good points, James. And thanks for keeping me honest and accurate. I should have more specifically specified that it's one type of Libertarian that bothers me, which is what I meant by the ones I've encountered here in Georgia.
Still, to be frank, despite my knowing that there are more liberal Libertarians--just like there are in many other groups--my exposure has been more to the Ron Paul type, both in person, and in those Libertarians I've heard on TV and the radio. Why do you think it is I hear so few with attitudes like you? Is it where I live? -------------- Original message -------------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As someone who has been involved with the libertarian movement for about a decade, I can shed a little light on things. Like the Democratic Party and Republican Party - there are many factions constituting the Libertarian Party and libertarianism in general. There are libertarians, neo-libertarians, left-libertarians, paleo-libertarians and Randites who are different, clashing factions. Neo-libertarians are closet conservative ass-clowns who endlessly rail on about socialist Democrats, yet constantly make excuses for the behaviours of Republicans. They tend to like big wars and trust damned near anything Republicans do except when they spend large amounts of money (i.e., the PATRIOT Act is okay, but Medicare Part D is the worst thing that ever happened to this country, etc.) Otherwise, they are generally conservatives. Left-libertarians (like me) tend to be completely disgusted with both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Many are anarchistic in nature or leaning that direction. Some of us (myself included) participate in the Democratic Freedom Caucus a libertarian caucus within the Democratic Party and the LP Radical Caucus. We tend to be the civil liberties guardians and more prone to beat up on the GOP more consistently than other libertarian factions. Randites, also known as Randroids, are fellow travelers with neo-libertarians and sometimes paleo-libertarians, depending on the issue. They've read all of Ayn's books and essays and take a lot of her work out of context or just plain Go. Too. Far. They are NOT libertarians, but are often confused as such, given they share many of the same beliefs. In general, the more one is exposed to this mindset, the more it appears to be cultish in nature and their stances based more on emotion than logic. Paleo-libertarians tend to be the anti-abortion rights, anti-gay rights, anti-immigration (at least as far as Latinos go) race-baiting types who are often involved in skin color collectivism or excuse-making for religious right types. They are the closest thing to the religious right within the libertarian movement. The guys you find running around in the woods of Georgia playing militia, and in love with their weapons, worshiping the confederacy, tend to be paleo-libertarians - not run-of-the-mill libertarians. While they sometimes are on the right side of an issue they are just as often out in right field or prone to wingnuttery - like obsessing over the gold standard. Ron Paul is a paleo-libertarian. While he is right on the war, U.S. imperialism, the PATRIOT Act and domestic surveillance, he is wrong on abortion, homosexual rights, and immigration. Not to mention his old newsletter. The newsletter articles had been rumoured for years - though not circulated in recent years to my knowledge. The exposure given this issue by investigative bloggers and journalists during this campaign was the first most of us who in the latter day libertarian movement have had to actual proof of the articles racist content. Disturbing shit. Paul has had decades to reveal who actually wrote those articles and out the individual(s). My money says it was Lew Rockwell or one of his people. Instead, for years Paul has made no apologies and/or feeble apologies without naming names of his ghostwriter(s). I was never a Paul fan - based on his abortion and homosexuality stances. The confirmation of the newsletter rumours has not improved his standing in my eyes. Nor has it impressed and endeared him in the eyes of rank and file libertarians. The movement has long been under siege by conservatives who are tired of losing elections via LP spoiler candidates. Bob Barr is one such individual who lost his seat in Congress due to an LP candidate who covered the margin between him and his Democratic opponent. Many LP members are defecting or dropping out of electoral politics altogether in disgust. Further, the LP platform was gutted by a neo-libertarian takeover of the national committee in 2004. Since then, the party has been turning into Republican-lite. If the LP Radical Caucus (of which I am a member) is not able to turn things back around at this year's national convention, I fear the GOP takeover of the LP will be complete. But that means the party will be have been co-opted, not the ideology. Unfortunately, the term "libertarian" is rapidly losing it's meaning due to disaffected conservatives now calling themselves libertarians - when in really most of them are not interested in libertarianism, just in differentiating themselves from the neo-cons currently running the GOP. Of course, this is not much different from the near merger of the GOP and Democratic Party over the last 25 years. A few major issues still separate them, but increasingly less over time. __________________________________________________________ James Landrith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith http://www.jameslandrith.com http://www.multiracial.com http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ __________________________________________________________ >> >> --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>> I called Paul a "fringe" candidate the other day for this reason. >> He appeals to a lot of guys who like to call >> themselves "Libertarians". Not all of them, of course, but many >> Libertarians I've encountered here in Georgia have been disgruntled >> white guys who seem to pine for the days when women and people of >> colour knew their place. Who see the government as a giant many-armed >> creature reaching in to take away their rights, their freedoms, and >> their beloved guns. Who believe they can and did achieve all they >> have in life by pulling up their own bootstraps. Who see things like >> the UN as evil and a corrupting influence on the pure soul of America. >>> >>> These are the same guys I've encountered in science fiction and >> fantasy discussions who are a little too pleased with Conan-type >> stories where women are half-naked barbarians nonetheless subject to >> men, and the bad guys are often people of color who are cowed and >> killed by the white man and his noble, savage strength. These are the >> guys who often pine for the "good old days" of American virtue: those >> days, of course, being pre Civil Rights, and hell, pre Women's >> Suffrage from what I can tell. >>> >>> Paul says a lot of things that make sense on the surface, but >> sometimes you have to look at *why* people feel the way they do. Why >> else would he have gotten so many donations from white supremacist >> groups that it became a topic on "Meet The Press"? (He claims to have >> given the money back). >>> >>> I'm not saying Paul himself is a racist--now, at least. But his >> tone and tenor, his background, and the type of people he inspires >> make me nervous. I take everything he says with a tablespoon of salt. >>> >>> And I guess this would be the downside of my call for a true multi- >> party system in America, cause along with Dems and Republicans, maybe >> there'd be a few seats held by the Back to Basics party, consisting >> mostly of white supremacist isolationists! >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
