It’s sad that even Ralph Nader is more libertarian than the “Libertarian” Party’s candidate.
My pet peeve is people playing the definition game with Capitalism when you know damn well what I mean. Just because you need to hold your hate of the term “capitalist” from your commy days does not mean you need to hate it now. How is a libertarian the furthest from an anarchist? Most anarcho-capitalists(you know what I mean) consider themselves to be libertarians. If you are speaking of the Libertarian Party then I still dont get your point. Libertarians are less anarchist than Democrats, Republicans, Greens ect..?
I thought his point was more or less: If Bob Barr is considered a libertarian, than a libertarian is the furtherest thing from an anarchist. The same can be said of Barr’s supporters.
However, if a given libertarian supports the notion of government/state, then they would not be an anarchist.
I don’t consider Bob Barr a libertarian. I don’t think he even qualifies as a minarchist, if we are to use a generally big tent definition of libertarianism that includes them. His recent past indicates a highly conservative position and I don’t trust that he has truly changed his position like that in a flash. The fact that he is supposed to be a representative of libertarianism frankly angers me.
Barr is obviously not an Anarchist but some people(like myself) think he is a good way to spread the message of smaller government and thus support him.
I am very interested in how the Green Socialist Nader is more libertarian than Barr.
If Niccolo was being literal (I don’t think he is; it’s pretty ridiculous how Barr is considered to represent libertarianism at all), then I would disagree completly with such a statement.
I think he was merley exagerting how libertarianism via the Libertarian Party seems to be the hot new “in” thing for statists who have no home with either the republicans or democrats, want to get headlines, and possibly power if they can actually get elected.
You misunderstood.
I did not mean that Bob Barr was a libertarian or that libertarian was the furthest thing from an Anarchist, on the contrary, I meant to say that Bob Barr is the furthest thing from an Anarchist (another word for libertarian). That is, that Anarchist and libertarian are perfectly synonymous.
Furthermore, my issue with the idea of capitalism is one of historical perspective. Historically, all states called capitalist have been capitalist, but have they been libertarian? No! In fact, I would argue that from the historical definition, capitalist has always meant “mercantilist” or “corporatist” and that the difference is merely one of rhetoric.
Libertarianism is such that requires no state. In capitalism, however, a state is required.
Throw people that sell and use cocaine, heroin, or unperscribed Effexor (someone on this board does that very thing so that he doesn’t have to go through worst withdrawals known to any drug of its kind), move to the relatively wealthy US from the Latin American regions, or just burn the US flag in anti-Imperial demonstrations away to jail; yes, Bob Barr is very pro-liberties…
Also, Ralph Nader is no more “socialist” than Bob Barr.
Eh… I don’t think I conveyed it properly.
What was meant was that Bob Barr is not an Anarchist (i.e. a Libertarian). Or better put, Bob Barr is not a Libertarian (another word for Anarchist).
Barr has said that he would end the federal War on Drugs, and since he is running for a federal position that is good enough for me. If you define Socialism as “advocating state run programs” then I do think Nader is far more socialist than Barr.
No he hasn’t! He’s expressed some anamosity towards the one government being able to decide whether the other governments have the ability to allow or outlaw medicinal marijuana - ooooooooooohhhhhh how edgy! [8-)] - and the only thing I can find about him expressing any other questions about the drug war is a Colbert interview where he says that the war on drugs isn’t efficient enough…
Jesus Christ! This guy would have me in jail because I don’t want to go through the hassle of going to a doctor to get a single perscription for something I need to merely function!
Bob Barr does advocate state run programs. So yes, he’s just as socialist - if not more - than Nader.
In this video Barr says it should be up to the states http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q
Barr is against the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services ect.. Nader is for expanding all of those departments except the Department of Homeland sercurity. What am I missing here?
While I am an anarchist, your definition would exclude the man this institute was named for, Ludwig von Mises, from libertarianism.
Just how is this supposed to happen with Barr? What does he say that will get someone interested, or get them thinking on a libertarian path, instead of “that right-wing craziness is what libertarians stand for? Screw that - I like privacy, civil liberties, and rights for gays, not that libertarian totalitarianism.”
Barr gave us the sunset clauses in the Patriot act, and said it was a mistake to vote for it and has worked ro repeal it ever since. He also said he would repeal the not so libertarian part of DOMA. He has also lobbied fot the Marijuania Policy Project and said he would end the War on Drugs.
