Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr appeared on Glenn Beck’s nationally televised show for the full hour Friday. Beck conducted the interview respectfully, allowing Barr a full opportunity to articulate his positions. Beck even stopped himself from interrupting on more than one occasion.
Greg Creswell, 2006 Michigan gubernatorial candidate who supported Mary Ruwart for president, said he thought Barr was “very impressive” and did a good job advancing libertarianism on the show. Other Michigan libertarians said Barr’s performance was more of a “mixed bag.” Below are some excerpts from the show, categorized into “solidly libertarian” and “questionable,” based on the responses of libertarians at Saturday’s Michigan party convention, as well as the author’s observations.
Solidly libertarian
Barr elaborated on the many documented crimes of the Bush administration, to which Beck said he agreed with some but not with others. Barr strongly advocated civil liberties and personal-privacy rights.
Questionable
When asked why “we” hadn’t moved forward with nuclear power and other alternative energies, Barr said it was because we lacked political leadership. He did not talk about private-property rights and the need to get government out of the way, but instead, seemed to advance the notion of a national “energy policy.”
Later, however, Barr did say we should “free up the market, and let the market begin the development in earnest. Take the shackles off them.”
Solidly libertarian
Barr identified environmental regulations as strengthening government power and ushering in global government.
Questionable
He presented private advocacy groups, such as the Sierra Club, as the real enemy. He talked about the inability of Congress to make minor changes to the Endangered Species Act. One can imagine how Mary Ruwart would have answered this question much differently.
Solidly libertarian
Barr blames recent rises in food prices on the government’s obsession with ethanol. He says he would “absolutely” do away with all farm subsidies, including those paid to farmers not to farm. He pointed out that 54% of these subsides go to farm families earning more than $200,000 per year.
Questionable
Barr said that “in the short run” we should provide “tax incentives” for oil companies to explore.
Solidly libertarian
Barr said he would “absolutely not” have bailed out Bear Stearns.
Questionable
Barr’s plans for his first days in office are not very ambitious from a libertarian perspective. There was no talk of pardoning non-violent drug offenders or abolishing cabinet departments. Instead, Barr said he would enact a freeze on spending in the executive branch and a 10% cutback in discretionary spending in the executive office of the president. He said he would veto any increases in spending over the 2009 fiscal-year budget, and also veto anything that would “raise the ceiling” on the national debt.
Solidly libertarian
Barr said he thought the North American Union was “a very real possibility,” and that the NAFTA Superhighway is part of it. He said he will put these issues “on the table,” hopefully during debates with McCain and Obama.
Questionable
Barr said the Minutemen “have to be commended.” Furthermore, he categorized them as “simply citizens interested in protecting the sovereigty of this country.”
Barr on foreign policy: Difficult to categorize
Barr said he would “absolutely not” pull soldiers out of every one of the 130 countries in which they are currently stationed. “We have to maintain a presence sufficient to defend our country and defend our interests,” he said, before quickly adding, “but that does not mean occupying Iraq or some other nation.”
Later, Barr added: “Being secure in our energy does not require 150,000 of our troops over there, at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of over $400 million a day.”
Even better: When asked how we could get our troops out of Iraq, Barr responded simply, “[We] begin pulling them out. What do you mean?”
Barr on Iran: Very encouraging
Glenn Beck expressed a desire to “crush” Iran. Barr’s response was firm: “You’re not going to be able to crush Iran. Iran is a very large, very diverse, very economically sound country, in which there is — I believe, and I’ve lived over there — a solid basis to find an often lot of commonality of interests; not with Ahmadinejad, but with the people and a lot of the younger leaders over there.”
Beck later backtracked on his “crush” comment, and said what he meant was that we would bring down Iran by having democracies on either side of it, thereby inspiring the people to rise up.
Solidly libertarian
Barr said the PATRIOT Act should be scrapped in its entirety.
Questionable
“Some provisions of the PATRIOT Act have worked very well.”
Final points
Barr only talked about libertarian philosophy one time, when explaining his opposition to abortion. While this is a very divisive subject among libertarians, Barr handled the question well. Most of the 48% of libertarians who opposed his nomination wish he would answer more questions this way, explaining the libertarian principles behind his positions.
When asked about the 9/11 Truth Movement, Barr said, “I don’t pay any attention to that.”
Barr said in no uncertain terms: “Global warming is a myth.”
Barr also advocated private accounts for Social Security; another divisive issue among libertarians.
Assorted absurdities from Beck
Beck said he believed deeply in the Constitution and the free market. He has characterized himself as a libertarian in the past.
A trivia question asked viewers: “Which American president said he believed that ‘the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism?'” The choices were Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ronald Reagan, or Richard Nixon.
“The problem with the libertarians is,” Beck stammered. “You guys … Look, you seem like a reasonable guy, Bob … [but] the guy who introduced you at the convention was a guy for the legalization of pot!” Beck acted as if this were the most bizarre and insidious idea he had ever heard of.
Beck mocked Ed McMahon, who is over $600,000 behind on his mortgage payments and about to lose his house. “How am I supposed to feel bad you’re losing your house, you made how much more for how long?” This was one of the few things to come out of Beck’s mouth that most libertarians could agree with, and it was quite funny.
Perhaps the most absurd question asked: “Would you say McCain-Fiengold has done more damage to freedom of speech in this country than the ACLU has done in their entire history?”
The video of the entire program is posted below in six parts.
Ross – Yes… It seems it is Knapp who is sounding like the Luddite here! 🙂
You can’t say for certain if “the state” existed prior to recorded history. And besides, I would hardly consider living like an animal as preferable to statism.
Well, they’ve also occurred because of advances in technology (if that fact you pulled out is even true). Do you propose we go back to a pre industrial state?
GE,
Homo sapiens emerged from its evolutionary background probably around 200,000 years ago.
The period of recorded history is ~5,000 years.
The vast majority of deaths at the direct hand of the state over both that 200,000-year and 5,000-year period have almost certainly occurred in the last 150 years.
I’d say the state as we know it now, bad as it is, is a helluvalot better than the state as we knew it pre-Enlightenment. The state has existed throughout most of recorded history, and I think things are less repressive now than they’ve probably ever been, all things considered. You disagree?
Given that the vast majority of normal human activity is anarchistic (i.e. not controlled by the state); and
Given the fact that the tiny portion of normal human activity which is controlled by the state is almost uniformly negatively affected by that control; and
Given the fact that that the overwhelming portion of abnormal human activities, such as the killing of other human beings, are state operations;
I submit that the burden of proof and justification logically falls upon those who support the existence of the state rather than upon those who oppose the existence of the state.
To put a finer point on it, the state as we know it has been a short-term experiment, and a pretty obviously failed one.
That’s a different situation.
There’s no element of anarchism that has not been put to practical use somewhere within modern societies.
The problem is, we don’t have that culture and that amount of isolation and self dependence.
Yes, for quite a while it did.
And might again in the not-too-distant future.
Certainly worked out great for them…
Thomas Jefferson’s observations
about the Indian tribes of Virginia:
“This practice [of each tribe speaking a substantially different language] results from the circumstance of their having never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government. Their only controuls are their manners, and that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling, in every man makes a part of his nature. An offence against these is punished by contempt, by exclusion from society, or, where the case is serious, as that of murder, by the individuals whom it concerns. Imperfect as this species of coercion may seem, crimes are very rare among them: insomuch that were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the
civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last:
and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves. It will be said, that great societies cannot exist without government. The Savages therefore break them into small ones.”
— Notes on Virginia, page 220 Also, searcheable here:
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-singleauthor?specfile=/web/data/jefferson/texts/jefall.o2w
via Less Antman on lpradicals yahoo group
There are certainly Luddites of a sort on “both” sides of this issue. Yes, there are those who want to use their belief in climate change to enact massive new government programs.
There are, as Tom correctly points out, also those who use their belief in climate change to push technological innovation and and end to massive government programs subsidizing conventional energy companies.
There are those using non-belief for the purpose of stopping government programs, and those using non-belief to shield corporate subsidies.
Global warming, as forwarded by the likes of Gore and Phillies, IS a myth.
Climate destabilization isn’t. It’s direction is far less certain. Highly complex system.
No, I understand the skepticism. But, like you said, sometimes it is warranted and sometimes it isn’t. Just because the “establishment” OK’s an idea that doesn’t make it wrong.
Thanks for clearing that up Tom, I was under the impression it was more of a 19th century version of Terminator 3.
While I agree that government involvement in energy has massively jacked up the natural state of that market, I don’t think that skepticism must be preemptive reaction against the consequences of being wrong. It wasn’t long ago that the government and media whipped the country into a frenzy with a litany of experts and their warnings of impending doom. Skeptics were widely criticized as partisan or unrealistic then as well. Now we’re several trillion deeper in the hole and the blood’s everywhere – and it’s now widely accepted that the initial premise was wrong in the first place. I don’t blame anyone for being skeptical about anything at this point.
GE,
The anti-science folks are the ones saying “no, no, things must stay EXACTLY the same as they’ve been for the last century. Any innovation or progress might hurt our portfolios.”
Ideologically, they’re no different from the early 19th century Luddites who smashed looms, believing that reducing the labor involved in production of textiles would rob them of their jobs as weavers.
In fact, the introduction of mass production brought the cost of textiles down so much that the increase in demand resulted in MORE employment.
Granted, the neo-Luddites are trying to protect portfolios heavy in “old industry” stocks rather than individual wage labor slots, but the government subsidies and protections against liability for externalities that prop up those portfolios are in function no different than the obsolete looms that propped up those old jobs.
Few remember that the leader of the fictional prototype for Earth First! was an anarcho-capitalist.
I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone who wants communism as a solution to our environmental problems. Sure, I belong to a co-op, but that’s a personal choice on a small scale, not a large scale solution.
There are enviro-communists.
Pushing for green technologies does not make one an enviro-communist.
Pushing for global government and collective management of private property does.
“Environ-communists”?
We’re the ones pushing for progress – that would be innovation with green technologies and intelligent planning/design, in very simple terms.
That’s why I always say that regardless of whether global warming is happening or not, it would be beneficial, if not necessary, to make our society sustainable.
How does accepting the inconclusive science and political propaganda of “Global Warming” = progress?
You have it backwards. The environ-communists are the luddites. They’re the ones who hate progress.
Fred,
Luddism isn’t necessarily “pro-nature.” Luddism is simply anti-innovation.
The original Luddites were the ones who smashed new inventions and machines that produced stuff more efficiently, because they thought that this would cost workers their jobs.
The purveyors of “global warming is a myth” ideology are neo-Luddites. Instead of literally smashing machines, they smash innovation by agitating for maintenance of the massive government subsidies of petroleum which have hidden the true cost of gas and oil for more than a century, keeping them artificially “competitive” with the alternatives.
The impulse is the same as it was with the old Luddites — “if progress occurs, we lose, so let’s stop progress at all costs.” It’s probably just as unerealistic, too. Mass production increased employment rather than decreasing it as the Luddites feared. Chances are that once the energy industry is pulled from the government teat, it will use its big capital base to compete quite well, resulting in even bigger profits rather than in the share price crashes the energy ne0-Luddites fear.
31,000 “scientists?” I have heard numerous times of numerous scientists whose names were added to the list without their permission and who said they disagreed with that petition, or whatever it should be called. Not to mention, I have heard that a lot of these “scientists” are very lacking in credentials.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
That’s the article that caused the stir in the skeptic world. Unfortunately, “Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov’s theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect…without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice…By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars…Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era.”
I haven’t heard about that NASA thing. Care to elaborate?
And I’m not even sure why you brought up ethanol…
I thought Luddism was pro-nature/anti-industry. The swoop seems to have passed over my head.
Global warming, as forwarded by the likes of Gore and Phillies, IS a myth.
Recognizing this fact no more makes one a corporatist than recognizing the fact that the 14th amendment was not ratified makes one a “Dixiecrat.”
In 2004, Aaron Russo got booed in the LP’s televised candidate debate when he made the relatively mild point that no, handing ANWR over to Exxon as corporate welfare wasn’t going to solve our energy problems.
This year, we had at least three nomination candidates (Kubby, Phillies and Jingozian) who accepted science and reality on climate … and along comes Barr and in one fell neo-Luddite swoop wipes out four years of progress toward making the LP sane and sound on environmental issues.
Don’t get me wrong — he’s good on a lot of issues and getting better all the time. On balance, I think he’s doing a pretty damn good job. And the internal LP culture itself (particularly the conflation of free enterprise with corporatism on the part of many big-“L” Libertarians) may have contributed to him bombing on the issue of global warming. But he did, and that’s sad.
Ross – I said its existence (would be) irrelevant in a regime OF FULL PROPERTY RIGHTS, not “without property rights.”
In other words, in a libertarian society, you would not be able to pollute your neighbor’s air without making compensation to him, period. And if compensation were impossible, you just wouldn’t be able to do it. I know of no way humans can cause “global warming” without violating the property rights of their fellow man.
Ross,
Just a few weeks ago 31,000 scientists published a petition falsifying glomal warming as hyped by the Gore money machine.
And just two days ago the US Army confirmed private atmosphericists by announcing that planetary warming is caused by fluctuations in the sun’s output.
Look at the bigger picture. NASA says Mars and Venus are heating up too. Fossil fuel consumption? Obviously not.
