
BradP
+ That's perfectly reasonable, and I would agree. The question is, however, who would you trust to follow through on that? Its easy to come up with the [. . .]
trizzlor
+ That was my understanding too, but then this essay either contradicts it or is just senseless whinging. Paul also thinks abortion is murder but is [. . .]
+ You're right, I missed "Supreme Judge of the world" in the Declaration. Inadvertently, and unfortunately, because of these references, that's actually the closest to the contemporary [. . .]
Sam M
+ The vote for Obama would be an interesting choice. Even if Paul wrote the newsletters and believed every single word of them, I see little [. . .]
+ I'd be fine with printing more money and then sending checks out directly to people to spend themselves (on top of some much-needed investment in [. . .]
Tom Van Dyke
+ I gather Paul is strictly against spending gov't money on religion.  As for "proselytizing," that's a contentious reading of the real Founding dynamic, which is [. . .]
BradP
+ I agree with that completely. I just think the ED is a little wrapped up in the progressive siren song, and I understand that.  I would [. . .]
trizzlor
+ But Paul's not arguing for the right of people to celebrate winter holidays in the way that they choose ... that right is already there. [. . .]
Tom Van Dyke

We'll see, EDK.  I'll seal my prediction in an envelope.  ;-)

+ It's possible that I will vote for Obama. I'd say it's more likely at this point that I will vote for Johnson. It will not [. . .]
+ The solution to Gerrymandering is simple: Repeal the Apportionment Act of 1911 and return us to the level of representation we had 100 years ago [. . .]
Tom Van Dyke

Do you honestly think that's what I'm saying, Lib60?

Tom Van Dyke

What problem?  All roads lead to Obama. The sky is blue.

No I'm not ... At the moment...but I do switch to vote in primaries.

Kolohe
+ And conversely, Maryland went for Obama 61-38 but with the current redistricting (under a Dem State Legislature and Dem Gov) will have probably have 7 [. . .]
+ The problem with relying on adversarial process to rein in gerrymandering is two-fold: 1) It consolidates the power of the two major parties.  They can collude [. . .]
Stillwater

So, you're a registered Republican then.

Interesting.

 
Please do be so kind as to share this post.
TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrintFriendlyMore options