Right on, Ken.--- In [email protected], Kenneth Gregg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eric, > Since apparantly I am a "smarty-pants" and "one of those anti- political > Libertarians who would rather Libertarians just sit it out, and stay > home, not at all engaging in politics, let alone the most watched > political race in the country," it seems that your comments are directed > toward me. Rather than blindly attack the antipolitical wing of the > libertarian movement, I would recommend that you actually undersand it. > > First of all, you should realize that almost all antipolitical > libertarians were active in electoral politics: Albert Jay Nock, Frank > Chodorov, Robert LeFevre, myself. We were all political activists and > have had a great deal of experience in the political world. This is why > we no longer go, as I mentioned before, hat in hand, and upon bent > knees, begging to the political institutions for attention and approval > for our activities. Whether I would go on about Nock's experience in > the Wilson Administration, Chodorov's run as Vice-Presidential candidate > for a third-party, LeFevre's run as Republican candidate for congress or > my own work in the Republican Party, Peace & Freedom and elsewhere, > these simply establish that antipolitical libertarians have gone through > those hoops as well. It's just that we learned from our mistakes, as > any sensible person does. > > Making a choice to use our resources to promote libertarian ideals is > one of the most important decisions for libertarians to make. What > should we give our time and money to? Ballot-boxing is a temporary > event. It happens once, and then is gone. Maybe people remember the > discussions or who the people were. Maybe not. Libertarians > historically have spent a lot of money on such events, and the > consequence historically (and here I'm talking about the last 150 years > that I've studied) has been almost nonexistent. Parties fold. > Politicians continue to lie and collect graft. The LP is too irrelevant > to current politics to make any difference. The LRC is fooling > themselves if they think they do more than help legitimize the GOP. If > a "libertarian" is elected, or a politiciant is elected with libertarian > help, it is but mere moments before the libertarian faction is stuck in > the corner with a dunce-cap on their respective heads, quickly > forgotten. People who pretend otherwise are only fooling themselves, > wasting their lives on short-term goals, rather than forming long- term > institutions designed to fight statism. > > What should a libertarian do? Should he/she, as Eric says, "just sit it > out, and stay home, not at all engaging in politics"? Eric has invested > a lot of effort in proclaiming this strawman as the only alternative. > There are many other alternatives, contrary to what Eric says. Liberty > in both the social and economic spheres is the polestar of > libertarians. Live your life to the fullest! Learn how to maximize > your freedom and minimize coercion, whether from an individual, such as > a person claiming to be a representative an agency of the state, or from > a group, such as a person claiming to be a representative of an agency > of the state (hmm, same thing!). Discover for yourself methods to > effect the culture toward freedom. Learn the principles of freedom and > teach them to your family and friends and any others that you can. > Support voters boycotts and help deligimimize the state. Invest your > time and money in long term projects such as Mises Institute, > Independent Institute, FEE, CATO, and, by all means, create your own! > > Cheers! > Just Ken > http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/ > http://spencerheath.blogspot.com/ > > Eric Dondero Rittberg wrote: > > > So smarty-pants. What do you suggest Connecticut libertarians do? > > There's NO Libertarian Party candidate in the race. > > > > Are you suggesting Libertarians back Republican Aurther Schlessinger > > instead? > > > > Or are you one of those anti-political Libertarians who would rather > > Libertarians just sit it out, and stay home, not at all engaging in > > politics, let alone the most watched political race in the country. > > > > Don't bitch, unless you have some alternative plan. > > > > --- In [email protected] > > <mailto:Libertarian%40yahoogroups.com>, Logan Ferree <lhferree@> > > wrote: > > > > > > I'm glad to see that Cato's David Boaz has offered some common > > sense > > > to the Republicans and liberventionists that are quick to embrace > > Joe > > > Lieberman's Independent campaign in Connecticut: > > > http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/19/republicans-for-the- big- > > <http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/19/republicans-for-the- big-> > > government-guy/ > > > Boaz is right, only if you allow the Iraq War to trump all other > > > conservative issues is Lieberman a good candidate for the > > Republicans to > > > back. And only if you buy into the liberventionist claim that the > > Iraq > > > War is libertarian does Lieberman turn into a libertarian. > > > > > > <><> > > > Logan Ferree > > > > > > Republicans for the Big-Government Guy > > > <http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/19/republicans-for-the- big- > > <http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/19/republicans-for-the- big-> > > government-guy/> > > > > > > > > > Do Republicans still support limited government? Don't laugh- there > > are > > > still people around who would answer "yes." On this site we've > > spent > > > plenty of time on Republicans spending like drunken Democrats, > > > nationalizing education, expanding entitlements, declaring the > > president > > > an absolute monarch, embracing Wilsonian foreign policy, and so > > on. The > > > latest just adds insult to injury. > > > > > > A lead story > > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/nyregion/19conn.html? > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/nyregion/19conn.html?> > > ex=1156132800&en=a6fa5639a3f76d54&ei=5087%0A> > > > in the New York Times is headlined, "G.O.P. Deserts One of Its Own > > for > > > Lieberman." Yes, Republicans are actually supporting the Sore > > Loserman > > > for reelection rather than their own nominee. More specifically, > > > Lieberman is being officially supported by Connecticut's three > > > Republican congressmen, Newt Gingrich, and William Kristol. The > > White > > > House and the Republican National Committee are "staying out of > > this > > > one." Gov. Jodi Rell and Sen. John McCain are endorsing "the > > Republican > > > nominee" but not campaigning for him. (His name is Alan > > Schlesinger, by > > > the way.) Sen. Norm Coleman says, "From America's perspective, it > > would > > > be a good thing for Joe Lieberman to be back in the Senate." > > > > > > And that's because Lieberman supports the good old Republican > > principles > > > of low taxes, less regulation, limited government, and a strong > > national > > > defense, right? > > > > > > Well, not quite. He does support President Bush's floundering war > > in > > > Iraq. But as Robert Novak pointed out > > > <http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak14.html > > <http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak14.html>>last > > week: > > > > > > Lieberman followed the liberal line in opposing oil drilling in > > > ANWR, Bush tax cuts, overtime pay reform, the energy bill, and > > bans > > > on partial-birth abortion and same-sex marriage. Similarly, he > > voted > > > in support of Roe vs. Wade and for banning assault weapons and > > > bunker buster bombs. His only two pro-Bush votes were to fund > > the > > > Iraq war and support missile defense (duplicating Sen. Hillary > > > Clinton's course on both). > > > > > > Lieberman's most recent ratings by the American Conservative > > Union > > > were 7 percent in 2003, zero in 2004 and 8 percent in 2005. > > > > > > I actually agree with him on a couple of those votes, though I > > wouldn't > > > expect that conservatives would. The National Taxpayers Union says > > > <http://www.ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2005.pdf > > <http://www.ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2005.pdf>> that he votes > > with > > > taxpayers 9 percent of the time, worse than Chris Dodd or Barbara > > Boxer. > > > > > > Only if you believe that continuing to support the war in Iraq > > outweighs > > > all other issues combined can a conservative reasonably support > > Joe > > > Lieberman. And apparently a lot of Republicans and conservatives > > are > > > willing to toss aside his commitment to high taxes, higher > > spending, > > > more regulation, and entitlement expansion in order to get that > > vote for > > > Bush's war. > > > > > > > > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/50836;_ylc=X3oDMTM0 b2NsOWVsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI0ODE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDA2MDY4MgRtc2 dJZAM1MDg0NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNTYyNTYyODAEdHBjSWQDNTA4 MzY-> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJvN2lpYWh2B F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI0ODE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDA2MDY4MgRtc2dJZAM1MDg 0NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExNTYyNTYyODA-? act=reply&messageNum=50847> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
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/
