Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

May 30, 2008

Barr/Paul ticket still in the cards?!

The selection of Wayne Root as the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate is in some sense a fluke. It appears so many old LP hands, upset at Bob Barr's win, walked out of the proceedings that Ruwart's endorsed VP candidate Steve Kubby lost, even though Root's VP total was noticeably lower than Barr's final tally. Had the walk-outs stayed, a "unity ticket" was in their grasp.

Now, the gossip is that many of these same disgruntled Ruwart supporters, who control their state LP's ballot line and elector candidates, are considering not running the Barr/Root ticket. Some LP elector nominees have even already declared their intent to vote faithlessly. This is not unheard of in the LP. In 2000, the LP of Arizona placed L. Neil Smith on the Presidential ballot instead of Harry Browne. The LP's one electoral vote in 1972 came from a faithless Nixon elector.

But these "walk-outs" have a chance instead to create an even better "unity ticket" ticket while not irreparably fracturing the national party. These "rogue" state parties could dump Root and place Ron Paul on the ballot as Vice-President. Root, widely distrusted as a warmonger by the old hands in the LP, just dissed Paul a month ago for Paul's lack of militarism.

Paul need not accept these rogue endorsements of course, while he continues to campaign for the GOP nomination. Root would continue to campaign and do media as the official nominee. But this move would put Paul back on the table, even if only as a spectre, and could help propel the nominee Barr up in the polls and into the debates. It would also in a very real way put Paul's name back into the mix as a possible compromise candidate chosen by a faithless electoral college and/or the U.S. House. The LP would de facto have two Presidential candidates on the ballot.

Both the DNC and RNC conventions look to be trainwrecks this year and all the rules are being thrown out the window. Unhappy state LP heads should keep that in mind and think carefully, strategically, and outside the box in the event they do feel honor-bound to offer a rebuke of some sort.

Posted by JamesPlummer at 12:01 AM | Comments (22) | TrackBack

May 29, 2008

The last refuge for believers in small government

When asked by the Huffington Post's Will Mari about what the GOP needs to do to reverse course, Mike Huckabee responded: "Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism…"

Of course, John McCain has his problems with small government, as well. As one example, this recent Economist article about Bob Barr asks:

The anti-government wing of the party that was launched to its forefront by Barry Goldwater in 1964, championed by Ronald Reagan, and then dispirited by eight years of George Bush is worried by Mr McCain. Could some of these voters defect to the Libertarian Party this year?

A recent Reason magazine cover featured this title: "Be Afraid of President McCain."

The best small-government defense of McCain I've seen so far seems to be missing one critical ingredient: actually defending McCain's positions from a small-government perspective.

John McCain, imperfect as he may be, sees a very different America. It's the same country whose liberties he was willing to give his life for in Viet Nam. We may not agree with him on every issue, but we can't disagree that a love for liberty is at the central core of this man's being.

When the writer wasn't directly apologizing for McCain's big-government tendencies, he resorted to the tired old argument that McCain isn't Obama.

As Barr has previously stated, McCain doesn't espouse "anything resembling the philosophy of smaller government" that Barr supports.

The Barr campaign and the Libertarian Party is about providing an honorable place where people concerned about limited government, the Constitution and privacy issues can turn. Obviously, these good folks are no longer welcome in the Republican Party.

Posted by StephenGordon at 04:32 PM | Comments (1)

May 27, 2008

Environmentally Friendly Bombs

Finally, we are greening up our military industrial complex! Live Science reports:

TNT, RDX and other explosives commonly used in military and industrial applications often generate toxic gases upon detonation that pollute the environment. Moreover, the explosives themselves are toxic and can find their way into the environment due to incomplete detonation and as unexploded ordnance. They are also extremely dangerous to handle, as they are highly sensitive to physical shock, such as hard impacts and electric sparks.

If we reduce the costs of war, do we engage in more of it? Of course the sorts of governments that try to avoid externalities (or rather "collateral damage") are probably those that would also try to avoid war generally.

Now that we've won a victory for Mother Earth, maybe we could have "justice offsets" that governments could purchase when they kill innocent people.

