Is admiring Sen. McCarthy very Libertarian?

[John Dibble]

I said that to draw attention basically.  Dwdl may be downright stupid, but aside from a few pet issues, I would call him libertarian.

I wouldn't call the belief that only member of one particular religion should be able to hold poltical office as a pet issue. Such a belief goes more towads the core of one's beliefs. Just because there's similarities doesn't make the two beliefs the same thing. Do you consider the Constitution Party to be libertarian?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which doesn't necessarily mean I'm not a libertarian. I don't support the initiation of force, or at least not without solid evidence that the other party is actually going to initiate it. If your neighbor is being robbed, do you do nothing or do you intervene?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Idiots are a problem, and they're one of the reasons government is a problem. Government isn't some autonomous entity - it's an organization run by people. The primary problems with the people running the government are corruption and idiocy. If it weren't for that and a few other things government wouldn't be a problem.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." - James Madison, Federalist No. 51

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uhm, so? Of course while I wouldn't mind him winning at all, frankly I don't seem him as having a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning. I'd rather put my time and energy into libertarian pursuits that actually have a chance of success.

[SPC]

I'd rather put my time and energy into libertarian pursuits that actually have a chance of success.

Such as.........?

There was one point where I was reluctant to support Paul because he had no chance at winning. Then I realized, "What's the point at not supporting a cause you believe in just because it is very unlikely to succeed?" Call me crazy, but I think that there's a slim chance that if the Iraq becomes so extremely unpopular, even most Republicans want to end it, Paul could conceivably win the nomination and the general election. I think it's about a 1/150 chance of happening. Libertarianism is very unlikely to have any chance at sucess, so I think there's no reason a libertarian shouldn't support Paul. I'm not saying MaC is right, in that DWTL is a libertarian and you're not, but I think that to be a libertarian and not endorse Paul is meaningless.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd rather put my time and energy into libertarian pursuits that actually have a chance of success.

Such as.........?

There was one point where I was reluctant to support Paul because he had no chance at winning. Then I realized, "What's the point at not supporting a cause you believe in just because it is very unlikely to succeed?" Call me crazy, but I think that there's a slim chance that if the Iraq becomes so extremely unpopular, even most Republicans want to end it, Paul could conceivably win the nomination and the general election. I think it's about a 1/150 chance of happening. Libertarianism is very unlikely to have any chance at sucess, so I think there's no reason a libertarian shouldn't support Paul. I'm not saying MaC is right, in that DWTL is a libertarian and you're not, but I think that to be a libertarian and not endorse Paul is meaningless.

You should support Paul anyway, because there's no other candidate for the GOP nomination who comes close to matching Libertarian views.

[MaC]

I said that to draw attention basically.  Dwdl may be downright stupid, but aside from a few pet issues, I would call him libertarian.

I wouldn't call the belief that only member of one particular religion should be able to hold poltical office as a pet issue. Such a belief goes more towads the core of one's beliefs. Just because there's similarities doesn't make the two beliefs the same thing. Do you consider the Constitution Party to be libertarian?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which doesn't necessarily mean I'm not a libertarian. I don't support the initiation of force, or at least not without solid evidence that the other party is actually going to initiate it. If your neighbor is being robbed, do you do nothing or do you intervene?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Idiots are a problem, and they're one of the reasons government is a problem. Government isn't some autonomous entity - it's an organization run by people. The primary problems with the people running the government are corruption and idiocy. If it weren't for that and a few other things government wouldn't be a problem.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." - James Madison, Federalist No. 51

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uhm, so? Of course while I wouldn't mind him winning at all, frankly I don't seem him as having a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning. I'd rather put my time and energy into libertarian pursuits that actually have a chance of success.

Here's some things.  Idiots will reign supreme regardless.  The best thing to do is blame people who use initiation of force; for what they're doing is morally wrong.  The best thing we can do to prevent idiots from having too much power over our lives is to make a small government.  Making a 'small-er' government doesn't work-it just grows back (remember the Reagan 80s?)  I mean any shrinkage is nice, but government is like a tumor.  Yeah, you can treat it and cut it off, but it'll grow back unless you seriously reorganize some major problems.  This is why despite you're claim that "extremism" (or principle) will never work, it's the only way to go about solving the problem for the long run. 

