Good afternoon, Lowell...
I alternate between thinking one minute that I must be a libertarian,
because I agree with so many of the national policies I read libertarians
support. Then the next minute, I object to such things as NAFTA and CAFTA,
which makes me very much in the minority where most libertarians seem to
be concerned.
Lowell C. Savage wrote:
> As for the Libertarian party, most of its leadership has gone off into
> wacko
> territory too. One of the central issues of the day (at least at the
> national level) is whether we are going to take seriously the fact that we
> are again at war with an oppressive, expansionist ideology. We can't
> simply close down our borders without seriously affecting our economy (and
> that would be an extremely un-libertarian thing to do anyway), we can't
> appease
> this ideology-short of adopting it as our own. And so we MUST fight
> it-militarily, ideologically, diplomatically, and culturally. If we do
> not, we are doomed to an ever-increasing series of attacks until we either
> fight
> or "submit." The Republicans are the only ones serious about fighting
> this-regardless of how many "mistakes" they may be making. Most of the
> leadership of the other parties (there are exceptions, yes) is either
> completely blind to the nature of what we face or else is just saying
> whatever they think will catch some shifting political wind.
BINGO! I emphatically hold to the belief that MOST politicians, either
Republican or Democrat, are saying whatever they think will get them
elected (or re-elected) into office. Very few from either party seem to be
addressing the issues. However, what truly scares me more than their
seeming inability to face reality is how many of the voters are simply
voting what I call the "charisma ballot". If candidates are charismatic,
can speak the party line with believability and verve, they are headed for
Washington, D.C. with no further questions asked.
> Another issue is judges. (See my previous post regarding
> CAFTA/Codex/Vitamins.) On this one, there is (or should be) very little
> daylight between the Republican party and libertarians...unless you are a
> "pro-choice" libertarian (or perhaps, unless you think judges should make
> gay marriage the law of the land). I suspect that the LP will probably do
D'ya think the Supremes would dream of making gay marriage the law of the
land, seriously? It sure seems that way sometimes, based upon the number
of states that are ratifying gay marriages on appeals.
> its best to draw distinctions based on rulings on "personal issues," but
> even there, Scalia and Thomas are not the "right wing" ogres they are
> sometimes made out to be. If, for instance, there were 9 Clarence
> Thomas's on the Supreme Court, this would be a MUCH more libertarian
> society than we
> have now. And some people who have looked at his record have concluded
> that Bush's nominee, Roberts, may well be the strongest property-rights
> justice
> that has been on the court in some time (like, decades!) And at least
> some of the other names bandied about as potential choices are fairly
> libertarian: Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig, Alex Kozinski, Emilio
> Garza.
I heard Justice Brown speak recently at Gonzaga Law School, and although I
know little to nothing of her past record, she certainly sounded pretty
Libertarian to me, based upon some of her comments. Of course, until that
evening last winter, I had never heard of her. I just happened to be in
the building at the time.
Ironically, the topic of her speech was "The Need for an Imperative From
the People". Interesting, huh?
Dave
--
Dave Laird ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
The Used Kharma Lot / The Phoenix Project
An automatic & random thought For the Minute:
You will be Told about it Tomorrow. Go Home and Prepare Thyself.
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