And Rachel Carson was indeed an alarmist whacko. In countries where ddt is still being used (No, the ban is not global), there are still bees and birds, and wonder of wonders, the crops are edible and nutritious.
Corn may not be the best grain to eat (makes you fat), but there’s a corn shortage already from almost all of the fields in my part of Texas being converted to gCorn that is indigestible but bug resistant and slightly higher-yield for ethanol.
In case you didn’t realize it, despite its being nutritionally disastrous (addictive and makes you really fat), high fructose corn syrup is a major ingredient in almost every “food” product you buy. A general crisis in corn prices is a widespread crisis in every American’s food budget.
I’m not an anarchist, I believe we need a little government (the only argument is how little it should be), but all these problems are cause by government do-gooders, and in too many cases that’s environmental whackos parroting bad science in unknowing support of someone’s unethical money and power agenda.
Oh yes, and public ignorance wilfully in bed with official stupidity.
-0-
(I’m inkabinkaboo182.)
For your consideration:
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?p=33597#33597
Its existence is irrelevant in a US without property rights? You don’t think it’s relevant that billions of people will suffer throughout the world?
Peter – A massive highway running from Mexico to Canada, built through eminent domain = a lot of people pushed off their houses and farms, etc., a lot of businesses closed down. A LOT. It is also going to cause a lot of upheaval in local economies. Again, if this were to come about privately, I’d be all for it.
Ross – “Global warming” the way it is presented by the globalist left and George Phillies is not proven. But its existence is irrelevant in a regime of full property rights.
Yes, but the underlying message of what Barr was saying was obvious: global warming isn’t proven, these environmentalists who think we should do something about it are crazy (you could even throw in “I’m the real conservative, not this McCain guy who wants cap-and-trade”).
Ross,
I’m an environmentalists, always have been, and I was not offended by Barr’s remark. Environmental whackos do exist, and they have represented the rest of us poorly. Some of them are downright stupid.
You should not automatically extend a statement made about a type of environmentalist to all environmentalists.
To listen to political dialog, you have to exercise discernment.
-0-
Peter – The highway is being constructed. It’s not absurd in the least. And I’m a pro-immigration, pro-free trade, anti-nationalist!
Good point, Peter. If the NAU scrapped the Constitution and adopted a North American Articles of Confederation and backed the Amero with gold, then sign me up!
I would love a free-trade-enhancing highway from Mexico to Canada IF IT WERE PRIVATELY FUNDED and not built using eminent domain.
I’d think even Greens would agree with that.
I’m still don’t have a clue as to why you guys are scared of a freeway. It’s up there with the twin towers being self imploding from the basement and the moon landing being faked. I mean – how can you expect people to take you seriously?
And don’t get me started on the “myth” of global warming, which is about as much a myth as evolution.
Ross – Mary Ruwart’s coalition most certainly would have included environmentalists! Libertarianism, TRUE LIBERTARIANISM, is the most radical pro-environment ideology around. Even RFK Jr. acknowledges this when he admits that regulations are “permissions to pollute” and that in the absence of regulations, people would be able to sue polluters! Mary Ruwart joined a Kalamazoo environmentalist group and converted all of the members to libertarians. She then won an environmentalist award for the good she did in that group!
If someone buys a toy and is poisoned by lead and doesn’t know about it… How would the government solve this? Testing every single toy? It’s absurd. Someone would find out! What, only one person is going to die? Absurd.
Read Mary’s book!
kaliplay – I think I worded it poorly. (Now where are the Barr-barians to say I did it on purpose to make him look bad or IPR is about to lose Google News status over this?).
What he meant was that he would BRING THESE THINGS UP and make issues of them in his campaign. He said the NAFTA Superhighway was an absolute reality, and that the NAU was a “very real possibility.” He came out strongly in opposition to both.
Sorry for the poor wording on my part.
A national coalition that certainly doesn’t include environmentalists…
I don’t agree with you about people being ignorant. What about people who use those lead toys and get poisoning and go blind and never know that it’s from lead?
I’m not sure about the whole taxes thing. Like I said, I’m new to libertarianism and politics in general. I’ve got some reading to do…
What does putting the NAU and Superhighway “on the table” mean? He said that he isn’t sure they exist, only a possibility??
Barr is trying to build a national coalition that will challenge the Democrat and Republican parties. What he’s doing now is shoring up his base, which is among people who voted Republican in 1994. This is smart. Nothing he said about global warming, for instance, is mutually exclusive with legalizing hemp. He still has five months to make a pitch on legalizing hemp. But he can’t do that until he already has those “right-wing” people whose votes he *can* get locked in over June and July.
