Will The Real Republican Party Please Stand Up?

Most readers know me as a political partisan, a 'capital L' Libertarian. While I love the Libertarian Party, I love liberty more, and really couldn't care less which party gets the job of moving policy in a liberty direction done.

I've found it interesting over the years, that liberals and conservatives alike tend to try to push me to the Republican party. Why liberals concede that the Democratic Party is not the home for one who loves liberty is beyond me. But, another topic for another day.

Today is the day of the Iowa caucuses for the Republican Party. Today is the day we find out if, in Iowa, the Republican Party will embrace liberty in the form of Ron Paul, or if it will embrace one of the various authoritarian strains of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney.

Many leaders in the Indiana Republican Party, at various levels, have tried to get me into their tent. My belief is that they really just want to plow me under, to disappear me within their organization- as they have done over the years with several former Libertarians. Can't name a one elected to anything as a Liberty Caucus Republican in Indiana.

The rationale, I'm endlessly told, is that more can be done by working within the Republican Party. Bigger stage, better chance of electability, etc. But I've never seen proof that liberty has been embraced by Indiana Republicans. Lip service? Oh, yes. Acts? No sir or ma'am.

There is truth to the rationale, though. Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988, and barely made a noise on the national level. Running in 2008, he won over a dedicated national following, and here in 2012, he is on the cusp of actually winning Iowa today. If he does win, this causes me to take serious notice- for the implications for his campaign, and for the place of liberty in the Republican Party, as well as the place of the Libertarian Party.

As I said, I don't really care which party carries the pro-liberty candidates. I will back them. If Ron Paul is winning caucuses and the primary elections, I have to be with him as far as he runs. The longer he is viable, the longer the message of liberty is in the media and on people's minds, and if he wins the GOP nomination, he could become president of the United States. I can't ignore that.

So, my first glance will be towards the vote totals. My second will be to the reaction of the Republican leadership in Iowa and nationally. They already hinted that they would ignore Iowa's results if Ron Paul wins.

Now, my Republican friends. If I'm supposed to seriously consider a move to the Republican Party, you just have to show me better faith than that. Ron Paul has been treated like garbage by GOP leadership for roughly the last 5 years. Is this any way to lure people to your party?

So, I'm watching to see what the real Republican Party looks like. Go, Ron Paul!

Libertarian Takes On Occupy Wall Street

I've previously mentioned the common ground I believe libertarians can hold with left and right alike on Occupy Wall Street. Mainly, the bailouts to financial institutions were not just. If we just keep it right there, we can get along. If we start shading it, the coalition that would be falls apart- fast.

I really like what Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle had to say about OWS and crony capitalism, in a recent press statement:

"It's true that 99% of Americans do not enjoy the special benefits of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is very different from real capitalism. In crony capitalism, government hands out special favors and protections to politically well-connected businesses.

"The TARP bailouts, Solyndra, and the military-industrial complex are all facets of crony capitalism.

"Libertarians love free markets and hate crony capitalism.

"Unfortunately, hypocritical Republican politicians have taught a lot of Americans to think that 'free markets' means freedom for government and big business to engage in crony capitalism.

"That's not what free markets are. A free market is where the government leaves businesses alone, does not attempt to pick winners and losers, does not stifle competition, does not hand out corporate welfare, and does not absolve businesses of liability for their actions. Most of our economy today does not resemble a free market at all.

I would be interested in seeing an OWS reaction to this statement. Can people on the left agree and draw the distinction between actual capitalism and crony capitalism? Can the left agree that corruption is dependent upon crony capitalism, or do they actually like crony capitalism- so long as the winners chosen are ones they favor, such as green business?

For that matter, can the right see the same distinctions? Can they shed crony capitalism when the chosen winners are military suppliers?

Doug Masson has some similar ponderings today:

It’s always seemed to me that the corporate form should be anathema to Libertarians. It’s a government construct that exists for the purpose of evading personal responsibility.

I quite agree. It's interesting to see some libertarians and folks on the right who love all things business, and should equally cherish self-responsibility, overlook the latter in embracing corporations, merely because corporations are business entities. Business in and of itself is not the same thing as free enterprise.

We all have blind spots. These are the days when it would be a great idea to self-examine and find those blind spots, and acknowledge them. We end up with shitty solutions when we're full of shit.

