It's bad enough the crapweasels at the RNSC already endorsed Statist Charlie Crist (a full year and a half prior to the elections), as the pseudo-intellectuals continue throwing up at the mouth. But there's something else that's much, much worse going on ...
The attitude of the average "Republican" towards libertarians.
"What? The land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy?" - Rage Against The Machine, Know Your Enemy, 1992.
This is something I've wanted to delve into for awhile, and reading Stephen Gordon's post, "Which is the best libertarian insult: libbieloon, libtard, or losertarian?" prompted me to get at it today.
I'm not exactly sure what all the animosity is about, but it can't just be about the Republican Party "winning." I mean ... the Republican Party needs more votes no matter where they come from, so if you want them to win, you'll need either a) more of those mythical "swing" votes, b) more left-wing votes (which you won't get), or c) more libertarian votes (which includes a huge populace of folks who simply stay home on election day). But the real question (to me anyway) remains ... Win what? What does "winning" mean?
Face the hard truth. If Sen. John McCain had won the election last year, what benefit would that have been to a conservative voter? More bailouts? Buying up mortgages? Stifling free speech? How is any of that conservative?
McCain was against water-boarding too. I bring this up only because the sad truth is, most of the average "Republicans" (who rip libertarians), would have suddenly jumped on the anti-water-boarding bandwagon, in defense of "their man." Zombies.
Let's take a look at some of the name-calling the "Republicans" engaged in, regarding Stephen Gordon's post:
Exhibit A: ... I agree with the Huckster about the "heartless, callous, soulless" bit ... we aren't going to ever become a libertarian paradise like Somalia ... Instead, libertarian policies - such as the support that many offer for massive law-breaking ...
Um, buddy ... do you get your information from Whoopi Goldberg on The View? Because if you think Somalia is "a libertarian paradise," you not only have much to learn, but a lot of growing up to do as well.
Just like Barry Goldwater, libertarians also believe "the day's overriding political challenge," is to "preserve and extend freedom." As he said, "My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them." Maybe I missed the memo. Has freedom become the new enemy of Republicans?
There is nothing lawless about the desire to repeal laws. The libertarian philosophy doesn't ignore inalienable rights, nor the Golden Rule either. Murder is murder, theft is theft, and wrong is wrong. The real difference I see between libertarians and "Republican" die-hards, is as Murray Rothbard says, "libertarians make no exceptions to the golden rule and provide no moral loophole, no double standard, for government."
Exhibit B: If you ... like RonPaul- want to abdicate the Free World to the IslamoFascists, then take a hike ....
Rep. Ron Paul and myself have a bit of a difference in opinion regarding Islam and foreign wars too. The difference between you and I though, is I'm not willing to discount his opinion in the knee-jerk fashion you do.
A few things worth thinking about:
- Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda is hardly an Almighty Force. They do not control a single nation on the planet. The truth is, they are a relatively small and powerless organization.
- al-Qaeda did attack us and they do remain a threat. Yet, the problem remains (8 years later), that bin Laden and his ilk continue to remain at large, and in business.
- Yes, the radical Islamists hate us, but we are not free of sin either. Our foreign policy has indeed rubbed salt in the wounds of the Middle East. Uber-neocon Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said as much in May 2003: "In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina."
- As al-Qaeda continued their business of destruction, we moved on to attacking Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein (of which I was in support). Yet, with the most powerful and dominant military on the planet, 6 years later we're still there.
This topic requires much more space, but seriously, why? Since the United States possesses both the power and might to have completed both missions successfully, why haven't we?
Exhibit C: Freedom, they don't want the kind of responsible liberty that Reagan was speaking about --they want unlimited, unchecked, unfettered liberty to pursue whatever, wherever and whenever and however THEY think it best optimisizes their self-interests ...
"Unchecked, unfettered liberty?" Did you get your taking points from the Democrats? Seriously ... "unfettered" liberty? I'm not sure where to start with this one, I guess you just don't understand political philosophy.
Political philosophy deals strictly with the role of government and what is both proper and improper for the government to do. Libertarianism claims that government is an institution of organized violence, a belief shared by America's Founding Fathers.
As Rothbard wrote, "libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles," as long as another person's natural rights are not infringed. It was Thomas Jefferson who explained this the best, saying "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Exhibit D: GOP needs to put a boot to the disloyal, back-stabbing LibbieLoons and send em packing --not make the GOP over into LibbieLoonLand Part Deux.
To who exactly, are libertarians "disloyal" and "back-stabbing?" Libertarians are loyal to the classical liberal tradition of which this country was founded, so they're certainly loyal to America (the creed, not the government). Libertarians are also loyal to the anti-state, pro-liberty tradition of the conservative movement. In fact, it's the "modern" conservatives (or should I say "Republicans"), who've completely shunned the rich history of the conservative movement.
Here's the bottom-line:
I'm glad there's a lot of in-fighting amongst conservative circles these days. If you study the history of the movement, you'll find that not only has it always been this way, but it makes the movement stronger too. Debate is healthy.
If however, the average mainstream Republican is going to attack defenders of liberty, and/or insist that folks may not "shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion" ... then all I have to say is ... Grand Old Party, R.I.P. You've been nothing but heart-ache, and you won't be missed.
But hey 'pubs ... screw freedom! After all, you've got the likes of Meghan McCain, David Frum, and Ross Douthat to help carry your Badge of Big Government Honor.
Crian at A Political Glimpse from Ireland says it best:
So perhaps the way is socialism and petty corruption (which go hand-in-hand). After all, Europe has come through all of this financial trauma perfectly, right?
So long, and don't forget the Establishment Kool-Aide!
[adsense]
