Libertarians reach out to gay, lesbian Democrats picketing DNC fundraiser

Press release from LPHQ posted at LP.org:

LGBT Democrats express outrage over Obama administration defense of DOMA

WASHINGTON — Representatives from America’s third-largest party greeted Democrats protesting the Obama administration’s legal arguments defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) outside a Thursday Democratic National Committee fundraiser aimed at gay and lesbian donors, and shared with them information on the Libertarian Party’s advocacy for marriage equality.

“The Obama administration extends their hand for donations from the LGBT community, and then slaps us in the face with the other hand with the defense of DOMA,” said Catherine Sumner, Libertarian National Committee Gay and Lesbian Policy Adviser.

“Libertarians agree that government should stay out of the marriage issue, and that DOMA should be repealed,” said Sumner. “We welcome Democrats who agree with us to join the only party that will defend their rights, the Libertarians.”

The activists voiced their disappointment over a legal brief filed by the Obama administration asking a federal court to uphold the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. Standing outside the Madarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, D.C., which hosted a DNC fundraiser featuring Vice-President Joe Biden aimed at collecting funds from gay and lesbian donors, the protestors voiced their displeasure.

While the Obama administration has voiced its opposition to marriage equality and support for DOMA, and the DNC refuses to call on the administration to change its policy, Libertarians have no qualms about their support for marriage equality.

“White House lawyers take over two pages of documentation, citing case law, purposely not citing Loving vs. Virginia, that in so many words, indicates that gay marriage is not natural and thereby not an inherent constitutional right,” said Sumner.

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669 or 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email Donny.Ferguson@lp.org.

The Libertarian Party is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

80 thoughts on “Libertarians reach out to gay, lesbian Democrats picketing DNC fundraiser

  1. Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace

    Cool!
    Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
    Washington, Connecticut
    http://justicesofthepeace.blogspot.com

    Kudos to New England and Iowa for supporting marriage where I’m officiating for alot of couples who are coming to CT to wed this summer.

    Re: Obama, DOMA, DADT, “war” funding, national health, bail-outs for Wall St looters, Israel-Palestine, etc…

    He’s looking more and more like Bush in black face this days… But he knows better.

  2. Pingback: Libertarians reach out to gay, lesbian Democrats picketing DNC … | Youth Political Blog

  3. Eric Dondero

    Problem is, 99% of these LGBTers are affirmative action/special rights supporters. What happens when they learn that we Libertarians don’t wish to treat them any more specially than anyone else?

    Better for Libertarians to reach out to religious folk, like the churches, who are being forced by government to perform Gay Marriage ceremonies, all over New England and other regions of the country. That’s a principled Libertarian stance, and one we can gain genuine adherents on.

  4. Steven R Linnabary

    Churches are “forced” to perform ceremonies??

    Most churches won’t even perform the ceremony unless BOTH people are members!

    There are still churches that will not perform the ceremony if it is an interracial couple!

    Can you provide some news links of churches that are “forced” to perform these ceremonies against their faith?

    I’ll grant you that seemingly 99% of the LGBT crowd is democrat or republican (much like the rest of America)…like there is a difference.

    PEACE

  5. mdh

    Problem is, 99% of these Christians are theocracy supporters. What happens when they learn that we Libertarians don’t wish to treat their god any more specially than anyone else’s?

    Better for Libertarians to reach out to the queer community, like the gay bars, who are being forced by government to not get married, all over the whole country and other regions of the world. That’s a principled Libertarian stance, and one we can gain genuine adherents on.

  6. libertariangirl

    right , there are no churches forc3d to marry anyone. now , justice of the peace, maybe

  7. mdh

    For the record, the government has never forced a church to perform a gay marriage. Not once. Not ever.

  8. mdh

    I long for the day when I can have two wives and a husband – all of whom will be smokin’ hot.

  9. libertariangirl

    mdh // Jul 1, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    I long for the day when I can have two wives and a husband – all of whom will be smokin’ hot.

    I like Heinleins veiws on sex and family, ecp. as expressed in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND

  10. Richard Winger

    Eric Dondero is petitioning in Maine to get the anti-same-sex referendum on the ballot. Maybe he tells people on the street to sign his petition to save churches from being forced to marry same-sex couples.

    The Catholic Church won’t allow divorced people to get married in a Catholic Church, and no law can or does interfere with that church policy.

    Gay people are not asking for affirmative action or privileges that anyone else doesn’t have.

  11. Erik Geib

    Once again, Eric Dondero shows how easy it is to abuse the self-label of ‘libertarian.’

    Stick with the conservatives, you neo-con hack.

  12. Richard Cooper

    I presume mdh is being humorous. What poll did Eric Dondero conduct to come up with 99%? Even if gays and lesbians favored some sort of affirmative action, they may favor lower taxes and less government.

    Libertarians are the only people I know to expect ideological consistency from the voters.

    At the very least, Libertarians could target the Log Cabin Republicans. They are identifiable with actual chapters and objectively speaking, not satisfied by the party they have joined.

  13. mdh

    @20 – I’ve known some LCR folks, and they’re mostly entrenched Republicans who just happen to be gay – not good recruitment prospects, imho. The queer community in general is a very good recruitment center, however. There’re definitely the entrenched democrats, but if you target the queer community in general rather than Democratic party events, you’ll have a better chance.

    The LPWV has even held executive committee meetings at gay-oriented bars.

    I think that what I’ve found is that success rates in terms of outreach within the queer community have been a bit better than with outreach efforts to the general populace, and that it’s easier to target our message, so it takes somewhat less time and effort. Personally, I have perhaps a bit more success since I am openly pansexual, personally into the BDSM scene, etc. There’s definitely a market for us there.

    And yes, I was just copying Dondero’s post verbatim and changing a few simple words to swap it around. 😉

  14. Steven R Linnabary

    Eric Dondero is petitioning in Maine to get the anti-same-sex referendum on the ballot. Maybe he tells people on the street to sign his petition to save churches from being forced to marry same-sex couples.

    Interesting…perhaps it would be worth somebody’s time and effort to have ED followed. This might constitute fraud in Maine, enough to keep the issue off the ballot.

    PEACE

  15. darla

    Um, I am a lesbian and a Libertarian. Don’t give up recruiting the GLBT crowd as I know a lot of them.

  16. Donald Raymond Lake

    Libertarians have platforms [sexual orientation, smaller government, private assistance] which they spend a life time ignoring. Libs should have been, should be [even straight former Southern Baptists like my self] SOOOOOO active on THE ‘Civil Rights Issues of 21st Century’!

  17. Michael Seebeck

    Don, the “Civil Rights Issue of the Century” is simple: restoring ALL our freedoms from the tyranny of government. GLBTQ is only one piece of all of that. 🙂

  18. paulie Post author

    What kind of churches still refuse to perform interracial marriage?

    A church that gets their Pastor from Bob Jones University.

    BJU

  19. libertariangirl

    the ‘family ‘ makeup-s on MOON IS A HARSH MISTRISS are pretty cool too:)

    yes im a dork

  20. libertariangirl

    Ayn Rand hated the LP because sometimes even smart folks have silly meaningless conversations for entertainment and fun?
    wow , how snobby of her…

    lighten up John C

  21. libertariangirl

    or are you saying Rand hated the LP because some like Heinlein better ? LOL

  22. Donald Raymond Lake

    “Michael Seebeck // Jul 2, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    Don, the “Civil Rights Issue of the Century” is simple, GLBTQ is only one piece of all of that.”

    First, why have Libs failed to care/ capitalize on this big tent, general issue?

    Secondly, what is a higher profile in the 21st Century than GLBTQ? Why do I [a former Eagle Boy Sprout whom bad mouths the BSA; a former Southern Baptist Royal Ambassador whom does not go to church any more] never see a Lib table or float or presence at GLBTQ events? Citizens For A Better Vets Home, [Afro American] Tuskeegee Air men, Reform Party types are there. So are Greens and Socialists [the troubled Peace and Freedom Party] —– but not Libs!

    Why Mike, why?

    Thirdly, why so belligerent toward potential allies? [Except for a knee jerk Lib response!] You guys got enuf influence, money, cooperation, and recruitment to poop on other alternative political individuals or groups on an on going basis?

    It must be wonderful!

    Fourthly, I detest Democans and Republicrats and find them guilty of driving the fascist imperial global American Empire off in to the ditch of history. But alternative folks are not smart enuf to even begin to fight the anti populous Duopoly Establishment! The Reform Party is a prime example of deconstructive behavior. P1992 Perot was, even after his mid summer bail out, almost 20% of the total. Today, may be four states with ballot access!

