An Inconvenient Truth (for Libertarians)

[dm1333]

Off topic post!

The Texas Republican defends his record, telling Fox News’s Neil Cavuto in a 2009 interview that “earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more.” And besides, he explained, he votes “no” on all his own earmarks anyway. “I think you’re missing the point,” he told Cavuto, "I’ve never voted for an earmark, I’ve never voted for an appropriations bill.” 

But that is exactly the point. His strategy is to stuff legislation with earmarks that benefit his constituents and thus his reelection, and then vote against the overall bill — knowing full well it will pass over his objections — so he can claim to have opposed all the spending in the first place.

Consider Paul’s record. The libertarian Reason magazine points out that in 2009 Paul voted against a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that passed over his objections. But the magazine notes (quoting the Houston Chronicle) that “Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million, which led the Houston congressional delegation, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally mandated projects inserted into the bill.”   

Thus Paul got to have it both ways: He could claim to have voted against a $410 billion taxpayer boondoggle, while simultaneously vacuuming up tens of millions in taxpayer dollars for his congressional district.

Hmmm, capitalization, paragraphs................ All right, what did you do with the real CS&D!!!!!!!!!!   

[longeyes]

For too many "liberty" means Another Program.  Means government as the agent of liberty.  The ultimate profanation of libertarianism.

Far too many.

Face the facts: Liberty will mean saying a dramatic no to the entire system.  Temporize at your peril.

[MechAg94]

As I understand it, libertarians prioritize individual liberty, conservatives prioritize cultural stability, often based on Judeo-Christian principles.  The overlap exists where cultural stability forms the foundation of liberty but begins to diverge thereafter.

Well, it all depends on who is defining the terms.  I think you defined a more classical conservative rather than a Reagan conservative, but it all depends on the definition.  I've met plenty of fiscal conservative Republicans who were pretty indifferent about social issues.  "conservative" seems to mean a lot of different things to a lot of people on the Republican side.

On the abortion mentioned above, one of the key issues the last 20 years has been government funding of abortions.  That is a fiscal responsibility issue as much as a social conservative issue.  

[MechAg94]

http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/?p=3697

Example:  A bill is a massive omnibus $500 billion spending bill.  $100 billion for DOT, $100 billion for HUD, $100 billion for DOEd, $100 billion for DOEn, $100 billion for DHS.

Sent to the Executive branch this way, the directors of these departments all spend the money however they want, under the guidance of the President and his executive oversight.

However, if Ron Paul says "In that $100 billion for the DOT, $10 million must be spent to dredge out the Corpus Christi harbor" then the money has been earmarked.

It's congressional micromanagement.

If the Federal Budget wasn't so big, it wouldn't be "micro"-managemnet.  Federal agencies should have fairly narrow restrictions on what their funding is spent on. 

[brimic]

Federal agencies should have fairly narrow restrictions on what their funding is spent on. 

Most Federal agencies shouldn't exist to start with.
I don't have that much of a problem with spending being targeted. Its much better to have infrastructure funds being spent on actual infrastructure instead of having it disappear into Solyndra.

[Balog]

Azred: so by your definition no one (including former Libertarian Potus candidate Ron Paul) is a "true" LIBERTARIAN and thus are all just hated statists unworthy of holding aloft the banner you stand beneath? No wonder libertarians are so massively ineffectual. Relish that ideological purity as you fail to accomplish anything. Too bad our enemies are more focused on moving the ball in the direction they want instead of pillorying those who fail a purity test so strict no one who's ever been elected passes it.

[Perd Hapley]

The article is trying to lay groundwork that DeMint is some sort of authoritah on libertarianism.

Not in the least. You should try reading the article. It points out that social conservatives are the natural allies of the libertarian; nothing more.

It's a point I've made here many times. If both sides could quit being so suspicious of each other, we could accomplish quite a bit.

[charby]

If social conservativism is the only way to win, why didn't Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman or Tim Pawlenty make the Nov ballot?

[ArfinGreebly]

I'm willing to work with libertarians, as long as they accept mah authoritah.

