What the hell is that?
[^o)]
Perhaps this refers to CATO type libertarians. Their adress is 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. • Washington D.C. 20001-5403.
For those living outside the United States “The Beltway” used in political terms refers to the beltway that surounds Washington DC and the phrase “inside the Beltway.” means inside the political culture of Wahington D.C.
Ah… So their location disproves them as credible sources of disagreement with the Paul cult!
Clears it up, thank. [:)]
Yes, just like the location that someone was born seems to matter to Ron Paul unless that person got the official permission of Beltway Bureaucrats to stay in the .
Also known as Cosmopolitans or Giuliani libertarians, they are people who have no ideological objection to political power whatsoever so long as their lifestyle is protected from the costs it would incur in a free society. They are lifestyle-protectionists.
The ones that think we should be able to get permission from the state for certain things instead of those things being none of the states business at all. They are the ones that have convinced many of these right wing loons that they are Libertarians instead of Republicans. They are the ones that don’t like to hear about principles and have a financial stake in spreading propoganda without any merit. They are the ones that say, “I am tired of hearing about Rothbard and Mises” everytime someone brings them up, even though they have never listened or read anything by them in the past. They are the Fibbertarians that are nothing but blight on the name.
I think, LOL.
Beltway libertarians are
- market-bashing “Libertarian Democrats” (e.g. Denis Kucinich)
- Single-issued Libertarians who hates Ron Paul’s personal pro-life stance and his other paleocon stances (immigration & strong national defence)
- Chicago School Libertarians
- Cato Libertarians
- Objectivists
- Pro-war “fiscal conservatives” (e.g. McCain, Romney)
- “Moderate conservatives” (e.g. Giuliani’s pro-abortion and “tax cuts”)
- liberal (the european definition)
- Anti-Paul libertarians
- Ronald Reagan
The kind of “libertarians” that worship Lincoln and the civil war.
Not all Anti-Paul libertarians are beltway boys. Surely that isn’t what you meant to imply.
What I find strange is how this criticism is only leveled against cultural leftists when it applies just as much to many “paleolibertarians” who do the same thing with their cultural and/or social conservatism, who are also lifestyle-protectionists (in a quite literal sense, considering that protectionism is paleo-conservative policy #1) when it comes to their desire for cultural homogeniety. Because the lifestyle preferences of paleos would also incur some heavy costs in a free society. Odd that this criticism you bring up is precisely what I think of many Ron Paul supporters, I.E. they are supporting political power in the name of protecting their short-term and personal interests. They won’t object to political power so long as its the “right person” wielding it for the “right reasons”.
I’ve seen the sentiment expressed at LRC that opposition to Ron Paul only comes from neoconservative, liberal and neolibertarian types. It simply isn’t true. It also comes from principled market anarchists who don’t support the political process and believe that Ron Paul’s political stance on those issues actually are at odds with the non-aggression principle. Such people most certainly have nothing to do with “the beltway”. If Wendy McElroy, Brad Spangler and Stefan Molyneux (the most vocal libertarian opponents of Ron Paul) are part of “the beltway”, then up is down and black is white.
Arguably, Paul is much more closely associated with “the beltway” then them, considering that he’s a Washington politician. Furthermore, my disagreement with Ron Paul on nation defense, immigration and abortion doesn’t mean I’m “single-issued”, it means that I think he is wrong on those issues and that those issues are not necessarily marginal. And I don’t believe that Ron Paul’s immigration and abortion positions are entirely “personal”, he has clearly made them political (and has not consistantly even upholded a state’s rights position on abortion).
I think the sad fact of the matter is that LRC has mostly been transformed into a shilling parade for a politician. And that the libertarian-paleocon alliance is misguided and the paleo side is becoming much more prevailant then the libertarian side.
Why it’s sad? Ron Paul can win and and is already 2nd place in Nevada. Those that do not like LRC’s actions do not think he could win. I, too, disagree Ron Paul with his statist positions, but I support him because he is at least better than the other candidates. I don’t know the reason of why anarchists would not prefer Ron Paul over the other candidates.