Ross – Read Mary Ruwart’s HEALING OUR WORLD IN AN AGE OF AGGRESSION for examples of libertarianism and anarchism in action. There have never really been any purely libertarian societies or civilizations, but the extent to which a society or civilization has been partly libertarian strongly correlates with the success and prosperity of that civilization.
Jerry: I don’t accept “user fees” because I don’t believe in government monopolies. The only legitimate government actions, in the radical minarchist (as opposed to anarchist) view are the provision of police, national defense, and court services. If these are supported by user fees, then they are de-facto private and there is no “government,” which is equally desirable in my mind.
Ross – Not having money is no detriment to litigation when your case is even remotely strong. Take the day off and watch daytime TV if you need proof of this. Lawyers will work on contingency. If someone is ignorant, then that’s their own problem. Government should exist to defend liberty, not to protect morons from the destructiveness of their own idiocy. And the government should not be giving grants, for God’s sake. “Grants” are just redistribution from you to some yutz. If you want to give the yutz your money, then do it — but don’t use the government’s guns to take mine from me by force to give it to someone else. It is immoral!
User fees, meaning that if you used a government service you would be charged for it? That seems the most plausible situation, but it would probably work out that every person using the service would be charged such a high rate that they wouldn’t even use it! And then that defeats the purpose of a lot of government programs.
But then there are the situations in which government isn’t a service to many people. Like when it gives grants.
What about the people that don’t have the money to sue? What about the people that are ignorant of the “lead in the toy”, but are still being hurt anyway?
Have there ever been any libertarian or anarchist civilizations or cities or societies that I could look into?
“How do you have government without taxes? Two answers: 1) Voluntary contributions, 2) You don’t have government. I’m fine with either.”
I would add user fees to that…
I had no idea Barr knew about NAU and was pleasantly surprised that Beck was informed and knew Ghouliani was neck deep involved.
Barr told everyone (listen to the vid) what I was trying to convey pre-convention to undecided delegates on the blogs, he IS a libertarian leaning conservative. With that said, it’s past time for everyone to STOP cutting him up. He’s the nominee. Everyone should move on.
If you don’t like him, work on down ticket races with candidates who you agree with on the issues. Even better, run yourself for office. I feel ’08 is perhaps the best year in our lifetime for third parties! Let’s get the message to the masses, they’ll listen this year. Carpe Diem !
Ross – When you buy the toy, it is assumed it is safe. Unless it is an inherently dangerous toy. Even then, one assumes it does not contain lead sufficient enough to get lead poison. You are injured by the toy manufacturer, who is representing his product as safe. Therefore, you have standing to take him to court and sue him for compensatory damages. Very easy. Also, in absence of government, a private organization, say The International Toy Certification Board (ITCB) could verify the safety of toys on a voluntary basis. Then you could, if you chose, only buy toys that had the ITCB seal of approval. ITCB would have every incentive to be honest in its dealings, or its brand image would suffer and no one would pay for certification. What’s wrong with such a system?
How do you have government without taxes? Two answers: 1) Voluntary contributions, 2) You don’t have government. I’m fine with either.
Amen, G.E.!
The problem with that view is that it could be argued something like this – I buy a toy. The toy has lead paint, but I can’t tell that when I buy it. I get lead poisoning. In court, the toy company says that I bought the toy, so it’s my fault. Then there’s no protection for the victim.
If we have any level of government at all, how do you propose to fund it without taxes?
Taxation is armed robbery and regulation is slavery. Individuals should be able to use their property in any way they like, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of other individuals or THEIR property. When property uses do infringe upon the rights of other individuals, then there is a criminal act — not something to be regulated or allowed by government.
Have you ever heard of Joel Salatin? He’s a farmer in Virginia, one of the most environmentally friendly farmers in the world. He’s one of the people that turned me onto libertarianism (in the book “The Omnivore’s Dillema” by Michael Pollan).
http://www.polyfacefarms.com – I believe that’s his website.
I think I’ve read that once before. Grist is on my list of website I check daily.
Paul’s is an interesting take on things, and I do think that it deserves a spot at the table just like regulation and taxes. Unfortunately, it’s been too easy for environmentalists to dismiss views like that out of hand.
Ross… I encourage you to read Ron Paul’s interview with an “environmental wacko.” Paul gives the real libertarian hardline, not the conservative oblivionism
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/
It killed any chance of my ever liking Barr, this interview. That part about the environment – where Barr talked about “environmental whackos” – was such an anti-intellectual, neocon speech that I couldn’t stand it.