Neoconservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh has admonished Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr for praising Al Gore’s work on climate change. According to reports, Limbaugh has called on Libertarians to explain to their presidential candidate what libertarianism actually means.
33 Comments
Comments are closed.
Really, the existence of global warming should be a non-issue among libertarians because we’re supposed to believe that either way the government shouldn’t be creating environmental regulations, taxing carbon, etc.
Carl M. aligns himself with Eric Dondero as a righteous murderer of men, women, and children. Yay.
Citizen Nothing – I suppose you took the word “fruit” as a homophobic slur. That was not how it was intended, but as a synonym for “nut.”
GE writes:
Were it not for Death Merchants like me, and soldiers like Eric D., you wouldn’t have the right to be a whiny treasonous defender of tyrants abroad. Then again, you might not only have the right, but the obligation to defend some tyrants abroad, depending on the nature of our overlords.
Natural rights are subject to compromise on a crowded globe. Private property in land is one such compromise. Funding the military is another.
Regarding “bad publicity” vs. no publicity . . . there are least three types of bad publicity I know of:
1-For libertarianism, the bad publicity gets the libertarian position correct (say, on the drug war), but then the piece, article, etc goes on to attempt to discredit the libertarian position of disbanding the war on drugs, and;
2-the bad publicity gets the libertarian position wrong, say that libertarians support NAFTA, and then goes on to say that NAFTA is bad because it “ships” jobs overseas. There are multiple problems with this, but I don’t need to go into it for purposes here, and
3-the bad publicity is over a candidate or spokesman for libertarianism, who is purportedly in line with the libertarian positions, but is called on it because he or she isn’t in step with the libertarian position. This is the case with Limbaugh calling out Barr as to whether or not he is libertarian, and just what is libertarianism anyway.
So to just say bad publicity is better than none, it really depends. With Bar, assumed to be properly representing libertarianism, but actually is misrepresenting it, will probably require damage control for years to come. Thus, with Barr, this is the WORST type of “bad publicity”!
Whether or not Limbaugh is a neocon or not (I tend to believe that he is), his call for Libertarians to define themselves is absolutely on the mark!
Limbaugh is observant enough, and knowledgeable enough that Barr is a sharply differentiated from libertarianism.
Limbaugh disagrees with libertarians on many things, but he is astute enough to know when he sees a sheep in wolf’s clothing.
Actually the second question I’ve proposed is predicated on a continuance of the 1 degree increase over 120 years.
Otherwise, if there is a leveling off, or even a cooling, what’s the problem?
Whether global warming is real or not (I am of the understanding that the earth’s avg temperature has increased something on the order of 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last 120 years or so), the 2 relevant questions are:
1-Is it caused by human activity (and even if partially so, what %age of the temp rise is)
and,
2- Is there anything, realistically that can be done to stop it, or would it just be better to adjust to it?
I will also say this, that government action is absolutely premature, as is any “collective” action without a definitive answer to these two questions.
Jeff Wartman // Jul 21, 2008 at 8:59 pm
When guys like Limbaugh start criticizing us, it means what we’re doing is effective. The big government Republicans are scared =)
Man, then maybe we should just praise Chairman Mao, Hitler, redistributive federal programs, etc. That will really get them “criticizing”! Great logic Wartman!
“You fruit.”
Hmmm. I just learned a very important lesson about this Web site. (Not that I didn’t laugh, though not at Carl M.)
Does your “complete” theory of natural “rights” also include the “right” to be a Death Merchant?
No one has a “right” to nature, you fruit. You have a right to your private property, against which pollution is an act of aggression. No libertarian contests that. Several contest the theory of man-made global warming, the existence of which is irrelevant to the application of libertarian philosophy.
If you’re out, then I’m glad for libertarianism to mean corporate shill anti-science.
G.E., global warming is a theory based on basic science. The AMOUNT of global warming is the only factor worthy of debate. More CO2 warms the air. However, over the warm parts of the earth, the relative effect is small because water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas.
Over the poles, there is very little water vapor in the air.
Give Bill Gates $20 and there is little effect. Give the bum on the street $20 and the effect is more substantial.
If libertarianism means accepting corporate shill anti-science, I am glad to be out. If libertarianism means contempt for environmental issues in general, I am glad to be out. A complete theory of natural rights includes rights to nature itself.
Al Gore proposed taking on the gigantic third rail of politics in order to slow down carbon emissions. Al Gore cut more civilian non-defense government employees from the payroll than Ronald Reagan. Don’t call Al Gore a socialist.
Funny how “anti-corporate” believes in a theory manufactured by corporations for increased control over the economy.