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 12:32 PM | Comments (0)

May 26, 2008

Bob Barr and the PATRIOT Act

My colleague Tim Lee, blogging over at The Atlantic, raises the oft-repeated canard that Bob Barr's record on the USA PATRIOT Act is evidence of a longstanding unlibertarian track record, rendering his libertarian "conversion" suspect. What Lee and others fail to understand is that Congressman Barr was in fact the White House's chief legislative roadblock in their barreling PATRIOT through Congress. And that for his trouble, Barr earned the wrath of White House operatives like Karl Rove, which is what ultimately cast Barr from the Congress. (Thanks to Democrat gerrymandering in Georgia, Barr had to run against another incumbent Republican Congressman in the GOP primary, one who hadn't earned the ire of Rove's powerful machine.)

In 2001, Barr was the lead figure in the GOP-controlled House in pushing back against the PATRIOT Act, and ultimately suceeded in deleteing some text and forcing sunset clauses on the bill's worst provisions. Brad Jansen explains much of the background at American Spectator. More here. So when Barr started lobbying against PATRIOT Act abuses soon after leaving Congress, it was a continuation of his previous activities, not a reversal.

And those who remember politics before Bush may recall Bill Clinton's own "9/11", the Oklahoma City bombing. Just as after 9/11, a wish list of Justice Department powers was pulled off the shelf and given to the Congress to pass as an "anti-terror" bill. Freshman Congressman Barr then, too, cut back and limiited as much of the bill as he could from his seat on the Judiciary Committee. If you don't remember this from following the news at the time, you can read Barr's book and check his wikipedia entry for references.

Posted by JamesPlummer at 07:28 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Crowding Out the Right Prescription?

Psychiatrists are harming children by giving them adult drugs even when it is not clear that they will develop the adult maladies for which the drugs are designed. Giving children these at a young age often means they end up with a "life sentence" of being drugged out. So argues Peter Breggin at the Huffington Post:

From now on, Max, his family and his doctors will almost certainly have to face an increasingly impossible dilemma common to children who are prescribed multiple psychiatric drugs for a period of years. When trying to withdraw these children from multiple psychiatric medications, they almost certainly go through severe withdrawal problems with extreme emotional instability and the risk of worsening violence and suicidality. In fact, we are told that an attempt to take Max off his medications resulted in his displaying hallucinations and delusions, which Newsweek attributes to his worsening condition and his need for drugs.

Breggin points out that often the problem is that the parents need to learn to be better parents -- the child needs stability to learn behavioral norms. It would appear that there is a crowding out effect as the treatment possibilities are focused on what could be wrong with the child. The longer the child is subjected to harsh medicines, the less able the child is to develop a healthy mind and thus the parents ability to control the child without medications becomes even more diminished. The medicines put the child on a path which can only involve more medication.

/KDR


Posted by KevinRollins at 12:48 PM | Comments (0)

Start of Something Big?

With former Republican Congressman Bob Barr securing the Libertarian Party's presidential nod and former Democrat Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney seeking the Green Party presidential nod, are we poised for a sea change in American politics?

Odds are low. The Rs and Ds -- ossified and entrenched as they are -- have rigged the game for themselves. And yet, voters may be poised to begin to think outside the box. Still, Denmark by the Potomac emits that putrid stench that it does. Sunshine and the fresh air of real choice may well begin to take hold in 2008. Plausible contenders -- some might even say "turncoats"--are calling out their former teams, and speaking truth to power.

A McCain/Obama "showdown" may be -- all things considered -- the weakest field in a century. A septuagenarian who is engrained in the system as it is vs. a charismatic rookie by political standards...not much of a choice from this vantage point. A man whose very sanity and emotional stability has been widely questioned vs. man who consorts with conspiracy theorists and violent revolutionaries.

Is it really so "crazy" to be thinking about a third way in 2008?

On its face: No. Substantively: No, again.

-RC

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 06:45 AM | Comments (2)

Democracies and War

As we in the United States celebrate Memorial Day, I noticed an article by James Bovard on the relevance of democracies and whether they make war on each other or not. My college political science professors liked to say that democracies don't go to war against each other. Democracy-building has been a core tenet of American foreign policy since at least the days of Woodrow Wilson. As Bovard makes clear in his excellent article, democracies often do fight each other and have done so for hundreds of years, for a variety of reason.

The point is not to denigrate democracy as a means of political organization, but to encourage the American people to question their political leaders the next time they preach "spreading democracy" as a foreign policy goal.

Posted by PaulGessing at 12:03 AM | Comments (1)

May 24, 2008

RE: Libertarians in Denver

I felt the need to make a full-length response to Kevin's earlier entry.

I'm not sure Bob Barr would be the best candidate. While he possibly could garner more votes (being a politician who has previously held federal office), a third party doesn't merely need to siphon off as many votes as possible. Rather, it needs to provide a receptacle for the "protest vote", those that are unable to see either the Republican or the Democratic candidate as a lesser of evils.