Bigot, Here's Your Sign. It's a Mirror

A friend forwarded an article to me to ask what I made of it.

What I make of it is a pretty standard smear of a quasi-libertarian by one on the left. Observe:

To my great chagrin no one in the national media has picked up the Bodineism meme, but they are starting to get the picture that there are some elected officials, particularly Republican elected officials, are about as dumb as sack of hammers.

The particular Jethro that I am talking about today is Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Of all the folks that I have compared to Jethro Bodine, Sen. Paul is probably the closet to the mark. By all accounts he is a pretty genial guy with a good smile and a nice manner. He is also so clueless as to be a text book (given that all books are printed in text, wouldn’t that make them all text books?) example of self-satire.

I had to look up 'Jethro Bodine'. Ah- the Beverly Hillbillies! Well!

I find it very interesting that the left too often loves to use 'hillbilly' as a put-down. Substitute the 'n-word', and what would the leftist's howling reaction be? But somehow, this is ok. Same method and damaged 'thinking', whereby it's ok and har-har funny to generalize a group of people into a stereotype, and then denigrate away.

So, I don't put much stock personally into these kinds of smears. I tend to dismiss out of hand and stop reading as soon as I identify the bigoted smear. But my friend asked for my take.

Upon further reading, it has the other component of these smears against Rand or Ron Paul- "Oh, he isn't libertarian enough for the libertarians". It's an attempt to create cognitive dissonance and mistrust among those who support Rand Paul on the basis of pro-liberty sentiment.

There's something ironic in a guy trying to cause cognitive dissonance on inconsistency and hypocrisy, when he engages in it himself with his put-down. So, again, I normally dismiss out of hand.

The poor guy just doesn't understand libertarians. We constantly evaluate our 'exemplars'. Nobody will hold them accountable faster than we do on the finer points. On the other hand, he isn't my exemplar. He's a Republican, and we have our differences. I'd still take 10 Rand Pauls over 10 Harry Reids, or even 10 Dick Lugars.

To his point?

Most recently Sen. Paul (gods greater and lesser that gives me chills just writing it, ugh) has managed to trample the 1st Amendment with his “ideas”. Some of us on the Left side of the Blogasphere were more than a little happy that he was holding up the PATRIOT act renewal, by wanting to insert some amendments that would lessen the ability of the government to spy on its own citizens.

That was a good thing, but it does not mean that he was doing it from a deep understanding of the Constitution. You see after his ploy failed he went on Sean “The Manatee” Hannity’s radio show and said the following:

I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.

Peel your palm off of your face. Yes, Sen. Paul, a man sworn to uphold the Constitution, just like every other elected official, seems to have an abject failure to understand the meaning, intent and workings of the 1st Amendment.

To say that Paul has an abject lack of knowledge is absurd. I think he's wrong here, patently. Does it make him wrong on everything else, as the word abject suggests? Well, the writer already acknowledged the value Senator Paul brought in stalling the Patriot Act.

Rand Paul is a politician that I have some admiration for. I don't agree with everything anybody stands for. I accept that there are going to be differences, even sharp ones, within the context of a greater agreement. Really, there are less than 10 in the whole Congress that I think of myself have some broad agreement with, and yes Rand Paul, and his father, are among them. Perfect? No. Better than the others? You bet.

I'd like to know how this writer treats politicians on the left? Does he eliminate them completely if he disagrees with them on a single point? Because if he does, he likes even fewer members of Congress than I do. Approximately, zero.

Physician, heal thyself!

The Grown-Ups In The Room

I've been watching the debates for Congress across Indiana and one thing keeps striking me: The Republicans and Democrats sling mud at each other and dance around the questions, and the Libertarians are the grown-ups in the room. From Indiana Public Media, on the first US Senate debate:

Both Democrat Brad Ellsworth and Republican Dan Coats were on the offensive during last night’s Senate debate in Indianapolis… while Libertarian Rebecca Sink-Burris remained more focused on questions and responses.

Absolutely, I'm going to prefer the Libertarian candidate's answers 95 times out of 100, and Rebecca is a friend. But the glaring difference in demeanor gets me. I can understand the Democrats going negative. They're trailing in the polls by and large. I don't get the Republicans taking the bait. When you're in the lead, you dismiss the negativity and go on about what you're about. For all the money these guys spend on their campaigns, precious little goes towards training and solid advice.

