Libertarian Blue: ‘Libertarians are Right Wing?’

Libertarian Blue:

One of the advantages or disadvantages (depending on how you look at it) to being a libertarian is that liberals and conservatives accuse of us of being the other.

Daily Dish blogger Andrew Sullivan had nominated Lew Rockwell of all people for the Michelle Malkin award. Now what in anyone’s political mind who actually pays attention and not just repeats sound bites would think Lew Rockwell and Michelle Malkin are the same stripe? Is it just the repeated myth that Libertarians and Conservatives are the same or is it Sullivan’s plain ignorance (either on purpose or not) of both ideologies? If Sullivan and those who share his view on this subject would do some simple research, they would come to the quick realization that libertarians and conservatives are completely different.

Conservatives firmly stand for the following;

1. National Security State/Police Socialism (TSA, Patriot Act, Drug War, etc)
2. Military Keynesianism (current foreign policy, bases all over the world, etc)
3. Morality legislation

However in no way this exempts liberals, since they support both of these concepts as well. They just disguise it enough so their supporters can’t catch on. In reality liberals and Conservatives stand for the same thing with the only difference is that Conservatives mask it in the collectivist concept of organized religion in order to justify it. Rockwell and company have spoken out and continue to speak out against these actions since day one. Unlike conservatives who only pay lip service to the ideas of privatizing social security, cutting and phasing out entitlements, actually letting people keep more of their money, stopping government thuggery,among others, Libertarian Ron Paul is the only one as usual who practices and acts on what he preaches. So if liberals really wanna criticize us, they should really do some research before lumping us with their red statist kin.


IPR Note: Although this post does not refer directly to the Libertarian Party, it does refer to 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ron Paul, who remains a life member of the Libertarian Party, saying recently that “I believe the Libertarian Party has done a great service in promoting the libertarian philosophy, and I continue to have many friends and supporters in the Libertarian Party…”

Ron Paul from the 1988 campaign on the Mort Downey TV program:

Ron Paul in 2011 on the State of the Union (from John Stossel):

54 thoughts on “Libertarian Blue: ‘Libertarians are Right Wing?’

  1. paulie Post author

    And in somewhat related news…..

    http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/01/27/boycotting-conservatives-dump-states-rights-in-favor-of-bigotry/

    [..] >There’s a conservative group out there called GOProud. Don’t ask me why, but this is a group of gay people who are interested in being Republicans. They are substantively conservative on issues like the 2nd amendment, business issues, taxes and military contracts. They are also substantively conservative on the issue of same-sex marriage, if you really believe that conservatives have been sincere when they’ve been mouthing off about “states’ rights”: GOProud believes that the states should be able to set their own marriage policies.

    And because GOProud has the audacity to hold this states’ rights position and is renting a table in the Conservative Political Action Conference exhibition hall, conservative leaders Senator Jim DeMint, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and American Conservative Union board member Cleta Mitchell have put their public dander up. Conservative groups Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, Heritage Foundation, Liberty University and Media Research Center are participating in an outright boycott of this year’s CPAC proceedings, all because some gay Republicans will be standing at a table there. The nerve! ACU board member Mitchell insisted that opposing gay people’s equality is “not an issue for debate, but a fundamental principle.”

    A fundamental principle? Kind of like “states’ rights?”

    [..]

  2. paulie Post author

    More from Irregular Times:

    http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/01/27/herman-cain-campaigns-for-theocracy/

    January 27, 2011 at 12:47 pm by Peregrin Wood

    Among the candidates who have been prominently discussed as potential Republican challengers to Barack Obama, there’s only one who has actually taken the first practical step in a campaign: Forming an exploratory committee. That candidate is Herman Cain.

    Who is Herman Cain?

    He’s a corporate candidate, for one thing, a former CEO. In a sad irony, Herman Cain made his money as the head of Godfather’s Pizza, a company that profited from selling people food high in fat, carbohydrates and salt, but Cain now is suggesting that he has a plan to insure great health care for Americans suffering from health problems related to a poor diet.

    Another thing voters need to know about Herman Cain is that he’s a theocrat. Repeatedly over the last several years, Cain has spoken out in support of letting local, state and federal government be used to promote Christianity. At a recent Tea Party rally, Cain angrily declared, “It was during the Fifties that the United States Congress voted to add ‘one nation under God’ with liberty and justice for all, because we are a God-fearing Christian nation!”

    Before that, Herman Cain wrote that non-religious Americans should submit to Christian control over the government. “Stay out of our way,” Cain warned. “Too many Americans are guided and implicitly threatened by the misinterpretations of the Constitution’s establishment clause that found a non-existent ‘separation of church and state.’”

    In Herman Cain’s vision for America, the government can become a State Church, using money gathered through taxes to fund Christian worship. He may claim, when speaking before his Tea Party supporters, to be a proponent of small government, but when it comes to religion, Herman Cain is for big government interference all the way.

  3. paulie Post author

    One last one from Irregular Times for the time being:

    Congress To Extend Big Government Spying Abuses For Two More Years

    January 27, 2011 at 8:33 am by jclifford

    A week ago, Jim warned us that it would happen. Now, the legislation is here to do it: Congress is working to extend authorization to continue the worst abuses against Americans’ constitutional rights under the Patriot Act.

    In the House of Representatives, H.R. 67 has been offered by Mike Rogers, Republican from Michigan. This legislation would allow the Patriot Act abuses to continue without any reform at all, for one more year.

    The Senate now has a comparable bill, S. 149, the FISA Sunsets Extension Act. This bill would also extend the abuses of the Patriot Act.

    If you’re reading carefully, you may now be confused, because S. 149 extends the abuses of the Patriot Act, but it’s called the FISA Sunsets Extension Act. The fact is that the Senate bill goes farther than the House bill. It doesn’t just extend the abuses of the Patriot Act, but the abuses of the FISA Amendments Act as well.

    Furthermore, S. 149 extends the abuses of the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act not just for one year, but for 2 years and 10 months. S. 149 offers only a fig leaf of the appearance of reform. S. 149 was introduced not by a Republican, but by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy.

    Together, the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act allow the government to set up huge electronic searches for private information about Americans’ personal lives. They also allow secret physical searches of our homes and offices that we may never know about. All this is allowed without any evidence that the people whose property and papers are being searched are suspected of any crime. It’s a clear violation of the Constitution‘s guarantee of protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

    Any conservative who claims to be against big government abuses should take an active stand against both H.R. 67 and S. 149. Any liberal who claims to support individual freedom rather than party loyalty should take an active stand against these bills.

    It’s time to let the abusive Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act die.

    Call your U.S. Representative and Senators through the capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to vote against ANY effort to renew the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act.

  4. Conservative Tea Party Patriot

    Are Libertarians right wing? Is the sky blue?

    Of course they are right wing.

    Top libertarians: Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck.

    Don’t retreat, reload!

    Conservative Tea Party Patriot

  5. Yeah, right

    CTTP @4 is a moron.

    Rand Paul is not a libertarian. He said so himself.
    Sarah Palin is not a libertarian. She is GOP white trailer trash.
    Glenn Beck is not a libertarian. He also waffles more than the cook at IHOP. But at the core he is a self-promoting media whore.

    Libertarians are not conservatives. Conservatives are not libertarians, either.

  6. Be Rational

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRLJpC5skdk

    John Stossel’s state of the Union address.

    John Stossel
    David Boaz
    Nicole Kurakowa (?) spelling

    Watch Stossel’s show above and his own State of the Union. These are the people that we need to bring into the LP (along with many others) in a big tent 3rd party to win elections and change America.

    Our time is now, if we get to work and stop wasting our time and resources on what we’ve always done in the past.

  7. paulie Post author

    Te first video clip in the article above is a good illustration of the difference between libertarians and conservatives.

    Downey and his audience are typical conservatives, along with Sliwa.

    Corruptdrug warrior Democrat Charlie Rangel’s presence, on the side of the conservatives, also illsutrates Libertarian Blue’s point in the article above.

