Go to http://www.redstateupdate.com for better convention coverage. Jackie Broyles and Dunlap have comments about watching Dennis Kucinich’s speech in the vein of I haven’t seen a midget jump up and down so much since Mini Me’s sex tape.

Barr isn`t a libertarian in the first place. He is one of your guys.

Libertarianism today stands for little more than one day being free to get the next door neighbor’s daughter hooked on the drugs one might wish to manufacture in one’s unregulated “garage lab” between buggery sessions with said family’s third-world foreign exchange student/cabana boy.

I agree; the mainstream libertarian movement is disgusting.  The level of idealism is ridiculous.

The paleolibertarian movement is quite a bit better, but I’m afraid they too fall into the same trap, particularly the anarcho-capitalists.  Anarcho-capitalists remind me of Marx saying that if the proletariats were only given power, Communism would arise: this completely ignores the fact that proletariats *were* given power, to a large extent at the time Marx was writing, and guess what?  They voted conservative.

The anarcho-capitalist view of the state suffers from a similar level of naivite.  If the state was really nothing more than a band of “highway robbers” cloaked in nothing but “double-speak” like “taxation”, you’d think we’d be able to find examples of anarcho-capitalist societies besides medieval Iceland (and even that’s a very tenuous point).

If governments were abolished, new ones would form.  Governance is far more universal than the “natural right to property” they’re always trying to defend “rationally” (which they fail at: read Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard or Economics and Ethics of Private Property by Hoppe with an unbiased eye and get back to me).

I advocate for libertarian views in many ways - I’m opposed to protectionism, I think property rights should be respected to a very large degree (if not as far as libertarians think), and government should be small in scope; however, I’m not anywhere near sure enough to call these views “universal”, and to pretend that I’ve discovered the Truth.

If we really want to return to a governmental system more in accordance with nature - which I agree we should - we should have small government: small in geographical scope, not in the extent to which it governs.

Oh I said “small in geographical area,” I should’ve added that these smaller governments should and *would* band together on the basis of common ethnicity, religion, moral values, etc. if not locked into total alliance - though it’s quite likely they would enter into such an agreement of their own accord.

Ian
Isn’t that what we had when Washington was elected. Thomas Jefferson said the best unit of government was the smallest. The federal government can do things like build an interstate highway system which promotes trade and industry and directly benefits all citizens, even John Zmirak who doesn’t drive. Government needs to be small to be efficient and needs to be run for the benefit of the citizens and not corporation who use it to rob our pockets to line theirs.

We have a fake capitalist system that uses the government to subsidize socialist companies and attack their competitors.

We need a third party that can undo the mess caused by the Dems and Reps. I just have trouble seeing any solution until after the crash they are bringing in a bipartisan fashion.

And that’s the problem with people today. All that matters is how things make them “feel”. Is it any wonder that half of this country is going for a pseudo-celebrity who makes them “feel” good about overcoming their racist past and the other half is going for a pseudo-hero who makes them “feel” safe in the face of that scary “Islamofashism.” Use you head, kid.

Durant,
It is indeed.  The question you should ask is why would the states *not* do something that benefited them?  Just because the building of international highways has traditionally been relegated to the central government doesn’t mean individual states (or - even better - individual counties and cities) wouldn’t do the same.

Cooperation doesn’t need the federal government to enforce it: it arises naturally, and is built into our very nature as human beings.  The problem is that if the federal government enforces it, it becomes *forced* cooperation . . . which means it’s not really cooperation at all, and probably not in the best interest of the states: if it was, you wouldn’t need a federal government to enforce it.

The fact that the constitution was already being eroded within hours of its creation doesn’t prove a fault with constitutional republics: it proves a fault with the constitution; specifically that it was worded too ambiguously (surprising, I know).

If the states really and truly need to cooperate on matters of war or peace - which they undoubtedly would - it would necessarily be peaceful cooperation, not forced by arrogant beltway politicians.

Just one more little quip I have with the paleolibs: groupthink.  You should always be suspicious of a group with so *little* debate and dissent within its ranks; that’s usually a good sign that the group in question is wrong.

Damn it I always remember something I forgot to add when I post; I know I’m posting too much, and I promise this is the last post I’ll make for a week or so.

Just because I advocate for secession doesn’t mean I don’t love this country.  I really and truly do; I’ve met people of all nationalities and sorts and I still prefer Americans.  But when the values of the majority of Americans conflict with those of my family and my community, I side with the latter.

We can of course debate the merits of libertarianism ad idfinitim if we want. However, its main value right now, I believe, is that a vote for Barr (or Ralph Nader for that matter) is a protest vote, a vote denied to the present entrenched duopoly. A vote showing them we are not so easily fooled as they believe. A usefull barometer I would think.