    We, and the Bible Thumpers, and the Greens, and the Libs, did it to our selves! Thx Mike for being such a tool!

  23. Catholic Trotskyist

    I hope you libertarians can get the GLBT community. Then the Democratic Party and our holy commander Barack H. Obama, will finally be free of the gay lobby and be able to capture the Christian moderates with far left views on economics and foreign policy, thus initiating the New World Order of Catholic Trotskyism, amen. Heinlein is languishing in purgatory for his evil views on the family. Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave because of her fear of the church and state coming together in the new world order of Catholic Trotskyism.
    God bless the left-right parallel center of anti-choice, homophobic, pro-family socialists.
    Sincerely,
    CT, the anti-Rand, the anti-Dondero.

  24. libertariangirl

    thats funny given the unsual representations of sex , family and love represnted in his works

  25. Beer drinker

    I think CT is 100% correct. Good job CT, I hope you are right about the New World Order coming soon. And you attacks on Nader are great too.

  26. libertariangirl

    he’s performance art like Stephen Colbert . at least for me 🙂

  27. mdh

    TPR, we’d let them get married and do whatever else they want so long as they don’t impose themselves upon others.

  28. libertariangirl

    right and as long as they pay medical expenses for their fucked up kids , and not the taxpayer, why should i care. but i do and heres why

    The lady who pained the mural in my kids room long ago married her paternal uncle , her dad walked her down the aisle ( too wierd) and they had a messed up kid too.
    so i think its pretty common to have srious health problems for children with such relations

    theres the force issue for me because that child they create which may have serious quality of life issues ,didnt ask to be born with so many problems , Is it fair to the kid?

  29. mdh

    Is life fair in general? Nope
    they can have abortions, use condoms or get sterilized if they so choose.

  30. John C

    31 and 32,
    Both. Plus she hated gays and especially gay libertarian hippies.

  31. Third Party Revolution

    At least the good thing is that you guys are not hypocrites. Unlike other people who support gay rights and then look at the stuff and say things like “Ewwww! That’s just nasty and sh*t!” and I’m like “Dude, if you are going to have to support love, support them all”.

  32. libertariangirl

    so yeah i guess it comes down to being a moral issue , i wouldn’t do it , but the government should never legislate morality

  33. Catholic Trotskyist

    Does the Green Party do much for outreach to the gay community lately, other than in San Francisco? Are there any gays in the Constitution Party?

    I’m not sure where Robert Milnes is today, but I think that, with homosexuals largely being on the left, that this libertarian outreach would fit well into the Progressive Libertarian alliance strategy.

  34. Bryan

    CT @54…Constitution Party…are you f^@king crazy….

    Michael @25…If you want to use the “whole” thing it is LGBTIQ…

  35. Donald Raymond Lake

    By JYOTI THOTTAM / NEW DELHI Jyoti Thottam / New Delhi – Thu Jul 2, 7:05 pm ET

    With one sweeping judgment Thursday, the Indian High Court decriminalized homosexuality, shook off a stubborn piece of colonial baggage and may have added momentum to a broader regional movement for gay rights. “This is a huge step forward,” says Anjali Gopalan, director of the Naz Foundation India Trust, an advocacy group based in New Delhi that successfully brought a public interest petition to overturn India’s anti-sodomy law, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. “We can now take the next step forward for the community in securing our rights.”

    The law was enacted in 1860 by India’s British rulers, but the most stubborn opposition to repealing it in India has come from those who argue that homosexuality goes against traditional Indian sensibilities.

  36. Catholic Trotskyist

    I am perfectly awhere that it seems crazy to think there are some gays in the Constitution Party, but Trent once said that there is a buddhist and an atheist in the party, who still agrees with the whole theocratic platform.

    As for what LG said about me being a character, unlik eColbert I do actually believe most of what I say, but in this time of darkness and sin, I can’t mention a lot of my ideas in my real life. This blog provides a theraputic coping mechanism until I feel ready to release the truth to the wider world. I think that Milnes actually did show up once to a libertarian state convention, so he is for real, whereas I have never appeared in public with my full Catholic Trotskyist persona.

  37. Third Party Revolution

    Well the thing is the Constitution Party does not have anything in the platform that discriminates against someone from a non-christian religion. On the other hand, there is an opposition to gay rights in the platform.