Let's put that "you wouldn't help your neighbor" analogy to rest.  I would never put myself in harms way to help my neighbor.  I would not loan money to my neighbor.  I may help my neighbor if they specifically ask for assistence in talking about their problems or if they wanted an arbitor in a dispute.  And this is what the United States foreign policy should be.  Should we loan money to other nations? No.  Nothing should say that we forbid trade, however.  Should we give military assistence to other countries? No.  And we should not support any rebellions or uprisings militarily.  Now if there was a dispute that two countries had, we should help if they specifically ask for it and we should try to offer a solution.  Should we enforce this solution? No.  This says that we should be the authority on disputes, which is downright arrogant.  Now if for any reason a group of individual citizens want to save Darfur there should be no reason why people from our country should not be allowed to go over to there to do what they will.  Keep the government out of these situations.  Who are we to say that the world should act one way by forcing ideals upon others.  Rather, we should lead the world by example.  Free trade, helping diplomatically, and so forth.  If this were American policy, most hatred for America would disappear.

[John Dibble]

I'd rather put my time and energy into libertarian pursuits that actually have a chance of success.

Such as.........?

Well, I support the Libertarian Reform Caucus - probably the best chance to turn the LP into a viable political force. Also, I'd support libertarian candidates (regardless of party) in races they could win. For instance in races where only one of the major parties are competing. Don't get me wrong - I support Paul's candidacy, but I'm not going to invest alot of energy into it unless I think it's viable. As human beings we each have limited time and resources, so I'd prefer to use mine as best as I can.

Here's some things.  Idiots will reign supreme regardless.  The best thing to do is blame people who use initiation of force; for what they're doing is morally wrong.  The best thing we can do to prevent idiots from having too much power over our lives is to make a small government.

I don't disagree with this. Problem is that making a small government in this country isn't going to happen overnight, especially in today's political climate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you act like government is a tumor, there's only one real way to remove it - violent rebellion. Yes, even in democracy. You aren't likely to affect radical change immediately without violence, or some situation so extreme that it makes enough people realize what action is needed. (we don't have such a situation right now) I feel it is better to view government as an overgrown shrub in your yard. You don't want to get rid of the shrub outright, but you need to make it the right size. To do this you need to trim gradually - trim too much at a time and the shrub dies. Of course government wouldn't die, but you'd almost certainly get a backlash against your movement that would undo all your hard work. The same goes with grown and government - we didn't get where we are overnight. Most of the growth was gradual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're friends with your neighbor, you might. If your neighbor is a woman and she's being raped and beaten, you might. I could think of a plethora of other situations where you might. And frankly, if you really never would, it doesn't speak much to your qualities as a human being.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't really disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That depends. If we had helped the countries invaded by Germany in WWII before Germany gained too much strength, a lot of death may have been avoided. When one nation invades another for the sake of conquest, that nation should be considered dangerous - give them enough time and they may get what they need to invade us. Remember, unlike the days of the founding fathers the oceans do not protect us as much as they once did. Enemy troops don't take six months to cross the Atlantic, they can take only weeks or even days. If my neighbor was being robbed and I felt the criminal was coming to my place next, I'd rather take him on when I knew where he was, not when he's on my doorstep.

[SPC]

I'd rather put my time and energy into libertarian pursuits that actually have a chance of success.

Such as.........?

Well, I support the Libertarian Reform Caucus - probably the best chance to turn the LP into a viable political force. Also, I'd support libertarian candidates (regardless of party) in races they could win. For instance in races where only one of the major parties are competing. Don't get me wrong - I support Paul's candidacy, but I'm not going to invest alot of energy into it unless I think it's viable. As human beings we each have limited time and resources, so I'd prefer to use mine as best as I can.

I see. To be honest, I haven't really done any campaigning for him either.