I think this is too much. Raimondo has tolerated Pat’s ‘deviationism’ on trade issues; he continues to post him on antiwar.com. He wrote what I think is one of the best defenses of the old Ron Paul newsletters—putting them in context of a time when there really was an active and violent racial struggle going on—riots in LA, Washington etc. I just wish he would re-read his defense for its obvious implication -race matters.

Speaking of coalitions, those who identify with Mr. Raimondo’s side of this, uh, debate and those who identify with your side are perfect candidates for coalition partners.  Race realists want to repeal affirmative action (of course), the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, etc., so that people can choose to live and associate with whomever they want.  Libertarians, and I assume this includes Mr. Raimondo, support the exact same government policies on race, based on “natural rights” and/or individualism.  Talk about common interests!  On strict government policy issues, there’s little disagreement between Mr. Raimondo and Jared Taylor, much less between Raimondo and you.  Yes, your reasons for supporting these policies are completely incompatible, but if you agreed with each other on every aspect it wouldn’t be a coalition.

Justin Raimondo is against affirmative action and any forced asociation, be that with blacks, gays, whites, or anyone else. The 1964 Civil Rights act was a disaster for personal freedom in this country. Antiwar.com publishes many antiwar views, from the far left to far right. Justin if I am wrong please correct me.

“Part of this excessive hostility results, I believe, from the total claims of libertarianism, which are made in universal terms and described as having universal appeal.  Under libertarianism there are no government-picked winners and losers; everyone is free to do as they please.“

Posted by Christopher Roach on May 18, 2008

A low blow, Mr. Roach. Or if not, don’t you know that “everyone is free to do as they please“ is not the libertarian view? “All are free to do as they please as long as they don’t violate someone else’s rights” is more like it.

I agree that the above spat on race is unnecessary and over the top and that the participants were talking past each other. But that’s no reason for generalized misrepresentation of libertarian ideas. The main question for libertarians is the proper role of the state, with its coercive power. The libertarian theoretical framework does not take a position on voluntary associations and activities subject to the limit mentioned above.

Surely Mr. Roach isn’t actually arguing that the race realists are the more tactically reasonable bunch?  One need only look at Jared Taylor’s personal response to the 2000 Buchanan campaigns VP pick to see that tactical alliances are virtually forbidden on the modern racialist right. 

It seems to that Mr. Roach and many others on this site have a fondness for the MARs of Sam Francis/Donald Warren lore.  The only problem is the MARs have either dropped out of politics or rallied to the cause of folks like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.  The MARs simply aren’t fertile ground for any small government movement at this point.

I’m a Pat Buchanan conservative. I agree that Taylor and company’s hostility to blacks, as opposed to mere recognition of their differences, is at times un-Christian and in various important respects un-American.  I also think it will be politically ineffective because it is overly ideological and revolutionary.  Our fate and that of black Americans is tied together.  We are both Americans and countrymen.  Things were not always this bad for either group, and black society is more sensitive to various innovations like the sexual revolution and subsidized bad living than whites.  Specifically, things were less bad when whites were less brow-beaten by charges of racism and more willing to defend their particular share of the common good, which largely coincided with the good of the society as a whole.

Dear Sir,

Although some of Mr. Roach’s criticisms of Mr. Raimando recent pronouncements have substance, he appears to have little understanding of libertarian political philosophy, as the below statement indicates:

“Under libertarianism there are no government-picked winners and losers; everyone is free to do as they please.”

Under libertarianism one is not allowed to do as he pleases.  Central to libertarianism is the non-aggression axiom based on self-ownership.  Therefore, I am not allowed to rob my neighbour, and if I tried, my neighbour would be justified in defending himself (with deadly force if necessary).

Also, central to libertarianism is the inalienable nature of property rights (again based on self-ownership).  If WASPs for example didn’t want third-worlders (or Catholics, Irish, Africans, etc.) living in their neighbourhood, under libertarianism, they simply wouldn’t sell property to them.  Individuals would be free to discriminate as much as they want. Of course, such discrimination is illegal today.

Mr. Roach should perhaps do his homework before he decides to tackle libertarian political philosophy.

I have no doubt that libertarianism means private violence is forbidden and property rights are protected.  Libertarianism, however, in contrast to many other political systems is not concerned with winners and losers in this sense:  it is indifferent within those limits how freedomm is exercised.  It does not take it as a demerit that folks dependent on the welfare state will be jobless, impoverished, or worse.  Libertarianism would say that it’s wrong for the government to help Katrina victims, low IQ structurally unemployed workers, or to interfere with private racism.  It also wouldn’t forbid nonprofit charities and peaceful protests against these outcomes. 

Seriously, let’s not get into a picayune discussion of definitions and my understanding of libertarianism, because my point is a narrower one about the uncompromising rhetoric of Raimondo and his fellow travellers.

“Seriously, let’s not get into a picayune discussion of definitions and my understanding of libertarianism, because my point is a narrower one about the uncompromising rhetoric of Raimondo and his fellow travellers.”

Posted by Christopher Roach on May 18, 2008.

Does that mean you are taking back your willful misrepresentation of the central libertarian idea?

Cognate, I already did.  My point there was not, in fact, to defame libertarianism.  To me libertarianism is noteworthy in that it is a highly procedural focus; government should set up the “rules of the road” so to speak--protecting property, preventing violence, permitting and enforcing contracts--but the actual content of businesses, contracts, daily life, and private behavior is largely a matter of indifference to the government.  It sets up the rules, but does not concern itself with the traffic, if you will.

Where a non-libertarian might concern himself with private behavior because it is self-destructive (drugs, usury) or because it is simply offensive (polygamy, animal cruelty, public nudity), libertarianism takes these concerns off the table, focusing government chiefly upon the protection of rights. 

Re-read my post above.  It’s a post about Raimondo’s intemperate rhetoric, the complete political ineffectiveness of libertarianism, and the relationship between these matters with the libertarian concern for rationalism and universalism in its philosophy. 

My post above is not supposed to be a denunciation of libertarianism on the merits.  This should be pretty obvious. 

That said, I do in fact find libertarianism to be really stupid and immature and unlikely to work for very long, even if it were somehow implemented. And this isn’t because I need to study it more.  It’s pretty simple stuff: that’s why high school kids get so into it and it’s also why most conservatives find it laughable--most went through a hardcore, youthful libertarian phase but learned more and grew out of it. But I’ve certainly read all the big libertarian writers--Rothbard, Mises, Mill, Tom Palmer, Charles Murray, Sowell (sorta libertarian), Richard Epstein, Locke, Albert Jay Nock--I was also a Koch Fellow, went to numerous IHS seminars, I just happen to think libertarinism is wrong-headed, and so obviously wrong-headed as to be stupid.

I do find it funny when people are so convinced of their rectitude and the rightness of their position that they assume the only reason you might disagree with them is you don’t understand them.  I understand you all just fine; I just think you’re wrong.

““any movement that makes a big deal about race is going to pretty much confine itself to members of one race” Justin Raimondo as quoted above.

That would be the Democrats? That would be blacks?

That would be McCain and Mexicans?  With Tom “tar baby” Davis?

Libertarians are against white survival.  Libertarians appear against human survival, they are the party of property rights for property rights that outlive the human species.

That would leave by process of elimination a white party hanging out there?  Jump ball.

“That said, I do in fact find libertarianism to be really stupid and immature and unlikely to work for very long”

And why is that , Mr. Roach?  Because any other system then would involve the slippery slope of government authoritarianism and intervention, and I am sick & tired of those models, thank you very much.

I appreciate the clarification Mr. Roach.

It is worth noting by the way, that the harshness in tone has been just as pronounced on the other side, and at least on this page there have been FAR more critics of Raimondo then defenders.

Dylan, that is probably for two reasons.  First, this is a conservative site and libertarians are uneasy partners with conservatives for a lot of reasons.  Second, some of his reasoning was obviously fallacious, and he appeared to be mischaracterizi ng his opponents’ views and also because the ball appeared to keep moving the goal post and changing the subject instead of acknowledging his earlier mistakes and illogic.

I think this article assumes that Justin Raimondo is the standard-bearer for Libertarianism on race. Raimondo is obvious allergic to any suggestion of racial differences or racial politics, but this is his own idiosyncratic quirk, and not something that is reflective of Libertarianism proper.

As has been pointed out by others, Rothbard had no qualms about writing about race, endorsing David Duke and the Bell Curve, and thinking that whites were more intelligent than blacks. While Lew Rockwell’s editorial direction has changed since the September 11th attacks, he also had no problem with discussing racial differences, and Mises Scholar David Gordon actually wrote a favorable review of Michael Levin’s _Why Race Matters_.

Hans Hoppe has also supported the idea of racial differences. Libertarianism is an ideology and all ideologies are universal, but Raimondo’s allergic reaction to race talk comes from his own personal quirks, and not Libertarianism.

