John Jay Myers: I am not extreme

By John Jay Myers at Liberty For All:

Libertarians are not extreme. In fact by most people’s definitions we would be extremely moderate. Of course most Libertarians would say that saying this damages our street cred. But let me explain.

I think that the idea of taking our money and giving it to the banks is extreme. I think the idea of taking our money and giving it to the car companies is extreme. I think the idea of taking our money and giving it to insurance companies so they can continue to jack up health care costs is extreme.

I think that spending a trillion dollars a year to be the world’s police is extreme when regardless of what you think of our foreign policy, we simply can’t afford it. And considering our war on terror actually creates more terror than it stops, it seems….. extremely…………………….extreme.

I think it’s extreme that we know that our society safety net, Medicare, social security, etc… has over 30 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, and is unsustainable, yet we continue to pursue these types of social programs when the facts clearly show that these programs do more to increase prices on health care and do nothing to alleviate poverty.

So we have forced people to have insurance, in order to be able to afford health care, which benefits the insurance companies and special interests but clearly does not benefit the average American. You can look at it as a micro-manager and say we must be able to afford insurance, but that would be EXTREME because common sense tells you to isolate the root of the problem and it is obviously government’s involvement that has made health care unaffordable.

Telling people what they can grow, or put in their body, or how to regulate their diet…. is extreme.

The idea that the government is going to tell you who you can or can not marry, or what religion you should or should not practice is extreme when neither is government’s business.

Libertarians aren’t extreme………our government is extreme.

John Jay Myers, a small business man from Dallas, Texas, ran for chair of the LNC in 2010, is a member of the Texas Libertarian Executive Committee and the Vice Chair of the Dallas County Libertarian Party. For more information go to www.johnjaymyers.com.

Ross Levin January 24, 2011

This is interesting. I was reading an interview with Derrick Jensen today, a so-called anarcho-primitivist who believes civilization is fundamentally unsustainable, and he says this (sorry it’s so long, but I wanted to get the gist of what he was saying),

That is literally insane, in terms of being out of touch with physical reality. I mean, look at Lester Brown’s Plan B 4.0 to Save Civilization. What does he want to save? Could he be any more explicit? He wants to save civilization. But civilization is killing the planet. It’s like writing a book about how to save a serial killer who is murdering so many people he’s running out of victims. We see this attitude all the time. When people, for example, ask how we can stop global warming, they’re not asking how we can stop global warming; they’re asking how we can stop global warming without changing the physical conditions (burning oil and gas, deforestation, industrial agriculture, and so on) that lead to global warming. And the answer to that question is that you can’t. Likewise, when they ask how we can save salmon, they aren’t really asking how we can save salmon, they’re asking how we can save salmon without removing dams, stopping industrial logging, stopping industrial agriculture, stopping industrial fishing, stopping the murder of the oceans, stopping global warming, and so on.
A question I keep asking is: with whom (or what) do you identify? Where is your loyalty? Whom, or what do you want to save? And if what you really want to save is this “miserable condition”–capitalism, civilization, what have you–at the expense of the planet, then we’re not really working toward the same goal, are we? My loyalty is with the nonhuman and human victims (or targets) of this culture, and my work is toward stopping this culture’s assaults on nonhumans, on the land, on the planet itself, on women, on indigenous peoples, on the poor.

http://www.opednews.com/a/125720?show=votes#allcomments

It’s a very similar argument, only replacing “extreme” with “insane,” and of course on a different topic.