Jerry S., those are your references that are supposed to refute widespread scientific consensus? Honestly? Did you do “RESEARCH” that led you to believe those were the best, most credible sources of information on the issue? Someone’s personal blog and one 11 year old article by a chemist and a veterinarian? I’ll leave you to do your own research, but you might want to check here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
I don’t have to hear what any (forced) taxpayer paid employee has to say to make up my mind about ANYTHING foreign or domestic. I learned a long time ago there are enemies to freedom in high places and their lines of attack are to be resisted in every peaceable means possible. Hopefully to avoid that day when the use of violence will be necessary to protect our LIBERTY.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth
http://theblog.liraville.com/?p=342
al gore-le-o-ne, godfather of scientific lies
It’s easier to remain a mushroom all your life and stay in the dark flow with the asses of the masses. You are fed regularly and don’t have to ever RESEARCH anything. The bad thing is you are losing more freedom each passing day for yourself and the rest of us.
Jared,
I do think it’s great when Barr’s differences between his views and the LP get attention in the major media. It serves as an education session on libertarianism, usually presented by people who aren’t libertarians themselves. That legitimizes the philosophy, when journalists, and people of other political stripes, are taking the time out to discuss the finer points of libertarianism witht their listeners/viewers/readers, etc.. And within the context of the Barr campaign, it serves to let voters know that he is not a pure-bred libertarian. That’s good for the rest of us Libertarians. It means that Barr’s lamer stances aren’t going to scar the party’s image nearly as much as a lot of folks want to think.
This attention from Limbaugh is great. It could even wake Barr up into being more libertarian
What did he say, sunshine?
Gore namechecked “the Libertarians” on Meet the Press yesterday.
I would like to hear George Phillies’ view on climate change and what we should do about it, given that he is a scientist and a libertarian.
So we are now going to let Rush determine libertarianism? I’ll pass.
Libertarians love to eat their own. Meanwhile the big government pols continue to win. What a strategy!!!!
G.E.
One month ago he said…
And now he’s saying…
Be patient. Wait another month. Next month you may like the answer.
Why would the big-government Republicans be “scared” of a Libertarian advocating more government (in this one area) than Republicans do? That’s like saying if Barr adopted Bill Redpath’s position on guns (“grab ’em!”), Limbaugh and his vile ilk would be scared.
If aligning with the big-government Left is the way to “scare” neocon rightists like Limbaugh, I think it’s preferable that they not be scared.
When guys like Limbaugh start criticizing us, it means what we’re doing is effective. The big government Republicans are scared =)
Thank you, JCJ!
I was very bad on economics and regulation. But my main issues were libertarian ones.
When GE was running as a Green back in 2004 I actually remember reading about him and thinking “hey, this guy should be a libertarian.” I don’t remember exactly why but perhaps it was because his main issues overlapped with Libertarian beliefs and he didn’t make a big deal about the more un-libertarian Green beliefs.
I was never into environmentalism, Richard. The Green Party was the most active anti-war voice in my area, Ann Arbor.
Your candidate, Bob Barr, went from saying global warming was a “myth” ONE MONTH AGO to saying it is a “reality” today.
ONE MONTH vs. four years.
What is a “myth” if not something that’s “ridiculous and baseless”?
Barr people are completely shameless in their defense of the indefensible. How completely hypocritical to mock my four-year change of heart in the face of a one-month change by Barr.
Perhaps Barr will finally get rid of that “national sales tax” plan that we libertarians hate so much. The problem is he would probably replace it with Gore’s carbon tax.
G.E. has gone from being a Green Party congressional candidate in 2004, to someone who thinks that “the global warming theory” is “ridiculous and baseless”. One frequently sees the greatest zealotry from people who are recent converts from an earlier, opposing, point of view.
One doesn’t have to be “anti-science” to be libertarian — one can even believe in the ridiculous and baseless “global warming” theory and still be a libertarian (Steve Kubby, Tom Knapp, etc.)
But one cannot, as Barr has done, praise the globalist neocon Al Gore’s “work” to usher in Communism under the name of “environmentalism” and be a “libertarian.”
I just can’t wait until the earth warms up enough so we can re-farm Greenland again.
Does being a libertarian require being anti-science? Rush Limbaugh denies the well-established fact of human-caused climate change. Barr fell into that nonsense when he went on Glenn Beck and said “global warming is a myth.” That turned me off in a big way. I’m pleased to see that he is correcting course on this issue.
Isn’t it great all the attention Barr is getting as the Libertarian Party nominee? Negative media is better than no media isn’t it?
Ah, he’s actually saying “Libertarian”. My dad listens to his show daily, and thinks it means I’m a socialist or something.
Interesting twist. Once he explained his economic thoughts in depth to me. I said he just might be a Libertarian. He said “No, that’s conservatism”.
😀