Were Hillary to gain the nomination, there would be far more protest votes available from the anti-war community than other. Even with Barak Obama, anti-war voters for whom domestic policy also matters (and prefer limited government there, as well) really have no good options, unless it is the LP that provides it.

No LP candidate is ever going to win. However, I still see the third parties as having the potential to transform a group of uncategorized nonparticipants into a more visible potential vote mine for the major parties. To serve this purpose, a third party must have ideological standards to some degree. To nominate Bob Barr would indicate to observers that not even Libertarians particularly care about things like the War on Drugs, global intervention, etc. Even worse would be if Barr were chosen and then did better than any other LP candidate. One might get the impression that the Drug War and such really is that much of a political third rail.

It still isn't that important. But nominating Barr isn't going to win them the election, and I think the cost of those extra votes is probably more than its worth.

Posted by DarylSawyer at 11:42 AM | Comments (2)

May 23, 2008

Libertarians in Denver

Over at the Guardian, our friend Jeremy Lott has a great article on the Libertarian Party nomination fight this weekend. My favorite line is, "This ideological rigidity has drawn a self-selected group of freedom's bitter-enders who hate the Federal Reserve and fear the Post Office."

It is this group of "self-selected bitter-enders" that will oppose former congressman Bob Barr's nomination for the presidential race. These are the folks who've spent too many years making unreasonable demands and seeing nothing but failure. They may have enough votes to actually block a Barr nomination, even though it must be clear to all sane observers that Barr brings the most credibility, even if not the most extreme variety of libertarianism.

As Jeremy Lott notes, in the 2004 nomination process, Michael Badnarik beat out two bigger names, radio host Gary Nolan and movie producer Aaron Russo. Nolan was knocked out and subsequently encouraged his supporters to vote for Badnarik. Badnarik, who had never held political office (and didn't possess a driver's license), at one point emailed supporters that he had gotten word that Hawaii had just seceded from the Union. This apparently was due to a mistaken reading of an email he had received from a Hawaiian secessionist group. Badnarik is a nice person though. He became a better speaker throughout the process. And yes, he had pretty good ideological purity, too. But, no one but LP people even cared he was running.

Depending on what percentage each candidate enters with, the last-man standing voting procedure the LP uses could actually could enable Wayne Allen Root or even Mary Ruwart to win the nomination. The party would earn obscurity for this choice, a decision it has made time and time again.

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 12:12 PM | Comments (5)

Frank Talk About Irony

Bridging on Paul Gessing's take on Thomas Frank's WSJ piece, "The Tragic Irony of Beltway Libertarianism," I have a different perspective. I've done the Beltway libertarian thing, and the corporate thing, too.

For those who've never worked in Corporate America, an idealistic libertarian may think that they work all day with the "profit motive" front and center. It's false. Rather, depending on what one's function is within the corporation, one generally is in engaged in developing, selling or marketing products that customers hopefully want, and will buy at a specific price. Or one is involved in monitoring and controlling costs. Very few functions involved the big picture: generating long term shareholder value. CEOs and CFOs do that. Pretty much everyone else is a cog.

Those who work for the Washington offices of corporations are generally engaged in the small picture. They plead with official DC to expand their revenue potential (generally trade specialists) or cut their corporation's costs (deregulation, labor laws, etc.) Like all corporate work, it is highly specialized, non-heroic work. But it can get reasonably well paid if one learns the craft well. These are well paid cogs, doing their part in a fluid market.

This passage in Frank's piece caught my eye:

That was reality. the idea that "there's something special about nonprofits," scoffed one forthright fellow – "well, that's crap. Nonprofits are an artifice of the law, and what's special about them is not that they do different things or that they are organized in a special way, it's that they don't pay taxes."
The burgeoning of for-profit Washington has much more to do with government than with actual creation of value. A trade lobbying for a corporation is, in a sense, an artifice of the law, too. While it's noble to tear down trade barriers, there would be no such job if Washington had not constructed walls in the first place. And, of course, trade barriers are often there because Corporate America agitated for the restrictions in the first place. Being a corporate lobbyist can easily become a drag for a free marketeer, since few corporations actually believe in free markets.

Of course, working for a non-profit can also involve selling out. If your non-profit takes a position that you don't agree with, you have a choice: be a team player, go along, and sell out, or quit.