  38. paulie Post author

    Some gay people actually do oppose gay rights – maybe out of a misplaced sense of guilt from their upbringing, or out of some desire to be put in prison (where, reportedly, there is a lot of gay sex).

  39. Third Party Revolution

    I know who the Buddhist is, since he is a member of Third Party Revolution. He has mentioned that despite a lot of CP members being ok with his religion, he was in conflict with some others and has considered the America First Party as his alternative. However, I have never heard of an atheist in the CP. Indeed it is rare to find Secular Conservatives.

  40. Michael Seebeck

    Bryan @56, what’s the “I” stand for? Haven’t seen that one used there before.

  41. Michael Seebeck

    Don @33

    First, why have Libs failed to care/ capitalize on this big tent, general issue?

    Because most GLBTQetc are entrenched Democrats, as Matt noted, and they are also stuck on the incorrect notion that government grants rights rather than protects them. They want their place at the benefits trough. Most of them still don’t understand that Obama is not their friend, either.

    I’ve seen the same thing on the opposite side of the statism aisle at gun shows with gunnies who are entrenched NRA Republicans, stuck in their incorrect notion that the GOP and NRA are their friends when they’re not. The problem isn’t so much the party associated with the mentality as it is the mentality itself. Overcoming that hurdle takes time and a lot of grassroots effort.

    Secondly, what is a higher profile in the 21st Century than GLBTQ? Why do I [a former Eagle Boy Sprout whom bad mouths the BSA; a former Southern Baptist Royal Ambassador whom does not go to church any more] never see a Lib table or float or presence at GLBTQ events? Citizens For A Better Vets Home, [Afro American] Tuskeegee Air men, Reform Party types are there. So are Greens and Socialists [the troubled Peace and Freedom Party] —– but not Libs!

    Try freedom from government oppression–NAIS, Pass Act, HR875, PATRIOT Acts I and II, the IRC, the Fed Reserve Act–I could go on.

    If you’re not seeing LP tables at events you go to, then you’re not going to the events I go to. I’ve been doing LP outreach tables and Pride events for years, most recently LA Pride last month. BTW, the only political parties there were D, R, and L. If your local LP isn’t doing those events, then complain at them, not me, and never assume that a lack of presence at an event in one place means the same uniformly nationwide. That kindergarten logic doesn’t fly.

    Thirdly, why so belligerent toward potential allies? [Except for a knee jerk Lib response!] You guys got enuf influence, money, cooperation, and recruitment to poop on other alternative political individuals or groups on an on going basis?

    Who’s being belligerent? Certainly not me when I point out the truth, that it *is* only one part of the bigger puzzle. I only crap on CPers when they start to spout their religious nonsense. I consider such radical insanity a far bigger threat to freedom than simple statism.

    Fourthly, I detest Democans and Republicrats and find them guilty of driving the fascist imperial global American Empire off in to the ditch of history. But alternative folks are not smart enuf to even begin to fight the anti populous Duopoly Establishment! The Reform Party is a prime example of deconstructive behavior. P1992 Perot was, even after his mid summer bail out, almost 20% of the total. Today, may be four states with ballot access!

    You “find them guilty of driving the fascist imperial global American Empire off in to the ditch of history”? You make that sound like it was a bad thing to go into the ditch. I for one am glad the “fascist imperial global American Empire” is off in the ditch of history, so maybe now we can focus on rebuilding the libertarian neutral non-interventionist free-market American Republic again, as the Founders envisioned.

    Frankly I could care less about the Reform Party. I predicted in 1992 in college that it was formed only as a Perot vehicle for ballot access and to feed his ego, and I was right. The four remaining states never got that memo, and Ventura was able to cash in on it prior to MN’s chapter imploding. Buchanan tried to cash in also but by that time it was too late.

    We, and the Bible Thumpers, and the Greens, and the Libs, did it to our selves! Thx Mike for being such a tool!

    NOW who’s being belligerent?

  42. Michael Seebeck

    It appears I forgot a format on the last part of that. Try this:

    Fourthly, I detest Democans and Republicrats and find them guilty of driving the fascist imperial global American Empire off in to the ditch of history. But alternative folks are not smart enuf to even begin to fight the anti populous Duopoly Establishment! The Reform Party is a prime example of deconstructive behavior. P1992 Perot was, even after his mid summer bail out, almost 20% of the total. Today, may be four states with ballot access!