Christopher Roach wrote:

That said, I do in fact find libertarianism to be really stupid and immature and unlikely to work for very long, even if it were somehow implemented… I just happen to think libertarinism is wrong-headed, and so obviously wrong-headed as to be stupid.

I do find it funny when people are so convinced of their rectitude and the rightness of their position that they assume the only reason you might disagree with them is you don’t understand them.  I understand you all just fine; I just think you’re wrong.

--------------------------------

I think it would be interesting for many Taki readers if Mr. Roach posted an article explaining the obvious stupidity and immaturity of libertarianism.  Moreover, I would like to know what he deems to be the proper role of the state.

John McKerrow

Mises Scholar David Gordon actually wrote a favorable review of Michael Levin’s _Why Race Matters_.

“Racial scientist” Levin was also a contributor to the old Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

John, this territory is well known.  Just read Robet Nisbet’s old article on libertarians and conservatives entitled “Uneasy Cousins.”

Could someone post a link to whatever comments Jared Taylor made about Buchanan’s VP pick? I was unaware of this controversy. The pick could be criticized on the grounds that it was so obviously an attempt to inoculate the campaign against charges of racism.

One good thing about this discussion is that it reveals the utter emptiness of the various categories of discourse that consume the time of the posters.

Link to the Taylor article is half way down that page Red.

http://www.amren.com/ar/2000/10/

Mr. Roach, by not limiting your criticism to Mr. Raimondo, by asserting that Mr. Raimondo has done such and such because of his libertarian ideas, you tried to show that the ideas themselves are wrong. In other words, you used your spat with Mr. Raimondo for a broadside attack on libertarianism. If that was not your intention, perhaps you could consider rewriting your original posting. Otherwise, this thread has to deviate from your stated intention, namely it must also become a discussion of libertarianism.

You criticize libertarianism for not taking positions on various scientific, philosophic, religious, cultural, etc questions.  It’s hardly correct that libertarians are not interested in such matters. But we are sticklers for one detail: the inadmissibility of the use of the coercive power of the state to enforce the views held by some onto others who otherwise would not agree to go along. In other words, you want to use the police and military to help bring about your social, political and religious ideas, dreams and desires.  I know this is common practice, but it sure seems like resorting to or threatening violence concedes the rational argument about any subject other than physical self defense.

Mr. Roach, I believe you are mistaken in declaring Mr. Taylor “hostile” to Blacks.  He
is merely open about being a White Separatist.  Also, he has written a few articles
defending his views against the charge of being un-Christian.

Folks on this site would really benefit from visiting http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com

Does anyone not think that Pat’s choice to pick Ezola Foster for VP was about the stupidest possible idea?

Jared simply said it was a terrible choice that would make people concerned about race less likely to support his campaign. 

Since then, Jared has written many nice things about Pat; and Pat has quoted Jared favorably and had him on his show many times as well.

Jared is willing to work with anyone.  everyone else is too big of a coward to work with Jared.

Taylor said flat out that he opposed Mrs. Foster because of her race as a matter of principle.  One would assume this would preclude him from making any tactical alliance with black localist of various stripes to take one obvious example.

Christopher Roach wrote:

John, this territory is well known.  Just read Robet Nisbet’s old article on libertarians and conservatives entitled “Uneasy Cousins.”

---------------------------------

Nisbet does not explain what he believes is the proper role of the state in “Uneasy Cousins.” In fact, his article is a confused analysis of libertarianism. 

Nisbit arbitrarily (and inexplicably) raises Mill’s On Liberty as the apotheosis of libertarian thought and appears to confuse libertinism with libertarianism. 

He accuses libertarians of attacking the family and religion, when in fact such institutions are beyond the ambit of libertarian political philosophy.  Libertarianism does not discount the importance of church and familiy, but it is only concerned with political rights.

Incidentally, libertarian philosophers, such as Rothbard and Hoppe have elsewhere defended these social institutions.

Given Nisbet’s weak and dated article (it was printed in 1980) Roach should himself address the questions I posed above.

John McKerrow

“You criticize libertarianism for not taking positions on various scientific, philosophic, religious, cultural, etc questions.  It’s hardly correct that libertarians are not interested in such matters. But we are sticklers for one detail: the inadmissibility of the use of the coercive power of the state to enforce the views held by some onto others who otherwise would not agree to go along.”