[ArfinGreebly]

If social conservativism is the only way to win, why didn't Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman or Tim Pawlenty make the Nov ballot?

TeeVee.

[AZRedhawk44]

Balog, can you explain for all of us here, why someone who voted for 2012 NDAA and patriot act should be considered a libertarian ally?

And no, i never threw out ron paul.  I threw out rand paul.

Fisty, the article ignores the basic tenets of libertarianism.  Laws that create victimless crimes are abhorrent to us.  Such as teh gheyzors getting married, peeing on jeebus, federal abhorshins laws, flag burning, drug laws, prostitution, etc.  DeMint is at odds with the majority of this because he represents a constituency that believes that control of others is the answer.  Libertarians do not stand for controlling people in the case of victimless so called crimes.

Yay, we agree on money.

But we don't agree on liberty. 

Which is why the gop cannot count on libertarian support until they actually support sound fiscal policy as well as true federalism and a destructuring of federal power.

[Perd Hapley]

Social conservatives are trying to stop people from "peeing on jeebus"? This I hadn't heard.

[Strings]

>Social conservatives are trying to stop people from "peeing on jeebus"? This I hadn't heard. <

It's something that comes from the fringe, every so often. Doesn't often make the news, outside of local (if even that)

[Balog]

So anyone who has ever made a single vote you disagree with is the enemy?

No matter how much lolcat spelling you employ in an attempt to mock the things that you personally find unimportant, that attitude perfectly demonstrates why LIBERTARIANS are so politically useless. Pat yourself on the back as you watch the freedoms you could have helped preserve slip away in the name of your ideological purity. The Left has demonstrated how incredibly effective incrementalism is as a tactic, why are you so bitterly opposed to it?

[Strings]

Balog, you have NO idea just how right you are.

I can't count all the times I've seen the Right shoot themselves in the foot over ideological purity...

[MicroBalrog]

1. Nobody is a perfect libertarian. Not even me. However, some people are more libertarian than others.

2. It is not possible to deny the basic fact that the most libertarian people currently in Congress are amost without exclusion social traditionalists - the only exception being, possibly, Justin Amash [I say this because I do not know his record, not because I have conclusive evidence].

3. That said, this does not prove that this is an inherent feature, and that there is some historical law tying the two together.

4. Arguably, as I have been saying on this forum since 2008, the leadership of the 'liberals' are also cultural conservatives, although they do not wave that flag quite that often. While they subscribe to some token issues like 'reproductive freedom' and 'gay rights', they in fact are quite as intolerant as their friends across the aisle , including on 'social' issues.

[seeker_two]

Question 1: Since most people who are against abortion believe that abortion = murder, how does being anti-abortion automatically bar you from being Libertarian? I don't know of any Libertarian who believes that laws against murder or attempted murder should be repealed.

Question 2: And how does opposing the use of gov't funds to pay for abortions go against the Libertarian agenda? Isn't the point of the Libertarian Party to get gov't out of as much as possible?

[MicroBalrog]

Because some people think they own libertarianism in the same way I own my shirt.

[Jamisjockey]

Because some people think they own libertarianism in the same way I own my shirt.

QFT.

[AZRedhawk44]

Question 1: Since most people who are against abortion believe that abortion = murder, how does being anti-abortion automatically bar you from being Libertarian? I don't know of any Libertarian who believes that laws against murder or attempted murder should be repealed.

If you want to create a Federal level mandate for this particular type of murder, why aren't you creating one for every other type of murder?  Handle it at the State level.  Like jaywalking.  We don't have federal jaywalking laws.  Why have federal murder laws?

The reason social conservatives (who are not libertarian) want a Federal solution to abhorshins is because they want to IMPOSE their will on those they disagree with, where they cannot win on the battlefield of ideas.  They want to impose a ban on California abhorshins and New York abhorshins, though they live in Virginia or South Carolina.

Question 2: And how does opposing the use of gov't funds to pay for abortions go against the Libertarian agenda? Isn't the point of the Libertarian Party to get gov't out of as much as possible?

Nope, that's A-OK.

So anyone who has ever made a single vote you disagree with is the enemy?