But hey, their idiocy is our gain. I love the coverage Scott Wise got on a Fort Wayne TV station along these lines:



Rebecca Sink-Burris will debate two more times with fellow candidates for US Senate. Well, she will debate. The others will sling mud. I hope she tells them to knock it off and behave.

Fri Oct 22, at Fort Wayne
Mon Oct 25, at Vincennes

These should be widely televised again. If you missed the first US Senate debate, see it by clicking here.

Hamilton County Libertarian Meet-Up

Our Meet-Up group meets the first Thursday of every month. Come join us tomorrow in Noblesville! The discussion is informal, the food & beer is delicious, and our group is growing each month.

Thursday, June 4, 2009
Barley Island, Noblesville
7pm - ?

RSVP here, if you plan to come. It helps us allow Barley Island how many people to expect. They are dedicating a server to our group, since we slammed them last time.

We can talk about anything, although the GM bailout and the Indiana budget are bound to be hot topics. See you there!

Tea Party? Count Me In!

I will be participating in the Indianapolis Tea Party, proudly. Sure, the message isn't about 'taxation without representation' as it was in Boston back in 1773, but the spirit seems the same to me. It's about justice.

The Colonists objected because they lacked a literal voice in government and in the taxes that affected them, because it was unjust that they shouldn't have a voice. Tax protesters are up in arms primarily about the bailouts, started with the Bush Administration, and continued by the Obama Administration.

My position is that it is unjust to transfer wealth to private corporations, or individual citizens, to relieve them from the predictable outcomes of their bad decisions and often fraudulent actions.

I don't believe it was just that a single penny was sent to AIG, or Bank of America, or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or to any mortgage holder. I do not want to see the Capital Improvement Board bailed out in Marion County, either.

It was wrong to wantonly print money in order to give it largely to politically connected friends, calling it 'stimulus'. It was unjust to devalue our currency this way when the Bush Administration did it, and unjust again when the Obama Administration did. It doesn't work, besides.

In sum, democracy can be a real sham on freedom when some citizens are declared losers by a majority of representatives, and others winners. It's worse than taxation without representation, because you want to have faith that your representative is one who defends you, rather than sells you out to some corporate interest that contributed mightily to his campaign warchest. As the Franklin quote goes, 'Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner,' yet that's exactly where we are. Representatives gather to decide who should have his pocket picked, for the benefit of another.

That should make any decent person mad as hell. Hence, a protest.

There are a few lessons that seem to have been learned from the 'Revolt at the Statehouse' from a couple weeks back, where the result was diffuse, and the Libertarians were singled out for mockery. I like these items from the Indianapolis Tea Party website:

RULES FOR A PEACEFUL PROTEST
NO STICKS ON SIGNS (Statehouse Grounds rule)
No violence, no racism, no law-breaking
Absolutely no obscene words or gestures
Treat Law Enforcement Officers with respect
Do not block sidewalks and streets with your bodies or signs
Avoid conflicts and any physical contact with any opponents. Our 1st Ammendment Rights are their rights, too
Take the high road....be CIVIL at all times

SIGN IDEAS

FRIENDLY REMINDER:
Stick to the point and stay on message! No abortion, marriage issues, or Obama bashing signs. We need to come across united and focused
Use black, red, or dark blue markers for visibility
Anticipate the adversary’s tactics and create a few counter-point slogans

These are the kinds of things protesters at large economic summits could learn a thing or two about. Seattle and Quebec come to mind. And, even though I agreed with their basic position, Iraq anti-war protesters have often lost me on some of their messages. I'm glad to see an admonition not to attack President Obama. The important thing is to focus on policy, not people. (More on that later.)

What Would A Libertarian Do?

President Obama really alienated me last night with his press conference/sales pitch for the 'stimulus' package, going out of his way to single out people who would prefer we did little or nothing in terms of government intervention. This had to be a jab at libertarians, because Republicans had made an Exhibit 'A' case for their brand of economic interventions and 'stimulus', especially in the first 6 years of the Bush Administration.

When is it better to do nothing? When the 'solution' is worse than the malady. In the words of Harvard's Jeffrey A. Miron, via CNN:

When libertarians question the merit of President Obama's stimulus package, a frequent rejoinder is, "Well, we have to do something." This is hardly a persuasive response. If the cure is worse than the disease, it is better to live with the disease.

In any case, libertarians do not argue for doing nothing; rather, they advocate eliminating or adjusting policies that are bad for the economy independent of the recession.

Biron's actions would include the following:

1. Repeal the Corporate Income Tax
2. Increase Carbon Taxes While Lowering Marginal Tax Rates
3. Moderate the Growth of Entitlements
4. Eliminate Wasteful Spending
5. Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan
6. Limit Union Power
7. Renew the U.S. Commitment to Free Trade
8. Expand Legal Immigration
9. Stop Bailing out Businesses that Took on Too Much Risk

That's hardly a list of 'do nothing', in any case.

American leadership has gotten positively batty with overreactions and crisis. In this sense, Obama is a real continuum from Bush.

Is it bad out there? Sure, it's bad. Is the solution the same as taking all the money and going to Vegas and putting it all on 'red'? No, but it isn't far off, either.

When Idealism Becomes Realism

Many of the things that have come home to roost lately are things libertarians have been warning against for years. Back then, it was the stuff of conspiracy, of loony tinfoil hat wearing eggheads, studying things that looked like such minutiae in the glory days of the 90s bubble.

So, let's look at some of the things that we are doing now, and consider that we were right on our predictions then, so we might just have a grasp on what to expect with what is being done now. We looked idealistic then. Applying our principles now would be a good, necessary dose of realism.

The bailouts are a disaster. It is said that these businesses being propped up are too big to fail, or too important to just stand back and do nothing about. So, our federal government, with bi-partisan Republican and Democratic support, is giving them money.

If the problem is that President Bush approved budgets submitted by Congresses that had majorities from each party that were characterized by deficit spending, and much of our economic distress can be traced to our deficit, does it make sense to expand or contract the size of government, and therefore the cost of the government?

If the problem in lending is that lenders made bad, greedy decisions in making certain loans, which would correct the problem most swiftly? Letting them fail on the outcome of those decisions, or rewarding them?

If the problem is that borrowers took loans that they had no hope of repaying, or put them in a situation that they were one hiccup from foreclosure, which would correct the problem most swiftly and make sure it doesn't happen again? Letting them fail on the outcome of having extended themselves dangerously, or forgiving that behavior?

If the problem is that some automakers have legacy costs so severe that they cannot compete with others, will they be inclined to address their legacy cost issues if they are flush with cash, or if they are on a tight budget?

If the problem is that companies' executives lavish themselves with outlandish compensation packages, will that problem be best corrected by giving the companies free money, or if they have just enough to continue operations?

We can look at some local issues, too.

If the problem is that citizens of Indianapolis feel unsafe because of violent crime in the city, will they feel safer if they, as law abiding citizens, are stripped of their guns? Or, will they simply move out of Indianapolis for the suburbs, leaving the criminals who are not inclined to follow the law to remain, making the city even more violent and criminal?

If the problem is that employers leave the city for a rural area because of high taxes, will more businesses stay or leave if taxes are raised?

How is additional regulation supposed to fix these problems? Why are we putting our faith in more government? Americans have looked to the past for clues, and are convinced that we 'did nothing' about the problems that led to the stock market crash of 1929, and therefore created the Great Depression. Whatever the merit to that argument, it does not correspond to today's situation, where doing nothing would be exactly the right tonic for bad lenders, bad borrowers, and bad business leaders. It would be corrective, and instructive. It would also be just.

I cannot think of anything more unjust than what we are doing right now- taking from everyone to reward failure. It's just as wrong as wrong can be. It's wrong from an idealistic standpoint, and from a realistic standpoint.

Well, maybe we could do something. Our leaders could be leaders, and send the right signals to the people, by browbeating all these groups in public forums.

Libertarians On Palin

(Fishers, IN)- Now, for the libertarian take on Sarah Palin. My own is that this was a cynical ploy by McCain, simply selecting due to identity politics. I don't care about identity. I care about policy. So, from that standpoint, it's unlikely to be a great pick, and that says something to me about McCain and his 'leadership' and executive methodology.

From Cato-At-Liberty:

Comparing her experience to Biden borders on ridiculous. Since when do libertarians find encouragement in government, much less someone who has spent 36 years in Washington funding programs like Amtrak and prosecuting the drug war? Link.

