Being the resident non-paulite libertarian, I've already talked about this here. I've never liked Paul much, originally stemming from his LGBT and abortion stances and his loony 9/11 conspiracy views.. When he refused to disavow racist remarks in his old newsletter, it was pretty much just expected crap from him and the 'Constitutional Party' types..Originally Posted by dashingly
That video displays one of the more interesting comb-overs I've seen. Clearly this is a man who is not afraid to implement creative solutions to problems.
Really? I believe he's disavowed both the 9/11 conspiracists that latched on to him and the racist newsletters. I guess people can make their own judgment call, but it's sad how bitter the libertarians are about bickering with each other. And the entire time the country gets worse. Liberty is a small tent.
Actually, no, he didn't disavow the 9/11 conspiracies because he ALSO talked a lot about investigations into it, happy to scoop up the fanatics involved in screaming for it. Why the hell else do you think so many truthers are also paultards?
And no, he didn't immediately disavow the racist newsletters. There were a few weeks of 'I refuse to respond' and then 'Libertarians are incapable of being racist!'.
But yes, please continue your 'Libertarians always infight!' meme, as if every other party's constituents always agree on absolutely everything and never have a problem with their nominee.
There is no need for me to continue a meme to prove my point. It is self-evident every single year. The ideology will continue to remain irrelevant as we choose between two statists every 4 years.
Yes, because if only we would all unite behind Ron Paul (ignoring the vast problems most non-fanatical libertarians have with his views and him personally) then he would magically upend the entire political system, march to victory in the election, and then proceed to disassemble the Federal government, Samson-at-the-temple style.
Your point appears to be that this is our (Libertarians) fault for the third parties being ignored by the media and the nation at large. Never mind that most Americans want 3rd parties in the debate, McCain and Obama are happy to exploit the system to keep 3rd party spoilers out, or that the media is happy to play along with their game...
It's definitely those loony liberteens, what with their gay marriage, re-opening immigration, opposing shoveling taxpayer money into failing companies and ending the drug war.... Those ideas have no place in our current politics. Let's focus on Ron Paul and call the LP hopeless for not being behind him 100%, instead!
There's no need to unite behind anyone or agree with everything an individual believes, but taunting a popular libertarian for holding different views at the margins is counterproductive in general.
The anarcho-capitalists are just as bad in their disdain for the cosmopolitan libertarians. It's all quite petty, like dorks in a lunch room trying to make fun of each other to get in with the cool kids or feel better about themselves.
I'm not saying much would change or it's anyone's fault that these ideas are ignored or a certain group is in the wrong here; it's just small-minded.
[EDIT] I'm probably being too dismissive here. I'm new to the politics of the group and I'm sure the bad blood runs much deeper than I'm giving credit to.
"The problem is that we libertarians are too disagreeable!"
"That's not the problem at all!"
"Yes it is!"
"No no no!"
I like some of the ideas of libertarianism, but it's hard to disagree that there will always been infighting so long as you've got conservative pundits who will claim to be libertarian so as to appear centrist while espousing pure conservative viewpoints. As a result you end up with fans of people like Jay Severin who consider themselves to be libertarian and 'true constitutionalists!', even though they fail on several aspects of libertarian beliefs.
If taunting paultards for backing someone with 'different' views, such as pro-life, anti-LGBT, pro-decency-laws and basically pushing 'Biblical foundations', is wrong, I don't want to be right.
I'm guessing a few people here have read this already but I just thought I'd offer it up. Brin describes what I wish Libertarianism would become, a cogent critic of the liberal beliefs that I myself espouse (but I feel need to be reigned in at times). In so doing I think he gets at what divides different "brands" of Libertarianism, a sincere desire to move forward versus a deep-seated need to keep things as they were. Brin, true to form, is also hopelessly long-winded, occasionally pompous and likely to trigger a "TL;DR" response but I think it's worth the read.
P.S. if you find yourself unable to get through his early diversions, just skip to the last page which seems to capture a lot of the high points.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote