Bringing in more people actually INTERESTED in changing their viewpoints
with regard to self-sovereignty is one thing, watering down the label until
it basically means "somewhat socially-tolerant, but economically
conservative" is quite another.  Referring to Goldberg as a libertarian
without mentioning that he favors a lot of positions inconsistent and
counter to the non-initiation of force concept, as Eric has done (repeatedly
with other conservatives) is not about a big tent or persuading others to
take another look at our way of doing things.  It's a rejection of the core
philosophy of self-ownership in favor of putting big numbers up on the
scoreboard.  What good is winning if you lose track of the reason you're
fighting in the first place?

 

There is a gigantic world of difference between claiming someone is a
libertarian (which would indicate consistent and steadfast application of
the N.A.P./Z.A.P. and a belief in self-sovereignty) vs. claiming someone has
some strong libertarian views in CERTAIN areas.  For instance, I've known
Ward Connerly for years. He is an interesting man with strong conservative
views in CERTAIN areas and strong libertarian views in CERTAIN areas.  He is
closer to libertarianism than conservatism these days, but he is not yet a
convert.  I respect the man to no end, but I also respect the philosophy to
which I adhere.  When he, or if he is ready, I'll then start calling him a
libertarian.  Until then, I still believe that the word stands for something
more important than putting up big numbers on that scoreboard.  Further,
I've read enough of Goldberg's work in the past to know he has some strong
libertarian views in CERTAIN areas.  When I was working with Mr. Connerly on
the Racial Privacy Initiative, Goldberg supported our attempts to get
government out of the expensive and quite arbitrary business of classifying
Americans by perceived "racial" classification.  That was quite libertarian
of him.  But that is one issue, not the totality of the man's views.
Claiming he is a libertarian without caveat is incorrect and subverts the
philosophy.

 

I'll break it down further:

 

Goldberg favors, and quite rabidly back in day, wars of intervention (fought
with other people's blood, of course, no need get dirty himself) that have
now saddled us (and our children) with billions and billions of dollars in
debt.  He is also a defender of the PATRIOT Act.  I don't find such
activities to be consistent with the principle of non-initiation of force
and self-sovereignty rights.  You may feel differently.  You may also
believe in the Easter Bunny.  That's your decision.

 

Goldberg voted for Bush (instead of a libertarian candidate), who brought us
the wonders of that PATRIOT Act, attempted to suspend attorney-client
privilege, TSA and other forms of domestic surveillance and tracking, and
the Department of Homeland Security, a half-trillion dollar medicare
subsidy, among other great Big Government Conservative ideas.  That was
Clueless Jonah's warning (one I did not need by the way).  Then, he voted
for him again.  Now we have National ID Cards (still in the works via REAL
ID Act regulatory implementation), torture scandals in Afghanistan,
Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, and a pending war with Iran and Syria.  Yeah, great
big, wonderful libertarian stuff.  While Goldberg criticizes Bush on
economic issues, he defends him with regard to this unnecessary war and his
trampling of the Bill of Rights, like any good conservative Republican would
do.  That may be libertarianism to you, but I see it differently.  Small
government beliefs in one area and big government apologia in another
doesn't make one a libertarian.  Unless the word is meaningless, which in
that case would make Ted Kennedy a libertarian as well.

 

I certainly hope that isn't the future of libertarianism.

 

Since you are echoing Eric's sentiments, will you also second his
endorsement of Kerry's statement about Bush being a "radical extremist
libertarian" - see Eric's subject line here (Kerry was right; Bush is a
"radical extremist libertarian"):

 

 <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30812>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30812

 

And will you also endorse Eric's statement that "We have now the most
libertarian President possibly in the history of the United States, and the
Libertarian Party Libertarians just yawn."

 

 <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30293>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30293

 

If you are going to go for big tent, it doesn't get any bigger than
including our big government president, who Jonah Goldberg supports and
defends when it comes to trampling the Bill of Rights and waging big,
expensive wars.  Eric would certainly back you up on that one.

 

__________________________________________________________________
James Landrith
 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547
AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159
MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith
Taking the Gloves Off -  <http://www.jameslandrith.com>
http://www.jameslandrith.com
The Multiracial Activist -  <http://www.multiracial.com>
http://www.multiracial.com
The Abolitionist Examiner -  <http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/>
http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/
__________________________________________________________________

 

  _____  

From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bruce Cohen
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 3:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Libertarian] LRPR: Brillant NR Editorial mentions Libertarians

 


Others might disagree.
Jonah Goldberg is a Libertarian in MY book.

Anyway, our pond is far too small,
with too few fish in it.

I'm more than happy to include those
who wish to be included.  Folks labeling
themselves as Libertarians are the most
warm of warm prospects.  These are people
we ought to cultivate.  Where we disagree,
we have a much better chance to persuade
them from the inside, than the outside.

PS What is a 'full blown NIF Libertarian'?
   Who gets to define this for the rest of
   the Libertarian world, anyway?
--- James Landrith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> CORRECTION to the Peanut Gallery: Jonah Goldberg has
> SOME libertarian views, but is not a full-blown, 
> non-initiation of force libertarian.

Bruce Cohen 

949 813-8001 

866 OC Bruce - Toll Free 
866 622-7823 - Toll Free 

WWW.GetBruce.Com 
Libertarian for US Congress

All California Brokerage Real Estate





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian  
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to