10 Comments

FYI! [More Don Lake] January 25, 2011
Thane Eichenauer //
Jan 25, 2011:
“I am not a witch.”
[Lake: Yet, when you
respond to me, you
act real ‘itchy’!]
Ross Levin January 25, 2011
I think the idea of the piece wasn’t necessarily that being a libertarian is a majority position, but that the positions which aren’t libertarian are extreme, only taken out of context to make them seem reasonable. Context is key.
Down and Out in Dixie January 25, 2011
I didn’t catch the bestiality plank anywhere on that card.
What bestiality plank?
Surely you’re not using the Eric Dondero-endorsed non-NAP LP card.
Of course not. You’ll notice that there are areas on the card where Libertarians don’t overlap with Republicans, and others where they do overlap with Democrats. Dondero no like it…rock the casbah…
Joey G. Dauben January 25, 2011
I’m sorry paulie, but I didn’t catch the bestiality plank anywhere on that card.
Surely you’re not using the Eric Dondero-endorsed non-NAP LP card.
😉
paulie January 25, 2011
For me, extreme is a good thing, at least on my first visceral reaction to the word. I’m part of the “too much is never enough” generation, with an addict personality to match. Going to extremes is my MO. Of course, I’ve experienced the bad places that leads to.
I know most people have the opposite reaction to the word extreme, so I can understand why libertarians would frame our positions as being moderate, which can be done, e.g. Beau Cain at
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/beau-cain-how-to-start-your-voter-registration-drive/ :
“After you catch a voter?s attention, convince him or her to register Libertarian with an easy-to-read and understand brochure.
Slick, colorful brochure shows sensible LP positions on issues.
Ours shows how Libertarian principles are more sensible and less extreme than current Democratic or Republican Party policies. It?s a slick, colorful tri-fold brochure that lists examples of Libertarian principles right next to the extreme leftist and rightist policies that the other two major parties have forced on our nation.”
Robert Capozzi January 25, 2011
jjm: Libertarians are not extreme. In fact by most people’s definitions we would be extremely moderate. Of course most Libertarians would say that saying this damages our street cred.
me: And some Ls would say this improves our street cred! Like me.
I agree that what government does is “extreme.”
At the same time, it would be extreme to abolish most of it overnight. It’s extreme to advocate such abolition.
Constructs can be useful in establishing a virtuous direction. But extremism is generally a matter of context.
Thane Eichenauer January 25, 2011
I am not a witch.
Joey G. Dauben January 25, 2011
Well, define “not extreme.” I personally find it sickening that someone — not pointing out names yet — with the libertarian label could equate Non-Aggression Principle ideals with not having child consent laws and allowing human beings to mate with animals.
The word extreme could be expounded so as to not repeat the 2008 LP presidential nomination war.
Sadly, the vestiges of the “Free Town Project” are still out in the open.
Solomon Kleinsmith January 24, 2011
Boy if this isn’t a case of extreme cherry picking, I’m not sure what is. Even socialists have a handful of things they they can point to that a majority of people agrees with.
Ross Levin January 24, 2011
This is interesting. I was reading an interview with Derrick Jensen today, a so-called anarcho-primitivist who believes civilization is fundamentally unsustainable, and he says this (sorry it’s so long, but I wanted to get the gist of what he was saying),
That is literally insane, in terms of being out of touch with physical reality. I mean, look at Lester Brown’s Plan B 4.0 to Save Civilization. What does he want to save? Could he be any more explicit? He wants to save civilization. But civilization is killing the planet. It’s like writing a book about how to save a serial killer who is murdering so many people he’s running out of victims. We see this attitude all the time. When people, for example, ask how we can stop global warming, they’re not asking how we can stop global warming; they’re asking how we can stop global warming without changing the physical conditions (burning oil and gas, deforestation, industrial agriculture, and so on) that lead to global warming. And the answer to that question is that you can’t. Likewise, when they ask how we can save salmon, they aren’t really asking how we can save salmon, they’re asking how we can save salmon without removing dams, stopping industrial logging, stopping industrial agriculture, stopping industrial fishing, stopping the murder of the oceans, stopping global warming, and so on.
A question I keep asking is: with whom (or what) do you identify? Where is your loyalty? Whom, or what do you want to save? And if what you really want to save is this “miserable condition”–capitalism, civilization, what have you–at the expense of the planet, then we’re not really working toward the same goal, are we? My loyalty is with the nonhuman and human victims (or targets) of this culture, and my work is toward stopping this culture’s assaults on nonhumans, on the land, on the planet itself, on women, on indigenous peoples, on the poor.
http://www.opednews.com/a/125720?show=votes#allcomments
It’s a very similar argument, only replacing “extreme” with “insane,” and of course on a different topic.

Comments are closed.