And, in another post:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has a mixed record on taxes and spending. She’s clearly erred on a few fiscal decisions during her tenure as mayor of Wasilla and as governor. Palin seems to operate from a small government mindset, which makes her few heresies on economic issues puzzling.

Palin has come under fire for supporting the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Ketchikan before she was against it. Aides said the cost of the bridge soared from $223 million to almost $400 million, prompting her to consider alternatives. Link.

From Radley Balko:

By far the best thing Palin’s done thus far is get the usual suspects to don the others’ clothes. That is, the left’s screaming “affirmative action!” while the right’s screaming “sexism!” And both are doing it with a straight face. Makes it fun to be a libertarian.

and

Yes, Palin’s political resume is thin. That’s a plus in my book. “Experience” tends to mean “knows the ways of Washington,” which generally means more of the same old crap. If David Broder has praised you in one of his columns, you’re probably part of the problem. Frankly, I wish Obama had picked someone less “experienced” than Joe Biden, a guy that embodies everything loathesome about Washington. I also like that Palin’s not a career politician, and doesn’t genuflect before powerful interests. On the other hand, it doesn’t bode well that she has a history of also applying that same kick-ass-and-take-names style of governance to, for example, trying to ban books from the public library that she finds offensive.

From Reason's Matt Welch:

Sarah Palin is many interesting things, but she is decidedly not anyone who has done a single thing in her life indicating preparation to lead any kind of "transcendent" foreign policy challenge. In an election that will be fought over the issue of war, where McCain has noisily accused Barack Obama of putting politics before country on the issue of most import, it is McCain who is guilty of just that charge with the selection of perhaps the least-qualified candidate for vice-commander in chief in modern U.S. history. Choosing Palin makes for potentially great politics, but it makes a mockery of McCain's claim to be the national security adult in this race, especially considering that if he's elected, he'll be the oldest first-term president in American history.

Would John McCain, a genuine American hero, place his own political ambitions ahead of the good of the country? Indeed he has, at least according to an authority as knowledgeable on the subject as John McCain. In all five of his books he repeatedly warns us of precisely that tendency. "The worst decisions I have made, not just in politics but over the course of my entire life," he writes in Hard Call, "have been those I made to seek an advantage primarily or solely for myself."

There was initial excitement for some libertarians (not me), as Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA, but the more we learn, the more we find that she's a Republican, and not a Libertarian, for meaningful reasons. The commitment to smaller government only goes so far.

Intellectual Dishonesty

I can't stand it when libertarians are linked with George W. Bush, lumped together as fiscal conservatives. George W. Bush is not a fiscal conservative. He is a borrow & spend fiscal liberal. No president has increased spending at a faster rate than George W. Bush- not FDR, not LBJ, no one.

So the post on the blog Balloon Juice, "Fiscal Conservatism, Part Two" made me go to the garage to hammer the heavy bag for a few minutes.

The Bush economic record is a disaster, for taking a surplus and turning into a monstrous deficit. It was due to spending into a tax cut.

That's where the intellectual dishonesty comes in- blaming the tax cut while putting the blinders on for the increased spending Bush signed into law.

Libertarians, who are fiscal conservatives, have been beating up Republicans for their out-of-control spending for the better part of the 8-year Bush Administration. He didn't use his veto pen for a single appropriations bill while the Republicans had control of Congress. I must have had 20 posts on the subject by myself.

I thought people on the right were suckers for accepting this batch of Republicans as fiscal conservatives. But that people on the left apparently also accept them as such indicates to me that nobody really has a grasp of what a fiscal conservative stands for. Either that, or there is widespread engagement in intellectual dishonesty.

So, allow me to fill the breach.

Fiscal conservative: lower taxes, lower spending
Fiscal liberal, tax & spend variety: higher taxes, higher spending
Fiscal liberal, borrow & spend variety: lower taxes, higher spending, higher borrowing, higher taxes tomorrow

George W. Bush, the Republican leadership of the 108th and 109th Congress- all are of the latter stripe. Libertarians having nothing to do with that.

By the way, now that the 110th Congress is in power, and writes the law, including the budget, it could aggressively attack the deficit by cutting spending. But that's something it is unwilling to consider. To Democrats, the only way to balance a budget bloated by spending is to tax more.