Ah, life. My only suggestion is do what you think is right, which helps yourself and with any luck humanity, and be prepared to deal with whatever the future throws at you. Don't expect everything to go your way...ain't gonna happen, no matter what path you take.

-RC

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 08:59 AM | Comments (0)

May 22, 2008

Beltway Libertarians a Sad Tale

I am a recovering "Beltway Libertarian." I now run a free market think tank in Albuquerque, NM. Thomas Frank, writing on the Wall Street Journal's website today writes of the "tragic" nature of Beltway Libertarianism. In essence, Frank argues that libertarians are inherently hamstrung by working for a non-profit in Washington, DC, an expensive to work in and the fact that in order to live and work in the city, these Beltway Libertarians need to "sell-out" and work for a for-profit company.

There is some truth to what Frank says, but I think the problem is not the fact that, libertarians, people who strongly believe in the profit motive, are forced to ply their trade in the non-profit world, rather it is that once libertarians do move into the private sector, they are forced to work for companies that often have their hands out for government favors. Trust me, I looked for corporate jobs in the DC-area and was frustrated that even many of the "good" companies to work for as a lobbyist were frequently on the side of bigger government at other times.

That is one big reason I left for New Mexico. The other is that there is so much more going on in the states. Washington is a frustrating place to work for anyone who believes in limited government and, while groups like Cato and my former employer, NTU do a lot of good, any victory won by these groups is hard to quantify among the thousands of special-interests in Washington.

So, my advice to Beltway Libertarians is this: "Get out of DC and come work in the states. Whether you get directly involved in policy or not, getting out of Washington is the first step to having a more rational, grounded outlook."

Posted by PaulGessing at 02:41 PM | Comments (0)

May 19, 2008

Bob Barr a Johnny-Come-Lately Flip-Flopping Non-Story

According to the latest editorial at National Review Online.

The piece ends, "It will probably be Barr’s fate to be ignored, and those libertarians who care about the credibility of their cause should be glad of it."

Pointing insistently at something while telling everyone to ignore it is an interesting approach. I suppose they mean that, given the information they've just given us about Barr, we should begin to ignore him at the end of the editorial.

It is curious, however, that anyone cares enough about who the Libertarian Party's candidate is to write an editorial about how no one should care. Are we living in the Era of Paul, where libertarianism actually has the power to turn America's collective head (if there were such a thing)?

-MT

Posted by MicahTillman at 07:24 AM | Comments (10)

May 15, 2008

“Who Cares About Anarchy When You Can Have Limited Government?”

A Sunday Night Social Debate * May 18, 2008 * 4:00-5:30pm at the Galaxy Hut

Presented by the Center for Liberty and Community

Jan Helfeld will argue in favor of limited government as the optimal system for achieving human happiness. Helfeld is a lawyer and businessman turned TV producer. In the last few years he has traveled the world as a lecturer and debater at numerous universities. He has produced documentaries such as “To Invade or Not Invade” about the Iraq War and other philosophical explorations such as “The Proper Function of Government”, “The Socratic Interviewing Technique”, and “The Media Against Business.” He also has hosted/produced several TV shows in Puerto Rico and Washington, DC. See a video clip of Jan’s interview with Senator Harry Reid at: http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/003277.php

And in favor of anarchy…

Michael Owen is a certified gun-toting, swing-dancing anarcho-capitalist. He received his Ph.D. in 2003 from North Carolina State University in theoretical astrophysics. He is currently employed as a computational fluid dynamics engineering consultant for a small firm in Maryland. He is the husband of Congressman Ron Paul's Communications Director, Rachel Mills.

The debate will be moderated by Kevin Rollins, publisher of the The Free Liberal, the Center for Liberty and Community’s web magazine.

This debate is free and open to the public. RSVPs (to publisher[at]freeliberal.com) are appreciated but not required. Following the debate we will commence our usual social hour. Register for the event and invite friends through the Facebook page.

Galaxy Hut is located on Wilson Blvd between Danville and Edgewood Sts in Arlington, Virginia (Directly across from the Whole Foods Supermarket and a few blocks from the Clarendon Metro Stop on the Orange Line. http://www.galaxyhut.com * 2711 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22201.

Posted by KevinRollins at 11:57 AM | Comments (7)

May 13, 2008

Illegally Download Music, Lose Your House?

Most "Free Liberals" support property rights. That said, reasonable, pro-liberty people can disagree over the concept and enforcement of intellectual property. Most fair-minded people also understand the concept of proportionality in punishment.

