This analysis is much too blithe, Tom, much too black and white. Does the following originate from a "libertarian" or a "conservative"?
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can." Regards, Allen Rice --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quoth Brian Holtz: > > > [Ron Paul]'s both [a conservative and a libertarian]. Deal with it. > > You've put your finger on the major danger of Ron Paul's candidacy. > > Conservatism and libertarianism are not the same thing. They are very > different, and mutually exclusive, political philosophies. Ron Paul > may be a conservative, or he may be a libertarian, but he isn't both > because it's not _possible_ to be both. > > Right now, Paul claims to be a conservative in nearly every public > statement in which he characterizes/labels his political philosophy. > He does assent to the term "libertarian" when it is shoved in his > face, and on an occasion or two has used it himself as effectively a > modifier to explain his perceived policy divergences with the > conservative movement, but he is still presenting himself as a > conservative. > > The libertarian movement is getting the worst possible representation > it could possibly get from Ron Paul. His presentation is geared to tar > the libertarian movement with his (bad) conservative positions, while > simultaneously undeservedly crediting the conservative movement with > his (good) libertarian positions. > > I take that back -- the libertarian movement isn't getting the worst > _possible_ representation it could get from Ron Paul. It could > conceivably be worse. But somehow I doubt that it will, e.g. that > anyone will come up with credible evidence tying him to the > Tate-LaBianca murders or the assassination of JFK. > > Tom Knapp >