More than one way to skin a cat, folks. Cutting spending balances the budget, too.

If Democrats don't know where to start, allow this Libertarian to give you some hints:

Iraq
Iraq
Iraq

and, Iraq. At least live up to your rhetoric- even if Bush didn't live up to his on fiscal conservatism.

Old Kole posts on Republican spending, at various levels of government:

1-14-2006
9-29-2005
7-10-2005
6-29-2005
3-22-2005
1-18-2005

And, last but not least, here is my post from November 28, 2004. It was printed as a column in a few Indiana newspapers. It was a post-election analysis, on the Republican sweep, both nationally and here in Indiana. I warned fiscal conservatives that they would not be happy with the result of electing Republicans, hoping for spending cuts.

But, behind some of the grins, there is a group within the broad spectrum of conservatives that is gritting its clenched teeth behind a half-hearted smile. While excited for the possibilities Republican majorities bring, this group shares a great deal of the anxiety liberals have in anticipation of the first wave of new policy that will soon greet us. This group is the fiscal conservatives.

It was not a series of referendums on capping budgetary growth that swept George W. Bush to re-election. It was a series of referendums on gay marriage.

snip

If Republicans won't do the job of reducing spending this year, with their majorities at home and in Washington, fiscal conservatives will know that it is time to look for a new political home. They will have no choice but to conclude that if spending won't be cut this year, it never will so long as Republicans are in charge.

Republicans didn't cut a thing. Grover Norquist got nothing. I got nothing... except a bigger share of a deficit, for money spent on things I generally don't approve of. And, I have liberals calling George Bush a fiscal conservative, sullying the good name of fiscal conservatism?

You want to come over and kick my dog, too?

The Short Romance Is Over

It wasn't so long ago (June '06) that popular leftward blogger Daily Kos was courting libertarians. I took note of it, and thought then that it was merely a cynical ploy to grab a small constituency, but one sizeable enough to swing an election.

Consider the cynicism well justified. The onslaught of Ron Paul bashing by the top left blogs is begetting a slurry of ugly comments from the True Blue Left. From a recent Kos post calling Paul a racist:

If he has "moral responsibility" for his comments, then why not apologize or retract those statements? Why not express outrage that his good name was misappropriated with scurrilously racist sentiments and demand an honest admission and retraction in his newsletter?

Why? Because he agreed with the sentiments. That's why. And it's precisely writings like those, and his refusal to disavow them, that have made him a favorite of the Stormfront/Neo Nazi crowd.

Of course, Paul's supporters will take this post, along with any other criticism of their demigod, as evidence that he is "feared" or other such nonsense. Hardly. When he cracks single digits in the polls in any state we can start worrying. Until then, he doesn't even reach "Ross Perot-like nut" status. I worry about McCain. I worry about Huckabee. I used to worry about Giuliani. But Paul? Nah. He is what he is -- fringe.

But it's also clear that some of his supporters would benefit from a full airing and education about what Paul stands for and has stood for in his years in the public limelight. If people still want to support him despite his bigotry, then that actually says more about his supporters than about Ron Paul himself.

Let's break this down. What are the racist comments? Kos has highlighted some:

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers. (emphasis as in original Kos post.)

I have to say, I don't like Paul's generalizations in that first paragraph. 95%? That's nonsense. Paul's off-base here, and should apologize for his generalizations. I wish he would do that right away.

As for the second paragraph, I do have my own experiences. I have been mugged exactly twice, both times by black men. I have had my house burglarlized exactly once, by a black man. I caught him tearing the aluminum off the house. Given my experience, I still don't generalize all or most black males as criminals or semi-criminals. Generalizing the whole on the basis of the subset is incorrect and absurd. But, would it be rational for me to conclude that should I be mugged, the likelihood is higher that a white man will mug me? Am I a racist is, based on my own experience, if I conclude the likelihood is greater that a black man might? Moreover, factually speaking, do "black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and bulglaries all out of proportion to their numbers"? If so, why would an apology be warranted? For the crime of saying something that is a source of sensitivity to the racial group in question? It isn't the same as racism, that's for sure.

I would like Paul to revisit his statements with regard to race, use some care to examine them, and to apologize for and retract the ones that are bunk. (I suspect, though, that the ones that are not bunk, and are actual fact, and that might not be retracted, would still be a source of complaint and "ah ha, gotcha!" by Kos and so many others on the left.)

So, is this any kind of dilemma for me? Not especially. I've never found a perfect candidate, one that I agreed with on everything- besides myself. If I had to eliminate all candidates from the possibility of my support or vote on the basis of a single objection, I could never vote in good conscience. I kind of think that this is what Kos is after- creating cognitive dissonance in the minds of Paul backers, such that they just stay away from the process until after the 2008 election. For me, the kind of law policy Paul would actually put forth is what is important, and I'm betting that even if he is the most venomous closeted racist the world has ever known, he still wouldn't be advancing racist policy. So, is Kos' work what we call a red herring?

At any rate, I find it very interesting that Kos chose to discuss the angle of moral responsibility for the comments made available on a publication with his name on it. Kos must believe that is what is right and correct. Very well. Let's look at some of the comments that follow Kos' latest anti-Paul article:

"Libertarianism (or his style, anyway) is effectively racist itself. I mean, the guy wants to do away with the FDA, I can't imagine HUD, civil rights departments or similar are going to fare much better."

"Poisoning pooties and children is a rational business decision to the libertarians"

"Ron Paul fanboys are better known as Paultards."

Kos' apostles do exactly what Kos criticizes of Ron Paul: generalizing libertarians in the extreme and in the negative. Then there's the word, 'Paultards'. Well now that's intelligent. I guess from this we can infer that Kos believes it's okay to use a derivative of "retard" as a pejoritive, because he permits the use of it as such on his site. Kos could argue that Paul is running for president, and thus open to such scrutiny. It's also a way of saying that few Kos readers could qualify themselves. I see the word "Paultard" all over the comments on the Kos site, but no rebuke from other users, and certainly not from the man himself. The same is true at Wonkette and a host of other left sites.

Looks like Kos is the man in the glass house, but without any mirror. If Kos believes his own words, he should be striking about a third of the comments. Exorcist, heal thyself! Alas.

And if Paul was the sort of non-threat Kos makes him out to be, would he even be worth a post on his site? Right. Perhaps this was just Kos' announcement that henceforth, Daily Kos is merely an exercise in the trivial, unimportant, and miniscule. Yeah- saw through you on that, big guy.

But, reading the comments was truly depressing. It showed me what the left thinks of me, in essense. Libertarianism isn't perfect. Nothing is. But I am just astounded at the impression the left has of liberty. Astonished. Disappointed.

I guess the courtship is over.

Old Poll Results

I had a long running poll: Who would you vote against. Here are the final results:

Who would you vote against?

Selection ........Votes
Hillary Clinton 53% 121
John McCain 7% 16
Mitt Romney 9% 21
Ron Paul 4% 9
Dennis Kucinich 3% 6
All of 'em - I'll vote Libertarian 25% 57

230 votes total

Clinton and McCain have long been on top of my 'vote against' list. I'm happier to have a possible 'vote for' candidate, in Ron Paul. I remain highly doubtful Paul can win the Republican nomination, so after that event, I will probably be searching for a new 'vote for' candidate.

New Linkage

I have added linkage at the right to the Hoosiers For Fair Taxation blog, in the "My Fellow Hoosier Libertarians" column. They may not think of themselves as partisan Libertarians, but they certainly are working to advance liberty, which is what really matters to me.

Their efforts are extremely timely in light of the current property tax fiasco. They have activities happening within a few days. Check it out!

Interesting Quote

In these times, it can be bewildering to be a libertarian who believes that our government's foreign policy regardless of the party of the administration, too often takes us on hapless military interventions. Some Republicans are still clinging to Iraq. Some Democrats are pointing us to Darfur. So, the words of Joseph Sobran are of interest to me:

If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist. – Joseph Sobran (1995)

It's not quite on the mark. Democrats have been very happy to see US interventions overseas. Darfur is the latest place they would like to see us go (and how is that different from Iraq?), but Bosnia was under the Clinton Administration, as was Mogadishu. Meanwhile, Republicans created the largest entitlement program ever with the Medicare prescription drug package.

I think most Americans have become 'Sobran Moderates'. Unfortunately.

Here's a link to a treasure trove of libertarian quotes.