    Here’s part 2 of Ron Paul on Mort Downey:

  8. paulie Post author

    Libertarians are not conservatives. Conservatives are not libertarians, either.

    Exactly!

    Here is more illustration of the difference in action…

  9. paulie Post author

    Damon Eris, from a conversation on PoliTea:

    d.eris said…

    I would prioritize cutting military spending on the grounds that doing so would also cut back the corporate welfare state. It’s a two-fer. Beyond that, the effects of excess military spending, and the necessity of putting it to some use, whether warranted or not, are literally destructive of human life.

    Programs like Social Security and Medicare would probably not be next on my personal list for the chopping block though. That would be what we might call domestic military spending: abolishing the national security police and surveillance state, i.e. the Department of Homeland Security, the DEA and such, the prison industrial complex, basically the entire apparatus with which the war on drugs is prosecuted and promulgated, etc. I would probably also prioritize ending corporate welfare subsidies before cutting social welfare programs too. But I don’t think any thing or any possibility should be off the table.

    http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2011/01/re-education-and-welfare-queens-of.html

  10. cls

    I wish the moronic tea party loons would stfu. Neither Randal Paul, Sarah Palin or Glen Beck are even close to being libertarian. They are just conservatives and thus as far from libertarianism as socialists, just on different issues.

  11. johncjackson

    Lew Rockwell seems better these days, but it wasn’t that long ago that he publicly and prominently advocated for the extrajudicial beatings of black suspects ( and that’s just mentioning things he actually put his name on). So the whole narrative about him always being against the police state and all that stuff is bullshit. I also don’t understand the obsession with some “paultards” to go out of their way to defend Lew Rockwell- it’s almost like those guys are life partners or something.

  12. langa

    So, let me get this straight. It’s the “paultards” who are “obsessed” with defending Rockwell. On the other hand, the people who crawl out of the woodwork to bash him over a 20-year-old article every time his name is mentioned, they’re not the least bit “obsessed” with attacking him, right? I’m sure they’ve never said anything that they later came to regret. It must be nice to be so perfect.

  13. Robert Capozzi

    l13, were it ONLY about Rockwell’s wrong-minded essay on the King beating, it would seem disproportionate. Add to it the open-secret that Rockwell was probably the author of the NewsletterGate passages; the StormFront incident; the near-hysterical Civil War revisionism drum banging. (It’s not the revisionism per se, it’s the volume of the revisionism that is easily misunderstood by casual seekers of truth that IMO hurts the cause of liberty.) Add to that the constant (I’d say childish) attacks on the Kochs and the “Orange Line Mafia.” Add to that no sense of contriteness, ever, even for the King essay.

    Toxic behavior is often met with detoxification!

  14. langa

    Rarely have I seen so many unfounded accusations and outright falsehoods crammed into such a short paragraph. First, there is absolutely zero evidence that Rockwell had anything to do with those newsletters. In fact, based on the writing style and some of the comments made by those in the know, I strongly suspect that it was actually Rothbard who wrote them.

    I have no idea what “StormFront incident” you’re referring to.

    As for the Civil War, I’d say that was an extremely significant event in shaping the course of American history. To allow false beliefs about it to continue to persist out of a fear that correcting those false beliefs might lead to someone somewhere being confused seems short-sighted at best, and frankly, quite bizarre. Then again, as you’ve admitted elsewhere, you’re not really concerned with truth, but rather with subjective impressions, so maybe that explains your reasoning. Personally, I believe that teaching people the truth about major historical events is very important to the cause of liberty, and to the extent that Rockwell and any other revisionists have done that, I applaud them.

    Finally, I agree that Rockwell has behaved in a fairly juvenile fashion toward the CATO crowd, but no more so than, say, Tom Palmer has done to the Mises crowd. Also, I’m not sure what this has to do with Rockwell’s alleged “racism”, since virtually everyone connected with CATO is white.

    Oh, and one last question: If Rockwell is such a racist and a lover of cops, why does he publish so many articles condemning police brutality (with most of them being written by Will Grigg, who just so happens to be black)?

