Monthly Archives: May 2007

Kicking Libertarians Out Of The GOP

Election '08, Politics

Over at Real Clear Politics, Jay Cost argues that Ron Paul should be excluded from the Republican Presidential Debates not because of what he said about foreign policy, but because he’s a libertarian:

I think Paul should be excluded because he is only a nominal Republican. He remains in the Republican Party because he caucuses with the GOP in the House and runs as its nominee in Texas’ Fourteenth District. If Republican leaders were not so risk averse, I assure you they would do everything they could to remove him in the next election (the last time they tried that was 1998). Paul’s seat is a safe seat for the GOP right now. A primary challenge would be messy in that (a) it might induce an internecine war among Republicans in the district (imagine allies of Paul abstaining in the general, or worse working for the Democrats, or even worse Paul winning the fight and then cutting a deal with the Democrats in the 111th Congress), and (b) it might induce a quality Democratic challenger to enter the race. Paul caucuses with the Republican Party, and that first vote every term is worth enough to GOP leaders to tolerate his presence.

But Paul is not really a “libertarian-leaning Republican.” He is a libertarian. It is hard to pick up this distinction in these debates. Libertarians and Republicans have seeming similarities in their desires to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. But it would be a mistake to think that the differences are only quantitative. They are also qualitative. It is not simply that Paul would cut more excess than, say, Jeff Flake. It is that Paul, as a libertarian, has a very different view of what excess is

Different than who ? Different than a Senator from Arizona who thinks that it’s appropriate to stifle political speech ? Different than a House Leadership that presided over increased spending at a pace that rivaled LBJ’s great society ? Different than a President who ignores the Constitutions limits on the Executive Branch on a regular basis ?

Apparently, and apparently this is the new Republican Party. No longer the party of the man who warned that the government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. Heck, no longer even the party of Barry Goldwater. And, it would seem, a place where it is increasingly difficult for those of us who believe in limited government and individual liberty — but who find the Libertarian Party a waste of time — to find a home.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Ron Paul On Tucker Carlson On Foreign Policy

Election '08, Foreign Affairs, Politics, War on Terror

Ron Paul appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show a few hours before the MSNBC debate on May 3rd and actually got a chance to explain his views on foreign policy without having to worry about stupid 30, 60, or 90 second time limits, or being shouted down by a loud-mouth from the Bronx:

Frankly, I don’t see what anyone who believes in limited government and the Constitution would find objectionable in what he said.

H/T: Lew Rockwell

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

More on the Fair Tax II

General

Thanks to the handful who wrote rebuttals to my previous post with arguments of their own. If I understood correctly, they boil down to the following counterarguments:

1) Your fears are not based on the proposed legislation, but rather on what might happen.

I am pretty confident in my predictions, in that they fit public choice theory. If one looks at the actual history of government, one sees politicians repeatedly breaking down limits on their power and finding new ways to reward their cronies. I think the rise of the income tax itself is quite instructive; it was originally conceived as a method to shift the tax-burden away from the poor by reducing consumption taxes. Its originators claimed that it would tax only the ultra-rich and the rates would never rise above 8% or so. However, when in World War I the tax revenue from imports collapsed, the U.S. government wasted no time in exploiting this new source of revenue.

2) Politicians won’t bring back the income tax. It will be easier simply to raise the consumption tax rates

Ah yes, but what if we have another depression? When the economy is contracting (and the current monetary system ensures that we will continue having booms and busts into the forseeable future), people curtail their spending, either by buying used goods, or by doing without. Guess what that would do to government revenues? ;)

3) The fair tax expands the tax base.

This, to me, is not a point in its favor. Making it easier for the government to comandeer additional resources away from genuine consumer wants leaves us all worse off, and I say this as a small-businessman who is really being screwed by the current regime. To those not familiar with my political views, I am an anarchist. Even if the taxes levied by government amounted to one penny levied on some poor soul by lot, I would be railing against the high taxes.

4) Coward! At least we are not giving up! You must be one of them French Surrender Monkeys!

I really get irritated by this argument. First, it assumes that it’s either the Fair Tax or nothing. This is a false dichotomy. I think the Fair Tax will make things worse. That statement does not imply that I think the current system is good, or that I think we should just surrender and give up. Hell, you could really shake things up simply by ending payroll withholding and requiring people to pay their income taxes quarterly.

5) What do you mean people don’t care! Everyone I talk to loves the idea!

That’s wonderful, but completely beside the point. My point is that people don’t care about the total amount of taxes they or their neighbors pay. They may want the burden to be distributed more “fairly”. However they are quite comfortable with the size of the burden.

