Apparently Mike Gravel just joined the Libertarian Party
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/2008/03/gravel_turns_libertarian.html
So the question is WTF?
Here’s his stance on issues:
http://www.gravel2008.us/issues
If he thinks he’s a Libertarian, he’s uber-crazy…
I was surprised myself when I heard he left the Democrats, but shocked when I heard he was joining the LP. He is more of a civil libertarian (which is really liberal, in the American sense, imho). Judging from his stances on the issues, I would conjecture he would sway more towards the Green Party. He reminds me of Obama, but less charismatic, combined with Hillary, but not part of the Democratic establishment, with a sprinkle of guts of Dennis Kucinich.
If the LP nominates Gravel, they’ll have lost what little respect I had for them (which was not much).
I’m more and more amazed and irritated by the sheer number of social democrats that consider themselves libertarians (Bill Maher, P.J. O’Rourke, Penn and Teller, Drew Carey, etc.). They’re all for freedom, but they friggin’ hate capitalism, to say the least, which shows their complete ignorance of how the economy works. For them, it’s not the state that’s inherently coercive and wrong, it’s just that the people elected are the baddies, plus it’s a BIG NO’NO to even insinuate to them that the state must shrink in order for people to become more free and prosperous.
What makes Penn and Teller social democrats? I am unfamiliar with them.
Yeah, I am tired of all these crazy politicians that want to close down the borders saying they are libertarians.
Gravel hopes to full and blind the Liberterians among us with some anti-war, rights to my body, freedom to take drugs, etc. Then in the same platform proposes giant state run programs that steal these rights with Socialized Health Care, locked up borders and lots more central government run education. He obviously listens to the self proclaimed Liberterian:Neil Bortz and is a believer in the gimmick “Flat Tax”.
If this guy is the Liberterian Candidate for President then the Liberterian Party is worse than I thought.
And the worst part of his agenda of freedom sucking ever expanding welfare for some/warefare on the productive state: He wants more investment in Social Security? This more than any other program is the second venture into pure socialism after the Federal Reserver Act 20 years earlier. Social Insecurity is the least Liberterian government program in existence simply for the reason that it is the largest government program in existence.
When I read what SEKIII wrote about the Libertarian party being a kind of statist attack on libertarians, I thought he was perhaps paranoid.
But if this nonsense is true, then his words may be prophetic, at the least.
Oh, SEKIII was definitely correct about that in the first place. The Libertarian Party was a horrid idea from the start. Aside from it being a strategic contradiction and blunder, it has contributed to the ideological confusion about what libertarianism is.
Haha. Right on. wink wink [8-|]
I thought this was funny: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/you-wont-want-t.html
Let’s admit it. The word libertarian has returned to its original, pre-Rothbard meaning: anarcho-communist.
Start calling yourself something new.
Stranger has a sad point. The day a supporter of government-run healthcare joins the Libertarian Party is the day the word “libertarian” loses all meaning.
Already there. I’ve been calling myself an agorist for months now. That invites discussion, whereas calling myself “libertarian” or “anarchist” invites prejudice.
And what Rifles Ready said about SEKIII - I agree with you. I balked when I saw that, but it does seem he was right. Truth is flotsam, and it’s floating to the surface.
The Left-Statists seem to be moniker pirates. They took the title of Liberal and bastardized it; now they are stealing libertarian from us! Even if you don’t consider yourself a libertarian, the point remains. A while back, the Hetman of the Kossacks explained his twisted idea and claimed the title of Libertarian Democrat. Of course it’s nothing but progressive era market-phobia mixed with a sort of Old Right view on personal liberty. But damn. I’m thinking I’ll accept the prejudice and stick with anarcho-capitalist, anarchist, or whatever radical idea I adhere to at the time.
Excellent word, macfall, I’ll steal it!! It’s unfortunate that the left has now stolen the following words and phrases:
We can do with libertarian, though; it looks too much like librarian.
Why all the assumptions that Gravel has a chance in hell of getting the nomination? Whatever else might discredit the LP, Gravel’s seeking its nomination does not, unless he actually gets it. As the LP spokesman pointed out in a press release, in order to seek the nomination, a person has to meet the Constitutional requirements for President, and be an LP member. The party has open membership, and does not reject potential members. So it has no mechanism to prevent people from seeking its nomination, but that doesn’t mean they will get it. I don’t see why Gravel’s silly decision to seek the LP nomination is supposed to allow me to conclude that there’s something wrong with the party. Now, if he were to get it…
On the other hand, there are some rightists and conservatives being openly discussed for the nomination. Bob Barr stands a far greater chance than Gravel of receiving the nomination. Barr in the past was noted for his support of the war on drugs. Yet it seems there is much more hysteria around Gravel’s candidacy (who has no chance of getting it) than Barr’s. Why is the leftist invasion worse than the rightist invasion? In fact, the party has for many years been seen as an adjunct of the right. I don’t see why Gravel is what sets people off.
It’s a lot easier to end the war on drugs than it is to dismantle state-run healthcare.
And therefore it isn’t absurd for the LP to run a candidate who supports the war on drugs?