I think a larger point here is the difference between Lew Rockwell saying that Buchanan, while wrong on economics, is often right on foreign policy, and the LP nominating Barr for President. Lew Rockwell is in no way suggesting that Buchanan is libertarian or that, far worse, libertarians should move themselves to meet Buchanan. Instead, he’s pointing out what Buchanan is good at. The LP, on the other hand, is allowing Barr to set the, well, the bar for what a libertarian is, and holding him out as a standard-bearer in general. These are quite different.
I think our educational tactics are quite important. At present, 5% of the population, to be quite generous, would identify at all with libertarianism as a whole. Maybe 10-15% can be brought around with solid education, the Mises Institute, FEE, and so on. This latter number would include all the people brought in by Ron Paul campaigns. If we accomplish what we can, we still, in the short to medium term, cannot exert enough power to make changes. What we can do is be a pressure block. I suggest that libertarians stop acting as if the real dangers weren’t present, and start realizing we need to be in defensive mode. We do have large enough numbers that, when non-libertarians pop up talking about the largest current dangers, we can assure them that we bring something to the table. When Kucinich risks losing his career by standing against the war, libertarians ought to acknowledge that. So, I suggest that libertarians do not need to support only pure libertarians, but rather can and should acknowledge others when they make the most important current points. As times change, the people making these points will change. Right now, the most serious concerns are foreign policy and civil liberties, and we would do well to lend our support to anyone who stands with us on these. That includes Buchanan, Kucinich, and Nader, but not Barr.
On the other hand, we would be quite unwise to try to “claim” these folks as libertarians, and thereby dilute what libertarianism means. That is unfortunately what is happening with Barr. We’re in defensive mode, and helping these people because they are fighting what we are most worried about. We are not thereby promoting libertarianism, but using our libertarian perspective to press against the most serious dangers to liberty. In the long-term, we also need to build our numbers and press for libertarianism, but that long-term perspective, which I believe is important, should not mean that we do nothing short-term strategically while real things are happening. What we should not do, though, is a short-term attempt to short-circuit the necessary steps by forcibly implementing libertarianism - as by latching onto celebrities to run as Libertarians and attempt to win the election.
Yeah, on the Barr/Root website under issues:
“Cut spending” – replace income tax with more sales and consumption taxes.
Americans should be allowed to choose foods and lightbulbs they buy.
US was formed to ensure property protection and giving people liberties. More of that.
Wow. I’m excited. There’s even a link to send these important policy ideas to a friend to share!
Ever since? He testified in support of reauthorization, which makes me wonder why I should care that he got the sunset clause since he didn’t think it should be used. His argument about the Patriot Act has been that it’s been misused, not that it was a bad idea - I specifically have not heard him say it was a mistake to vote for it, but instead heard him engage in gymnastics to defend his vote. Medical Marijuana is not a libertarian issue - the libertarian issue is getting government out of decisions about what I put into my body. When did he say he would end the war on drugs? Just a few weeks ago on Hannity he said he would not legalize hard drugs if he had the power to do so.
What?!? Where did Barr say that? His position was clearly in reference to “soft” drugs like marijuana - specifically medicinal. And appealing to “federalism” is a clear cut and run when trying to play down your drug warrior credo. You’ve got to do better than that. At best, it was ambiguous. He didn’t say he was against the federal government’s war on drugs, he said “it may be better handled on a state level.” No, he even stated “no, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack.”
Just because Pinnochio wished upon a star, doesn’t mean that your cognitive bias will prove true.
Barr isn’t against any of these things; Barr may be critical of them, but for different reasons. Nader is also against the drug war. Is Bob Barr?
In any case, I’m not going to get into the discussion of why Nader is more libertarian than Bob Barr. I think the comparative record is clear enough - though marginal.
Please, a little proof would be nice, Pinnochio.
I’m not entirely clear on Mises’ politics. But if he desired government, then no, he was not a libertarian. He may have been a classical liberal - and that’s nice! - but I respect Mises as an economist, not as a political theorist.
Just like I respect Hayek, JR Hicks, Schumpeter, Lionel Robbins, Kirzner, Lachmann, and others as economists. That doesn’t mean I’m going to ever agree with their politics.