  15. Robert Capozzi

    l15, Rockwell was on the masthead, so “there is absolutely zero evidence that Rockwell had anything to do with those newsletters.” seems untrue on its face. I know people VERY close to those circles, and they certainly seem sure Rockwell was involved, if not the author. Yeppers, coulda been MNR, too.

    StormFront is a neo-Nazi group, members of which gave to Paul 08. I recall Rockwell publicly supporting the Paul campaign’s decision to keep the contributions, which IMO was a really bad PR move.

    You misunderstand my view of truth. Seeking it animates every moment of my life. I’ve come to the conclusion that I will probably never really know TRUTH since I am human, possessing highly limited perceptions.

    In time and space, there do seem to be facts that most can agree about. We make a case based on facts, values, opinions and assessments. The LRC crowd’s case on the Civil War contains all of these. I agree with some of their assessments. My concern with LRC revisionism is that a) they state their take as a kind of gospel; b) those who don’t buy their gospel are often quickly dismissed as “Lincoln idolators”; c) while they unearth some myths, they perpetuate other myths and speculations; d) they are IMO cavalier about their take in ways that could easily alienate large percentages of the population to the L cause.

    And, yes, to be fair, Lew was somewhat contrite in turning away from paleo-ism.

  16. langa

    “StormFront is a neo-Nazi group, members of which gave to Paul 08.”

    Ah, yes, I do remember that now, but until you jogged my memory, I had totally forgotten about it, probably because I felt that it was vastly overblown at the time. I said then that I felt that it didn’t really matter whether he kept the money or not, as long as he clearly stated that he was totally opposed to the goals of StormFront, and I still believe that.

    As far as the Civil War revisionism, I think that you’ll find that your criticisms apply much more to the mainstream historians who adore Lincoln and treat anything short of genuflecting to him as treasonous. If Rockwell and Co. occasionally overstate their claims, it’s probably because they feel that it’s necessary to offset the overwhelming bias in the opposite direction, that is basically drilled into every student’s head by the educational establishment.

    Finally, I’m not claiming that Lew (or anyone in his crew) is perfect. He’s made mistakes like everybody else, and he will probably make some more mistakes in the future. As you’re fond of pointing out, that’s part of being human. But overall, it seems clear that, from a libertarian perspective, the good that he’s done far outweighs the bad, at least in my opinion.

    Yet many people seem intent on ignoring all those good things and instead harping on the few bad things that he’s done (most of which took place well over a decade ago). I don’t have a problem with people pointing out his mistakes, but I do object to some people’s relentless crusade to demonize a man who is clearly on the side of liberty.

    There are many libertarians who I disagree with on many issues, and if those issues come up, I don’t hesitate to voice my disagreement. But I try not to go out of my way to take cheap shots at them. After all, there are far more deserving targets of my contempt, like the 99% of the people in DC that don’t have a libertarian bone in their body.

  17. Thane Eichenauer

    cls,
    Let’s not do the “shut up” thing unless absolutely, positively necessary. Let the bad guys prohibit and attempt to stifle free speech.

    A wise man told me the the Four Horsemen of Human Havoc — angry, hungry, stupid and wicked are unavoidable. Best we continue to point out the horsemen when they show themselves.

    Peace out.

  18. Pima Community College Conservative Tea Party Patriot

    “CLS ”

    So who are you and what makes you such an expert?

    “Yeah, right”

    I’m a white guy and I live in a trailer. Are you prejudiced against white people, people who live in trailers, or both?

  19. Marc Montoni

    Anyone who defends the brutal and ugly politics of Lincoln is not a Libertarian. Period. He was, more than anyone else, the father of American empire.

    Half a million dead and several million maimed for life, all just to preserve the ideological fiction of one “nation”. Stupid. Just plain stupid.

  20. Brian

    Libertarians certainly are right wing. Neither the LP nor the proto-libertarian Tea Parties are vocal or active about pursuing s0-called “liertarian” policies that could be considered “left-wing.” The spineless libertarians have basically taken agnostic social positions and have so far refused to challenge the corporate state.