    You “find them guilty of driving the fascist imperial global American Empire off in to the ditch of history”? You make that sound like it was a bad thing. I for one am glad the “fascist imperial global American Empire” is off in the ditch of history, so maybe now we can focus on rebuilding the libertarian neutral non-interventionist free-market American Republic again, as the Founders envisioned.

    Frankly I could care less about the Reform Party. I predicted in 1992 in college that it was formed only as a Perot vehicle for ballot access and to feed his ego, and I was right. The four remaining states never got that memo, and Ventura was able to cash in on it prior to MN’s chapter imploding.

    We, and the Bible Thumpers, and the Greens, and the Libs, did it to our selves! Thx Mike for being such a tool!

    NOW who’s being belligerent?

  43. Donald Raymond Lake

    Mike: I come in with detailed documentation or first hand evidence. You hit and run with an unfounded snide comment.

    It is you [and a small rogue’s gallery of reprobates] whom are not only belligerent, but UNNECESSARILY belligerent!

    [For example, I did not ask you if you were concerned about the reform move ment (RIP). I did not ask you to care ’bout any thing but LP inefficiency in the market place of ideas. AND unlike the warped personalities involved THIS IS THEIR STRONG POINT, THEIR FORTE!]

    You are the insecure, defensive, beligerant one, as you behavior keeps on spot lighting! Your snide comment [general, indefensible] on GLBT profiles being people’s exhibit one!

    And Minnesota? As early as 2003 I contacted them personally on cooperation , endorsements, [THEIR] news items, and was nicely told to ‘play in traffic’ [my phrase] —- “we are a one state party, and we do not even work with other Independence Party…….”

  44. Michael Seebeck

    Snide comment? Don, you seem to lack an understanding of the simple yet true point that that movement uses the letters in multiple orders, depending on who you talk to. All I did was acknowledge that, and only in your mind was it considered “snide”. My own close friends in the movement use the letters in various orders, even changing it from sentence to sentence. It’s an anagramo-acronym.

    So instead you call me names, and you call me belligerent? Don’t think so.

    Detailed documentation? Where? Some blogger on DailyKos lamented that there was no other political parties at LA Pride, but I know for a fact a half-dozen party members manned the Outright Booth there, including me, several officers and staff too. IOW, people can miss booths.

    You think I’m belligerent? You haven’t seen belligerent from me, but you sure dish it out in spades.

    I am hardly insecure. Ask anybody who actually knows me, of which you thankfully are not and never will be. I am quite secure in who I am and what I believe. And I believe you have no clue in the slightest about me at all.

    I think you look in the mirror and see yourself and project it onto me. Hence your own insecurity, bluster, and belligerence and accusing me of it.

    You need to reconsider your statements, Don, as they make you look very foolish.

    Me, I simply need a cold ice water. All this laughing at you has made my throat dry.

  45. Donald Raymond Lake

    Mike: cold water? may be a lozenge? Glad I could provide additional entertainment after the Steve Gordon/ Robert Barr P2008 follies. Happy to be of service.

    How interesting that you can attempt to slam some one and try to look so innocent. You are the guy with cookie crumbs all over your face while muttering, ‘Me?’

  46. paulie Post author

    Mike Seebeck makes a lot of sense in the exchange with Don Lake in the last series of comments.

    Lake, as usual, makes no sense whatsoever.

  47. paulie Post author

    I don’t know why Lake keeps thinking Steve Gordon ran Barr’s campaign. He worked on it as electronic (ie, internet) campaign manager, and was outside the loop of most of the decisionmaking.

    The limited area that he did manage worked pretty well, considering.

    Russ Verney was the campaign manager, and Shane Cory his second in command. They made the decisions on how the campaign was run.

  48. mdh

    I am planning to speak to the BiGLTM group at WVU next semester. I had hoped the WVU group would do it but they haven’t, and the new chair of that group is actually a guy I sort of know (he’s a friend of several of my friends, and a talented karaoke singer at Vice…)

  49. VirtualGalt

    Liberty for Maine was indeed present at Southern Maine Pride 2 weeks ago. Indeed there is an effort afoot to put a referendum on the Nov09 or Jun10 statewide ballot to overturn the granting of marriage equality here in Maine.

