The AP reports three presidential candidates — Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin, Libertarian Bob Barr, and America’s Independent Party candidate Alan Keyes — will speak at a rally organized by the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps on the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this month. All three will be on the ballot in Colorado. The “daylong event will take place in Congress Park, a residential neighborhood east of downtown Denver. The group has no plans to protest in the fenced-off area designated for protesters on the grounds of the Pepsi Center, the site of most of the DNC’s events.†The AP article erroneously refers to Keyes as a “former presidential candidate.â€
14 Comments
Comments are closed.
It is you who is ignorant of economics and history.
1. Libertarians do not suggest that foreigners should be able to come to the U.S. and receive welfare, but rather, that the welfare state should be abolished. By reducing the argument to immigration, you are implicitly accepting and seeking to protect the welfare state, which is itself unsustainable.
2. Advantages of the U.S. increasing its population by 100 million in the next 15 years: Higher land values for existing citizens, promotions for existing citizens, lower costs thanks to increased division of labor, and if you’re interested in preserving the welfare state, then those 100 million new workers are absolutely necessary to fund socialist security.
Amazingly naive comments from people who understand nothing about economics and history.
To be able to help people from disadvantaged countries the US must remain economically strong. If that strength is diluted by the obligation to support 3rd world needs within our own country we cannot be effective.
The US does not have limitless resources to invest in those cultures who do not have the will to invest in themselves. Instead they run to the US for free services paid for by tax paying US citizens.
Our population is on track to reach 420 million by 2050 mostly from 3rd world immigrants, What will that do to our water, infrastucture, quality of life and economy?
What are the advantages of the US increasing it’s population by 100,000,000 in the next 15 yars?
I’m not so sure about that. I don’t think he is “BY FAR” more libertarian than Howard H. Buffett. 🙂
Here is a clip from Corsi on Larry King but he does not mention Baldwin in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yELXhrt1KYg
Lance,
I don’t care about Nader. I find most of his arguments so silly that to me it’s obvious why he failed to convert the public.
As for Ron Paul, his campaign produced more discussion of libertarian ideas outside of traditional libertarian circles than the LP has in its entire history.
Furthermore, while not directly related to his presidential campaign, there remains the fact that he is BY FAR the most libertarian politician ever to hold office at the federal level.
Nevertheless, some self-described “libertarians” seem to enjoy nothing more than taking potshots at him at every conceivable opportunity. It never ceases to amaze me.
langa,
the idea that on balance his campaign was bad for the “Freedom Movement†is patently absurd.
You’ve clearly must have run through every point of that debate to exhaustion in order to make such a firm assertion, but I’m generally not considered totally insane, and I think a decent case could be made that Ron Paul’s campaign may well have been (on balance)damaging to the broader freedom movement.
Without making that case (after all, you haven’t made yours, so I’ll save my energy for now), I submit that the Nader 2000 campaign may very well have been – nay, was – damaging to the broader “progressive movement”. It’s a case that nearly makes itself, but here are a few points:
–it fractured and damaged the Green Party (damage and fracture which is still playing itself out 8 years later)
–it fractured the Democratic Party (of course, an argument could be made that that helps the progressive movement, but it wouldn’t pass the MoveOn.org smell test)
–it helped GW Bush get elected, and re-elected, and helped usher in 8 straight years of Democratic balllessness in Congress
–it encouraged Nader’s cult of personality, fueling his subsequent runs (which are a waste of the movement’s time and energy, and have become an 8-year (or more) diversion for the activists who bought into it.)
The only case I can see for Nader’s very impressive showing in 2000 being a plus for the progressive movement is that it has delivered upon the movement such a brutal series of injuries that if the movement manages to survive, it will be all the stronger for having been kneecapped by Nader for 10 years or so.
But the weird thing is that in July of 2000, Nader’s campaign looked like it was seriously kicking ass for the progressive movement. He was raising eyebrows just like Ron Paul. And hardcore progressives were like “oh, yeah, baby, our time is nigh!” But it turns out…not so much.
>The AP article erroneously refers to Keyes as a “former presidential candidate.â€
Keyes is a former presidential candidate. He’s even a “perennial” one – this is his third run in 4 elections.
Should we be thanking mscrib for making snarky comments on blogs?
Look, I disagree with RP on immigration too, but the idea that on balance his campaign was bad for the “Freedom Movement” is patently absurd.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you can’t be pro-freedom if you oppose the freedom of movement by peaceful individuals. That’s, like, you know, the cornerstone of libertarianism (and liberalism).
The word I’ve taken the liberty of bolding is too much of a qualifier for some libertarians.
“Should we be thanking Ron Paul for the growing traction that racist Mexican-bashing has in the “larger Freedom movement?â€
Are you saying that all anti-illegal immigration protesters are racist? Furthermore, when you lump all anti-illegal immigration advocacy in as “Mexican bashing”–are you saying all illegal are mexican?
Or how about, “I’m for immigration, just not ILLEGAL immigration” — as if the law is always right and always must be obeyed.
Agreed.
Should we be thanking Ron Paul for the growing traction that racist Mexican-bashing has in the “larger Freedom movement?”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you can’t be pro-freedom if you oppose the freedom of movement by peaceful individuals. That’s, like, you know, the cornerstone of libertarianism (and liberalism). It’s pathetic to hear these same people back-patting tax resisters turn around and claim, “Well, but what these people are doing is illegal…” when it comes to immigrants seeking a better life for themselves and for their families.
If I had to pick, I’d choose a hardworking immigrant from Central America over some dirtbag tax protester any day.
All three will also address the Conservative Leadership Conference.