6) The Fair Tax is a great idea because it encourages savings.

I actually agree with this. I think it is one of the strongest things going for it, especially since it is savings that fuel economic growth.

tarran
I am an anarcho-capitalist living just west of Boston Massachussetts. I am married, have two children, and am trying to start my own computer consulting company.
https://thelibertypapers.org/author/tarran/

Explaining The Reaction To Ron Paul

Election '08, Foreign Affairs, Politics, War on Terror

At TCS Daily, Gregory Scoblete tries to understand why conservatives freaked out so much over Ron Paul’s remarks about the links between American foreign policy and September 11th:

I believe it’s because many conservatives, especially since 9/11, have become increasingly unwilling to internalize the simple maxim that government actions have consequences – many of them unintended, some of them negative. Conservatives are rightly skeptical of grand government initiatives aimed at curing various domestic ills. Yet some have become convinced that the same bureaucrats who cannot balance the budget will nonetheless be able to deftly manage the political outcomes of nations half a world away. The tendency is so acute that it led the libertarian blogger Jim Henley to wryly observe that for some “Hayek stops at the water’s edge.”

Furthermore, understanding why bin Laden struck at America is not the same as excusing the murderers of 9/11 anymore than observing that Hitler desired Lebensraum excuses his invasion of Poland. Knowing your enemy is the all-important first step to defeating him.

Indeed, Paul has done the debate a fundamental service by raising the complex issues of cost and benefit when it comes to America’s Middle East policy. You can argue, as former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski did, that a few “stirred up Muslims” was worth the price of driving a defeated Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. You can also argue, as the Bush administration has done, that 9/11 was not a serious enough event to merit a substantial rethinking of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. You can even claim that more, not less, intervention in the Middle East is what is required to bring about needed change.

What you cannot seriously argue is that the world is a “consequence free” zone in which U.S. actions can never catalyze harmful reactions.

For me, this is what I agree with in the remarks that have aroused such controversy here and elsewhere.

It’s simply absurd to argue that the actions that the United States has taken in the Middle East — starting with things such as the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 in favor of a hereditary monarch who tortured his opponents — have been without consequence. Justifiably or not, these actions have created a not insubstantial portion of the Arab/Muslim population that resents the United States and sees us as a force for evil rather than a force for good.

More recently, we went to war in Iraq for reasons that later turned out to be based on faulty intelligence and did so without a plan for what we would do there after we won. The result was the creation of chaos and the rise of an insurgency that is targeting the Iraqi people as much as it is targeting American soldiers. More importantly, whereas there was no evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda prior to 2003, it is now fairly evidence that Iraq is one of al Qaeda’s primary sources of recruitment and the battlefield on which it has chosen to fight it’s next battle.

That, quite frankly, is our fault. » Read more

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Ron Paul, The Republicans, and the “Hidden Support”

Election '08, Politics

Doctrinaire Libertarians always assume that:

1. They are right, without question (after all, their perfect doctrinal system says so).

2. It is so obvious and intuitive that they are right, that there must be a huge but silent majority that agree with them entirely.

Thus, their anointed representative in the Republican party MUST have huge reserves of previously unseen support, the polls are inaccurate, they aren’t measuring all the libertarians, he’s ready for a surge blah blah blah.

Ron Paul never had anything more than a snowballs chance in hell. I agree with him on most things, but his stance on 9/11 and the war alone put him (and almost every other doctrinaire Libertarian) into the “would vote for McCain first” zone.

For anyone who knows me, that is as stinging a rebuke as I could possibly give without resorting to vulgarity; or invoking a Clinton.

Let me make this even clearer. I like Paul, I respect him, I agree with him on far more issues than any other candidate; BUT FOR HIS POSITIONS ON THE WAR AND 9/11 ALONE, I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM.

Do you know how many MILLIONS of people out there feel exactly the same way?

Funny enough, unlike the phantom Paul supporters, those people aren’t hidden; they’re the ones campaigning for Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson… or misguidedly supporting Romney because they think that somehow he’s electable and at least better than McCain or Rudy.

I can’t stomach Paul for president AND I’M A LIBERTARIAN FOR GODS SAKE. I MIGHT vote for him over Hillary; but I’m more likely not to vote in such a contest.

Does this not put any lights on over anybodies heads?

The support you seem to believe is there?

It isn’t.

The agreement you seem so sure is there?

It isn’t.

The surge you seem to think he’s going to make…

Do the math.

Chris Byrne
I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com
1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 22