That brings us to Los Angeles where the County Commission recently adopted an ordinance that essentially allows the authorities to seize homes if acts of piracy (illegally downloading music and movies) are found to be committed on the premises.

According to the story from Wired, the County board declared that piracy "substantially interferes with the interest of the public in the quality of life and community peace, lawful commerce in the county, property values, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the county's citizens, its businesses and its visitors."

Not surprisingly, the regulation was crafted at the urging of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America.

Property owners who knowingly permit such activity can also be dinged $1,000 for each counterfeited work produced on the property.

The fact is that the Founding Fathers included provisions for patents in the Constitution. They did this because the public at large benefits from new products and technologies. Without patent protection, the incentive for people to innovate is reduced. Is this true for intellectual property? The debate over that issue rages on, but the answers are much less cut-and-dried.

It would seem that losing one's house for pirating a movie is more than a little unfair.

Posted by PaulGessing at 08:51 PM | Comments (0)

Presidential Cult?

Gene Healy of the Cato Institute doesn't like the exercise of presidential power. Nor do I. He itemizes the dangers of president-as-messiah here. I think he's largely correct.

Still, those with wonkish proclivities might want to view politics as a purely intellectual exercise. Here in the Healy Construct, logic and reason are the only legitimate arrows in the quiver of those who share political values. Squishy, subjective considerations such as appeals to emotion and political theater are verboten.

Good luck with that approach, sez me.

Charisma, style, and being telegenic seem to me to be requirements for how this game is played. Deal with it. Being a strong, silent type in the mold of Coolidge strikes me as a matter of style. A= A robots need not apply.

With any luck, excellent politician/actors will step forward in coming decades who understand that the state can and should be rolled back, but who can also inspire and motivate the nation toward a more peaceful configuration.

Think of a smaller-government Obama.

-RC

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 06:48 AM | Comments (0)

May 12, 2008

Obama: Pot Smokers' Choice?

Barack Obama has given free liberals another reason to cheer his candidacy with his humane views on medipot:

As the candidates prepare for a May 20 primary in Oregon, one of 12 states with a California-style law, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has become an increasingly firm advocate of ending federal intervention and letting states make their own rules when it comes to medical marijuana.

More here.

Posted by KevinRollins at 12:01 PM | Comments (0)

May 11, 2008

The Truman Transformation

Ever wonder where today's "imperial presidency" came from? Columnist George Will made the case recently that Harry Truman's presidency should be viewed as a turning point in presidential power.

Salient reasons for Will's argument include the undeclared Korean War without Congressional approval and seizure of the nation's steel mills. While historians' approval of Truman's presidency is to be expected as he grew government and increased the power of the presidency, he was among the biggest of big-government Democrats.

Posted by PaulGessing at 11:33 AM | Comments (0)

May 07, 2008

National Review Reviews "The Revolution"

Or rather, John Derbyshire, does so for National Review.

The review is here. It's positive. But not as positive as Derbyshire was about the book later.

-MT

Posted by MicahTillman at 10:50 AM | Comments (0)

May 02, 2008

Not Playing It Safe in Uganda

From the Atlas Economic Research Foundation:


Ugandan Journalist and founder of an independent newspaper in Kampala , was arrested on Saturday, April 26, 2008 at his office. A bold advocate of free speech and a champion in promoting the dangers of foreign aid, Mwenda was arrested for being critical of President Yoweri Museveni's government. Mwenda has since been released on bail, he had this to say "I do not want to play it safe especially if doing so will stop me from fighting for freedom and liberty in uganda - my life would be meaningless if I lived for 100 years watching evil being committed and doing nothing about it. A time comes when people have to take a stand, a strong stand against tyranny. I cannot hide these people's suffering in order to remain alive. I would have abandoned my responsibility to Uganda and to humanity.

More here:

http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/opinions/Police_stop_this_press_brutality.shtml

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 01:21 PM | Comments (0)

May 01, 2008

What Happens When You Don't Read The Free Liberal

You end up thinking that governmentisgood.com. (h/t Goldberg)

Maybe Dr. Amy missed a little piece entitled "What's So Great About Government?" by Yours Truly? (Actually, it looks like his site has been up for a while . . . .)

Government, in fact, is not good. It's not bad either. Individual governments may have done good things or bad things. But government, in itself, is power, potentia, potential.

-MT

Posted by MicahTillman at 05:19 PM | Comments (1)

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



SIMPLE AD ERROR VIEW COUNT NOT UPDATED

Advertisement