No matter how much lolcat spelling you employ in an attempt to mock the things that you personally find unimportant, that attitude perfectly demonstrates why LIBERTARIANS are so politically useless. Pat yourself on the back as you watch the freedoms you could have helped preserve slip away in the name of your ideological purity. The Left has demonstrated how incredibly effective incrementalism is as a tactic, why are you so bitterly opposed to it?

You should be opposed to incrementalism as well.

You will NEVER get your gun rights back.  Ever.

You will NEVER get your free speech rights back.  Ever.

You will NEVER get your 4th/5th amendment protections back.  Ever.

You will NEVER get your health privacy rights and medical consumer rights back.  Ever.


Incrementalism creates a midden heap of spaghetti legal code that can never be untangled.  Then you get the "savior" incrementalist compromise candidates like Romney who want to supposedly un-do less than 1% of the spaghetti code, and replace it with something else, while leaving the rest.

Once you compromise to get 1% and leave the 99%, you can't come back to that issue again.  Unless you're a democrat.   Republicans can't and/or won't do that.  For better or worse.

So there's no point in backing incrementalist candidates.

The only valid defense left is to hurt the GOP enough that it grows a backbone again and puts up proper candidates rather than an incrementalist compromising NDAA supporting Patriot Act passing thieves in the night.

[roo_ster]

1. IIRC, Reagan said something to the effect of, "Someone who agrees with me 75% of the time on policy is my ally."  IMO, that is some timeless political wisdom.

2. The correlation between socially conservative views and libertarian views is strong/obvious in elected officials.  The correlation between so-con views and fiscal conservatism is even more apparent.  It is pretty apparent how that train starts, too.  How many folks started off libertarian and moved so-con, relative to those who started off so-con and could be categorized as some flavor of libertarian [assuming a libertarian big tent that stretched from anarcho-capitalist to classical conservative (18th century liberalism)]?

3. Regardless of the causation, the reality is that those elected policritters with the largest number of libertarian check-boxes checked are also socially conservative.  Dropping trou and screeching "Kiss it, Cotton Mathers!" to so-cons is likely counter-productive to libertarian issues.  Heck, the "intolerant" so-cons seem much less nasty in internecine squabbles than the libertarians, these days...libertarians who seem desperate to disassociate themselves from the icky Christianists they will sacrifice concrete goals to their need for screed.

The reason social conservatives (who are not libertarian) want a Federal solution to abhorshins is because they want to IMPOSE their will on those they disagree with, where they cannot win on the battlefield of ideas.  They want to impose a ban on California abhorshins and New York abhorshins, though they live in Virginia or South Carolina.

Yeah, hilariously wrong on the facts.  Again.  How many times in this thread alone?

Check out polls on abortion.  At best, they are close.  They can be shaded pro-choice is set up for that.  Even Gallup shades it pro-choice by the order in which they ask respondents...and yet it still trends pro-life.  This is not a loss on the "battlefield of ideas" by any measure.



The reason a federal solution is called for is because it is problem created by the federales, who usurped state authority.  This is reality, not AZ44 wish-it-were-so.

[Jamisjockey]

Compromise is the vehicle which has brought us to this place. 

[AZRedhawk44]

That's a national poll.

Now run the poll in CA and NY.


Federalism protects regional preferences.  Do you like having CA and NY shove their "marry teh gheyzors" down your throat?

They don't like having your "no abhorshins" either.

The reason a federal solution is called for is because it is problem created by the federales, who usurped state authority.  This is reality, not AZ44 wish-it-were-so.

Please defend this assertion.  How did the feds create the problem?  SCOTUS hearing what should have been a State issue and decided by the State Supreme Court?  That confirms my assertion that federal involvement is unnecessary and we don't need any federal laws on the matter and only need State laws that address this form of murder.

[Ben]

Federalism protects regional preferences.  Do you like having CA and NY shove their "marry teh gheyzors" down your throat?

Actually, for the record, CA passed Prop 8 against gay marriage. It was overturned by a Federal judge.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Actually, for the record, CA passed Prop 8 against gay marriage. It was overturned by a Federal judge.

ironic that