Well, suppose people find that a dignified existence requires having common standards of decency not covered under the rubric of mere property rights and determined to establish communities reflecting that fact?  Shall they not be coerced to go along?  Libertarianism is, at bottom, a philosophical position and all arguments marshaled in its favor are at bottom moral and abstract.  (Which is why libertarians, no less than other people, become very huffy and morally indignant over people’s stubborn refusal to accept their ideas or implement their favored policies.) There is no political system that does not speak to the moral, the philosophical, and the true, and it is the conceit of libertarianism that such a system is possible or even desirable. 

Even a fully libertarian system, were it possible to implement one, would require force to maintain, since libertarianism itself isn’t what significantly large communities of people have ever wanted for themselves.  So the promise of giving each person whatever he can get for himself is a hollow one, since one of the things people want is to live in a community that reflects their own desires and hierarchy of values, and invests those things with some authority.  Libertarianism says people shouldn’t want that, or at least that they aren’t justified in insisting upon it, which is a normative claim that must be proved philosophically, not empirically.  Either Larry Flynt or I can have the kind of society that we want, but not both, and to concede to him everything he claims about the good of society, while claiming to be neutral on the question, is to decide the issue in the most dishonest possible way.

The “enforcement” (ever notice that nasty root word—“force”) of contracts requires some underlying philosophical position on why such things are so sacrosanct as to justify the use of force to protect them, and why indeed society at large has an interest in protecting the integrity of what are purely private agreements.  Libertarianism concedes from the start that purely private agreements are in fact a matter of concern for the whole society, such that upholding them becomes the entire justification for the state’s existence!  Every society requires force to maintain, even and especially on the questions which underpin that society’s organizing principle.  Libertarians denounce this claim with their left hand while enthusiastically proclaiming it with their right.

Libertarianism is, in short, a position that claims not to take a position, and like most species of liberalism, it misrepresents itself as ultimately neutral on the questions that matter most to people, when in fact it is a totalizing system which settles in advance all major issues of substance facing a people who live in society.  The notion that there can simultaneously be 1) a community of democratically self-governing people living according to mores and customs that seem good to them, and 2) a total ban on any public claim to authority for those customary ways (take bans on polygamy if you’re searching for an example), is plainly ludicrous.

And more ludicrous is that idea that a system which would (somehow) prevent a community of people from enforcing such norms is one in which no position has been taken on matters of philosophic substance.  That is a fundamentally dishonest idea, or at least a deceiving one.  To deprive whole communities of the very possibility of authoritative public standards concerning abstract concepts such as, say, indecency, is to deny the validity of public standards as such--and this is a philosophical position, not a purely political one (as though the two were inseparable!).  It is, moreover, an oppressive, unnatural, and bizarre one, and the claim that libertarianism--which, in its purest and most radical sense, must take such a stance--is somehow neutral as to viewpoints and only gives everybody what he wants, is one of the many things that Roach is probably referring to when he says that a really committed libertarianism is not only immature, but obviously and stupidly so.

(Now let fly with all the many caveats on what libertarianism really means, adding like a Ptolemaic astronomer to that excessively simply formula that libertarianism only means that nobody violates anyone else’s property rights, and that libertarianism doesn’t really mean that people can walk about city streets in the nude.)

“ I do in fact find libertarianism to be really stupid and immature and unlikely to work for very long, even if it were somehow implemented.” Libertarianism in the sense of strictly limited central government and strong individual rights, particularly property rights, against that government came into being in England in the late 17th century and disappeared (depending of how you define that term) sometime in the late 19th century—the fact that England adopted small central government, while continental countries went for the strong, centralized bureaucracy of mercantilism and enlightened despotism is a key part of the famous Anglo-Saxon exceptionality.  During its existence, this “traditional libertarian” political system brought about arguably the biggest changes to—and the greatest improvement in—people’s everyday lives that history knows of.  Would you please be so kind as to elaborate on the reasons why you consider this political system “stupid and immature and unlikely to work for very long.”

Sage’s comment brings a sense of “deja vu,” because Calvin in his “Institutes” discussed at length the extent to which a society has a right/duty to control those traits in its population that make people asocial.  Calvin’s answer was yes.  English Protestants, including later Puritans, differed from Calvin on this point for a simple reason:  the English had discovered punishments did not work well.  The likelihood of painful consequenses produced only hypocritical, fear-motivated obedience, and this obedience disappeared whenever there was no threat of immediate punishment.

@ Sage Mc, I’m happy to respond--although I’m not Libertarian, the philosophy is straightforward.

Libertarianism doesn’t require government intervention to assure that all members of a communtiy “toe the same line” in terms of their behaviour.  The community, itself, does that via scoial (not governmental) pressure.

For example, although premarital sex wasn’t against the law in the 30-50’s, it wasn’t practiced much.  Why?  Because of societal pressure--unwed pregnancy was frowned upon and the woman shunned or a “shotgun wedding” set up. 

Using Mr. Roach’s approach, he would advocate a law against pre-mariatl sex and lock up anyone who engaged in it--in order for his idea of “culture” to be preserved.

Manifestly, people tend to congregate with others whom they agree and are comfortable around.  Everyone is free to do that.  People may choose to live wherever they want.  If they feel strongly about it, that can form homeowners associations which regulate their rights to the nth degree--size of lawn, color of house--whatever.  Alternatively, to use your example, the homeowners might be allowed to walk around nude.  So what?  If you don’t like it, don’t move there.

However, once government is asked to regulate societal issues, the question becomes which ones?  Where does the intervention start and stop?  Soon you have Prohibition back--because, by its nature, government will expand as far as it is allowed.

That’s why Libertarians talk about the “slippery slope” and believe in the “bright lines” of government involvement.

McBrown:  like libertarians in relation to private choices, what I would allow and what I would advocate government to do are very different from one another. I only mean to defend existing, long-established legal prohibitions, I see little need for many new ones, and I don’t accept the view that “logic” dictates if we ban heroin we must ban alcohol or that if we would ban sodomy (or at least not allow it to be enshrined in marriage) means we must send the cops after fornicators.  That all said, these matters must be resolved, almost always locally, through the imperfect means of debate and discussion based on our collective understanding of the issue and the consequences of any legislation that characterize republican self-government.

@ C. Roach, You wrote, “I don’t accept the view that “logic” dictates if we ban heroin we must ban alcohol.”

I think that is the basis of our disagreement. 

If heroin were legal, I would trust individuals to know how bad it is, and choose not to take it.  I don’t believe we need the government to make that decision for us.

You, on the other hand, don’t trust individuals to recoginze their own self-interest in not taking heroin and believe that there must be laws against heroin’s use.

If heroin were legal, I don’t think there would be a lot more heroin users--people are too smart for that.

But if you don’t trust people to make that decision, how can you allow them to make that decision about alcohol/ Alcohol causes far more damage to society than heroin--because of the far greater number of alcohol users and the fact that there is little or no social stigma attached to alcohol, unlike heroin.

Libertarians trust people to choose correctly.  You trust govenrment to order people to choose correctly.

I don’t trust the government to wash my car.

That’s more or less it, McBrown.  But I trust the people in a moment of rationality deliberating over its laws to choose more effectively than a young, immature, low IQ person faced with an unhappy life, the false allure of drugs, and little experience in life.

For prohibitions on vice, the impact on liberty is minimal.  Rational and mature people won’t make these choices to begin with.  Low IQ, young, or foolhardy people will demonstrate by certain choice choices that they need to be protected from their own bad decisionmaking. 

Just as undeniably legitimate laws against theft or rape have no impact on my subjective experience of freedom, so too is the impact of laws against drugs or certain other vices.  Reason itself tells one not to induldge in certain choices, because reason in revealing the need for limitations on government also reveals the need for limitations on the will in the form of a limited number of salutary and paternalistic laws.  For those whom these laws pose an inconvenience and slow down, it’s all the better.  They need the help. 

Some adults act like permanent children, and various laws are necessary to keep them from completely mucking up society.  Other adults, while otherwise rational, are not interested in limiting others so much as limiting themselves in a moment of weakness and desperation.  Like Odysseus tying himself to the mast, their rational self must tie down their “id” with the law, until the moment of weakness and temptation passes. Consider laws that limit contracts such as usury legislation or limitations on “dead hand” control of property.  Far from limiting freedom, such a self-governing people is exhancing its freedom by preventing enslavement to various addictive and self-destructive vices and manifestly irrational and self-destructive choices. 

Nothing is perfect or 100% effective of course, but this is true of all laws, and doesn’t prove anything about the impact of “morals legislation” at the margins, which must be something, or we wouldn’t hear all these maudlin tales about busted drug users and drug dealers and poker clubs and all the rest.

@ C. Roach, All of those arguments apply equally to alcohol.  How do you justify not criminalizing it?

Do they really apply “equally”?  Isn’t it possible that alcohol might be less harmful than heroin?  Isn’t it possible that a society could rationally decide that alcohol could be tolerated without extending the license to every substance abuse imaginable?

While we’re at it, why don’t we let citizens acquire nuclear arms and biological weapons?  Don’t all the arguments against allowing them to acquire nuclear weapons also apply “equally” to gun ownership?

Or could it be possible that we should decide these issues with more than an either/or ideological framework, and perhaps even with a little sense of proportion?

McBrown, don’t be so silly. Your use of counterfactuals is quite confusing. Everyone knows alcohol is good for you.  It’s good for the health and good for the spirit.  It can be abused, but so can anything. 

Hard drugs, on the other hand, are not good for you.  Compare a serious drinker like Sinatra or Churchill with a wasetrel like Amy Winehouse or Keith Richards. 

Res Ipsa Loquiter.

Incidentally, I have no real problem with community blue laws, I just wouldn’t want to live in such a place. The righ to ban alcohol by states and localities, as you know, is enshrined in our Constitution.

@ C Roach, There are more alcoholics than junkies.  What’s a hard drug?  Cocaine?  Mushrooms? Pot?  Scotch?  Who gets to decide?  Keith Richards (your example) is 60+ and has had a relativley successful life, wouldn’t you agree?  His creativity may have been enhanced by his drug use.  “The Ballad of Kubla Khan”, and all that.

Regardless, it was Richard’s choice, not yours.

You’re wrong when you say alcohol is good for you--unless you limit yourself to one to two glasses of red wine with meals.

Who’s being silly?  We could fill an encyclopedia with the names of people whose lives have been ruined because of alcohol. 

THEN LET’S TA;LK ABOUT HARM TO INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES.  alcohol

@ Manley, Society can decide whatever it wants.  However, in doing so it places its value system above the individual’s.  That’s the quarrel with it.

No nuclear and bilological weapons aren’t the same.  They serve no defensive purpose.  They are weapons of mass destrcution.  You know, the things that Mr. Roach admits to looking for in Iraq when he supported the War.

@ CRoach, Sorry the post cut off in mid- sentence.

Alcohol is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent third aprties each year.  Not so heroin.  When was the last time you even heard of anyone drivning on heroin?

If you want to look at the real cost--alcohol does far more damage.  Not to mention all the damage done by drug dealers fighting to preserve their territories and profits--which they only have because of the criminalization of drugs.

Also, if you want to act historically, most of the drugs that are outlawed not weren’t 100 years ago.  Laudanum, etc.

Anyway, it doens’t matter.  If you’re comfortable letting politicians decide what’s good and bad for you, you deserve what you get.  Me, I like to think for myself.

I think your defensive/offensive weapons distinction is kind of lame. Why not TOW missiles, they’re certainly a defensive weapon.  You’re avoiding a reality that ideologies try to conceal.  We live in a world where bright lines must be drawn in spite of fuzzy facts.

But perhaps the famous speech from Judge Sweat can shead some light on this important and relevant topic of prohibition--the right of which is enshrined to states and localities in our Constitution.

My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time.  However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy.  On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be.  You have asked me how I feel about whiskey.  All right, here is how I feel about whiskey.

If when you say whiskey, you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation and despair and shame and helplessness and hopelessness --- then I am certainly against it.

But if, when you say whiskey, you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy and his happiness and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies and heartaches and sorrows; if you mean that drink the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our pitiful aged and infirm, to build highways and hospitals and schools, then I certainly am for it.

This is my stand, and I will not compromise.

@ C Roach, you wrote, “We live in a world where bright lines must be drawn in spite of fuzzy facts.”

I concur.  Here’s a bright line.  “No victimless crimes.” They don’t work, create a criminal class and gvie the government too much control over the lives of its citizens.

The Judge Sweat quote is a good one. 

In Vino Veritas

I read the “Uneasy Cousins” article; it struck me very much as a conservative looking at the crazy uncle in the closet.

I am a conservative libertarian.  I praise voluntary order, arising from the consent of those who abide by its strictures.

Neither I, nor any of my confreres, is an bomb throwing anarchist, nor are we wild eyed libertines.

Freedom of association includes freedom of disassociation, and the societal pressures referenced in an above post.

It is a difference between “fornication is poor form, and will be frowned upon societally” and “fornication is a second degree felony.”

I admire, esteem, value order!  But an order enforced by consensus, by agreement--not by the G17 in the cop’s hand.

‘That said, I do in fact find libertarianism to be really stupid and immature and unlikely to work for very long, even if it were somehow implemented.’

Same could be said for conservatism. The past 60 years are proof of what a complete failure conservatism has been. One only needs to watch Fox News for one minute to see how stupid and immature conservatives are.