It’s not a question of prefering Ron Paul over other canidates. He unquestionably is better then all of the rest. It’s a question of wether or not it is sensible to support any canidate and actively involve oneself in the political process. I say nay. And it’s about more then not thinking he could win. It’s about not thinking that anyone should be enthusiastically placed in a position of political power to begin with, and that even if he did win he would only be able to marginally help the cause of liberty at best, and undermine it in other ways. I don’t like LRC’s actions because they have transformed their blog into idol-worshop of a politician, that’s my problem. It has nothing to do with being part of “the beltway”. Quite the opposite: I view the LRC crowd as becoming knee-deep in politics. I just find this political approach entirely counterproductive. The system doesn’t work for liberty.
As McElroy has argued, a choice between Ron Paul and the other canidates is akin to a choice between being shot in the knee-cap or in the chest. You’re still going to get shot. I’d prefer not to get shot. I’d prefer not to be ruled. To make another analogy, a choice between Ron Paul and the other canidates is akin to be presented with the following scenario: there are a bunch of missiles here. Each missile is capable of a different level of destruction. No matter what, a missile is going to be launched against innocent people. You are given the choice to choose which missile to launch against them. As a moral absolutist, I would refuse to make any choice. I’m not going to pick any missile because I don’t support harming innocents. I simply refuse to engage in such a charade. I view the political process in similar terms. It’s a charade that I don’t want to participate in, even when I am presented with a choice that will benefit me in the short-term or inflict the least amount of damage. I simply refuse to sanction any amount of damage.
Not all Objectivists are bad… just the Randroids.
I agree, but it doesn’t help when Objectivism is defined by people such as Mr. Cropper, who call for war with Venezuela to “protect our oil” and accuse you of being a Kantian or post-modernist if you don’t agree with Rand 100%.
You are involved in the political process, more or less. You pay taxes and feel all the repercussions of the person that gets voted in. It isn’t that wicked to fill out a form and try and get a “better than the rest” person into the oval office.
The difference is that if I do not pay my taxes I am threatened with exile and kidnapped at gunpoint. That is not the case if I don’t vote (unless you live in, say, Austrialia where voting in fact is compulsory). Why conflate the difference between that which is compulsory and that which is not? Furthermore, in filling out that form, you are empowering a 3rd party to rule over others. Strictly speaking, you are not an aggressor, but you most certainly are indirectly empowering aggression. Does it make the state consensual? Of course not. But it does effect other people and does nothing to strike at the root.
At least in theory, the voter can change our taxation policy. Assuming that you and Paul are somewhat similar economically, why not throw him a vote and see what happens?
Because the political process and the internal nature of the state is simply inefficient as a means for reducing political power. Think the calculation problem and apply it to the political process itself. There’s also an institutional problem of the fact that those who constitute the state have vested interests and they are not going to just give them up simply because someone becomes president who happens to try to oppose them. Congress isn’t just going to stand aside and let Ron Paul dismantle the federal government, and lobbyists aren’t just going to roll over and withdraw their advocacies. Those directly on the government payroll have a vested interest in keeping their jobs, and those who benefit through patronage with the state likewise have a vested interest in keeping the charade going.
Point taken. However, no one should expect Ron Paul to fix everything, if that is even possible. I have no illusion of Paul winning anything of great importance. But the idea of a grassroots movement swelling into something substantial, of which Paul is a great asset, is very possible. Paul winning the presidency (even though it won’t happen) would be a step in the right direction, disagreements laid aside. In my little corner of Iowa, I have personally seen dozens of people turn from a decidedly keynesian stance to libertarian views, mostly because of Ron Paul’s exposure. I think there are a lot of latent libertarians out there, and Paul is doing a great job of uniting them. But I am not going to disagree with you about the disgusting nature of the fed.