    We distributed many WSPQs and many of those stopping by — a surprising number — expressed general support for libertarianism in general .

    Where many of my LGBT friends and visitors turn off is in discussion of health care. I find Huge majorities in my LGBT contacts in favor of socialized medicine, regardless of their positions on other issues. In many cases it becomes a deal breaker to stand in opposition to it.

  50. Bryan

    Michael @62…Intersex…Don’t ask me…I just report ’em. (My understanding is that they are the people who have been considered hermaphrodites.)

    I guess the reason I had to chime in on this topic, is that the LGBT community is a ripe source of possible “recruits”. There are many LBGT people who are conservative in every aspect of their life EXCEPT that they are discriminated against by their government and society.

    The average person self-identified as LGBT are better educated, and have a higher income than those of the average “straight” American.

    They don’t care about the “government entitlements” given straight marriage, they just want equality….

    They don’t want “hate crime legislation”…they just want the laws we have enforced, no matter what the orientation of the victim is.

    They don’t want churches to be forced to recognize “gay marriage”…they just want the churches that will marry them to be recognized by the state. (Until the state stops being a marriage broker and performs it’s only duty…filing legal partnership contracts whether they be straight or gay….

  51. Michael Seebeck

    Bryan @76:

    Yeah, it was a new one for me. Thanks for helping on that.

    I agree with what you’re saying.

    For a real CA marriage fix, see this: http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2009/06/real-equality-of-marriage-act.html

    Of course, the problem with it is that a straight guy wrote it, and the PTB in the movement won’t even acknowledge a real solution because they need it to come from themselves and not some outside source (which is why they went bananas against DPI!).

  52. mdh

    @75 – Just ask them to name one thing they think the government does a really good job at – be ready to smack them down if they answer anything, but most people won’t. Then ask if they want those same bureaucrats in control of their healthcare.

    Another good one is “Healthcare – brought to you by the same people who brought you the occupation of Iraq!”

  53. paulie Post author

    The biggest problem there is that the current system, which many people believe to be free market health care…

  54. paulie Post author

    The biggest problem there is that the current system, which many people believe to be free market health care…

    See http://praxeology.net/aotp.htm#1. Partial quote sans links found in original:

    The contrast between, say, the Canadian and American approaches is frequently described – by both sides – as a contrast between a “governmental” or “socialised” system on the one hand, and a “market-based” or “free enterprise” system on the other. But the American health care system bears little resemblance to a free market; instead it represents massive government intervention on behalf of private special interests, from insurance companies to the medical establishment. The choice between the American and Canadian models is simply a choice between different two different flavours of statism – each with somewhat different vices, it’s true (e.g., do you prefer higher prices or longer waits?), but ultimately coming down to a matter of the percentage to which control of your healthcare is exercised by people sitting in government offices as opposed to being exercised by people sitting in governmentally-privileged “private” offices – but in either case by ambitious, avaricious apparatchiks who aren’t you.

    So what would a libertarian approach to health care policy look like? At a minimum it would have to include:

    1. Repealing laws that have the effect of cartelising the medical industry (e.g., the licensure monopoly granted to the A.M.A.), thus artificially boosting the cost of medical care.

    2. Repealing laws that have the effect of rendering the labour market oligopsonistic, thus artificially lowering people?s ability to pay for (and collectively negotiate for) medical care.

    3. Repealing laws that shift healthcare funds from the 25%-devoured-by-overhead voluntary sector to the 75%-devoured-by-overhead coercive sector, thus decreasing the amount of healthcare that gets to needy recipients.

    4. Repealing laws that transfer the power to make medical decisions for individuals from those individuals to centralised bodies, thus increasing the impact and scope of fatally bad decisions and suppressing the competitive signals that allow the identification of better and worse policies.

    5. Repealing laws that wiped out the old mutual-insurance systems (basically HMOs run by the patients instead of by corporations) and empowered insurance companies at the expense of patients.

    6. Repealing laws that suppress innovation and distribution in the pharmaceutical industry in the name of “intellectual property.”

    Until the unlikely day when the Republican Party embraces this program, let’s hear no more of their favouring a free-market approach to health care.

    Fascist RomneyCare seems like the most likely practical synthesis in the short term, and thus we should begin any discussion of health care by making common cause with the single payer advocates against it – even though they are being used as the antithesis to our thesis (or vice versa) to arrive at RomneyCare in practice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *