I thought I was clear about Goldwater's politics not being libertarian and only having libertarian leanings. Goldwater's politics and personal beliefs could not be classified as libertarian, but many were libertarian leaning.
[ModeratorNote: Conscience of Conservative (Paperback) by Barry Goldwater http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895267543/102-6351929-0751318?v==glance&n=(3155 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_of_a_Conservative -TLP ] --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No letting you go on this Paul. Yes, Goldwater may not have been > consistent in his libertarianism, but the question still stands, > could his politics be classified more aptly as "libertarian" or > "conservative"? > > Answer one or the other please. > > > And let's keep in mind that Barry was Pro-choice, Pro-marijuana > legalization, anti-affirmative action, Pro-Gay Rights, anti- > political correctness, anti-Religious Right, Pro-Free markets, Pro- > Tax cuts, Anti-Pork spending and Anti-Spending. > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > Goldwater was not consistent in his libertarianism, but > > he had strong libertarian leanings. Karl Hess was very > > libertarian philosophically. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" > > <ericdondero@> wrote: > > > > > > Paul, was Barry Goldwater's philosoply libertarian? > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Since the beginning, libertarianism has ALWAYS been about > > > > non-aggression and military non-interventionism. It has been > so > > > since > > > > long before there any of those mentioned by Eric were born or > even > > > > thought of. I don't know of anyone who said Nolan was > responsible > > > for > > > > the "libertarian movement", though he was responsible for the > > > creation > > > > of the LP and the "world's smallest political quiz) aka the > NOLAN > > > > chart (which is nothing more than an outreach tool to find > those > > > who > > > > lean toward libertarianism). Libertarians have been around > for > > > more > > > > than 1000 years, and they have never ever ever advocted wars > > > against > > > > those who have not attacked us, or the use of force other than > in > > > your > > > > own defense. In fact many suggested we not return force when > > > > attacked, which is further than I'd go. > > > > > > > > One could argue that Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha, Ghandi, Thomas > > > > Aquinas, John Locke, Alexis De Toqueville, Thomas Jefferson, > and > > > > others were libertarian in their philosophy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" > > > > <ericdondero@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [ModeratorNote: the split is between those advocating > > > > > USA govt interventionism abroad vs those opposed. > > > > > > > > > > ACTUAL 'defense' is of course supported by libertarianism. > > > > > > > > > > There is a difference of opinion on what constitutes > > > > > CREDIBLE as 'threat' AND what is appropriate as response. > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, SOME opponents of interventionism are also > > > > > advocates of 'pacifism' > > > > > > > > > > The historical break with Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) > > > > > was over USA military interventionism; specifically, at that > > > > > time, Vietnam. Traditional 'YAFers' ('Trads') being for > > > > > continuing the Vietnam intervention vs libertarian 'YAFers' > > > > > ('Libs') being against continuing the Vietnam intervention. > > > > > > > > > > ALL supported 'defense' but opinions differed on Vietnam. > > > > > > > > > > -TLP ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steven, your premise "a libertarian case for war" is not > > > correct. > > > > > You are presuming that libertarianism is consistent with > > > pacifism, > > > > > which it most certainly not. > > > > > > > > > > A brief history lesson. Despite common misconception David > > > Nolan > > > > > DID NOT found the modern libertarian movement. That > > > distinction, if > > > > > it goes to any one single individual, goes to Dana > Rohrabacher > > > who > > > > > headed the Libertarian Caucus of YAF in the critical years > of > > > 1966- > > > > > 70. > > > > > > > > > > Rohrabacher, as you are probably aware, is Pro-Defense, like > his > > > > > pals Bob Poole and Jack Wheeler (two other individuals > prominent > > > in > > > > > the very early libertarian movement). > > > > > > > > > > When the LP was founded in Dec. 1971, and in the first > couple > > > years, > > > > > libertarians were divided on foreign policy issues. Dr. > John > > > > > Hospers, the LP's first Presidential candidate, could be > > > described > > > > > much more in the Pro-Defense libertarian camp, than the > Pacifist > > > > > side. > > > > > > > > > > It was not until 1974/75, when Rothbard and Raimondo and the > > > Radical > > > > > Caucus took control of the LP's platform committee was > the "Anti- > > > War > > > > > position" hoisted upon the LP in dramatic fashion. > > > > > > > > > > Even long afterwards a Libertarian Defense Caucus headed by > Mike > > > > > Dunn, and including Poole, Cliff Thies, and many other > prominent > > > > > libertarians fought the Radical Caucus until the mid 1980s. > > > > > > > > > > Your premise is off. If there is any "original" > or "official" > > > > > libertarian foreign policy position it is that more closely > > > aligned > > > > > with Rohrabacher rather than Rothbard/Raimondo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "steven linnabary" > > > > > <linnabary51@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Geof Gibson" <geofgibson@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally agree we do not need religious intolerance in > civil > > > > > > > conversation nor in our politics. That is why I will > > > criticize > > > > > the > > > > > > > purveyors of Christian fascism as well as Islamofascism > as > > > well > > > > > as > > > > > > > Libertarian intolerance. They are all of the same > breed. > > > When > > > > > we > > > > > > > hate those with whom we disagree it invariably leads to > > > violence. > > > > > > > This is precisely why I will point it out from all > corners. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Libertarian intolerance??? > > > > > > > > > > > > I certainly hope that nothing I've said is considered to > be > > > > > intolerant to > > > > > > the point of violence (or the agitation thereof). > > > > > > > > > > > > I am, however, proudly intolerant of stupid wars (though > not > > > to > > > > > the point of > > > > > > aggression). I think that makes me consistent. > > > > > > > > > > > > OTOH, there are several people on this list who have > failed to > > > > > make the > > > > > > libertarian case for any of our stupid wars. I'm not > saying > > > it > > > > > can't be > > > > > > done. I've seen a lot of my theories blown to hell with a > > > good > > > > > libertarian > > > > > > argument (for and against copyright and patent laws, for > and > > > > > against slave > > > > > > reparations, etc.). > > > > > > > > > > > > PEACE > > > > > > Steven R. Linnabary, Treasurer > > > > > > Franklin County Libertarian Party > > > > > > (614) 891-8841 > > > > > > P.O.Box#115; Blacklick, OH 43004-0115 > > > > > > > > > > > > "When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make > > > violent > > > > > revolution > > > > > > inevitable" John F. Kennedy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/