  21. paulie Post author

    Yeah, Right: ?Rand Paul is not a libertarian. He said so himself.?

    Where and when?

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/06/rand-paul-distances-himself-from-libertarian-party/

    Rand Paul distances himself from Libertarian Party
    June 9th, 2010 ? 35 Comments

    By ROGER ALFORD (Associated Press) –

    FRANKFORT, Ky. ? Republican Rand Paul said Tuesday he differs with the Libertarian Party by opposing abortion and supporting judicious overseas troop deployment, distancing himself from the party his father once represented in a presidential election.

    The U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky told syndicated conservative talk show host Sean Hannity that he doesn?t fit the mold of a Libertarian. Paul said his conservative social views and willingness to send troops abroad to protect the U.S. set him apart from the party some have tried to associate him with.

    ?Instead of maybe saying we?re never anywhere overseas, I say we need to be more judicious in where we are, in that I don?t think we can afford to be everywhere all the time,? Paul said. ?But it also doesn?t mean that we never intervene and that we can allow people to attack us.?

    Libertarians suggested after Paul?s victory in the Republican primary May 18 that they might field a challenger to Paul and Democratic nominee Jack Conway, but have since backed off the notion.

    Kentucky Libertarian Party Chairman Ken Moellman said last week it seems ?rather impractical? to run against the two well-funded candidates. The filing deadline is Aug. 10.

    Political observers had reasoned that a Libertarian candidate could siphon votes from Paul, the son of Texas Congressman and two-time presidential candidate Ron Paul. Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, then as a Republican in 2008.

    Tuesday was the second straight day Paul has appeared on conservative talk shows. He had retreated from the national scene for several weeks after making a series of divisive statements, including suggesting that government should not require private businesses to serve minorities.

    Paul sparked widespread anger with remarks last month to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow that he has misgivings about the Civil Rights Act. Paul told Maddow he abhors racial discrimination but suggested that the federal government should not have the power to force restaurants to serve minorities if owners don?t want to.

    Paul ruffled feathers again by defending the oil company blamed for the Gulf oil spill and telling a Russian TV station that babies of illegal immigrants shouldn?t automatically receive U.S. citizenship.

    Paul told Hannity on Tuesday that the ?most momentous vote? a senator can cast is to send U.S. troops into combat, and that, when troops are used, a declaration of war should be made.

    ?If I were in the Senate, I would have asked for a declaration of war with Afghanistan, and I would have voted for it because I think we can?t let people organize in a country and attack us,? he said. ?I think there are times when we have to go in and prevent, at times, people that are organizing to attack us.?

  22. paulie Post author

    Related stories you may want to read indexed at

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/?s=%22rand+paul%22

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/libertarian-party-of-kentucky-rand-paul-is-not-a-libertarian-or-a-libertarian/

    Libertarian Party of Kentucky: Rand Paul is not a Libertarian or a libertarian
    May 26th, 2010 ? 28 Comments

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/ky-libertarians-rand-paul-is-not-one-of-us-but-we-wont-run-a-candidate-against-him/

    KY Libertarians: Rand Paul Is Not One Of Us ? But We Won?t Run A Candidate Against Him
    May 26th, 2010 ? 23 Comments

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/kentucky-libertarian-party-may-attempt-to-run-u-s-senate-candidate/

    Kentucky Libertarian Party May Attempt to Run U.S. Senate Candidate
    May 26th, 2010 ? 27 Comments

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/rand-paul-staffer-christi-gillespie-resigns-switches-to-libertarian/

    Rand Paul staffer Christi Gillespie resigns, switches to Libertarian
    January 2nd, 2010 ? 68 Comments

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/12/libertarian-party-of-kentucky-addresses-racism-allegations-against-rand-paul/

    Libertarian Party of Kentucky addresses racism allegations against Rand Paul
    December 24th, 2009 ? 51 Comments

  23. paulie Post author

    One more and then I think I’ve made my case, unless someone disagrees…from one of the links in my last comment

    Libertarian Party of Kentucky: Rand Paul is not a Libertarian or a libertarian
    May 26th, 2010 · 28 Comments

    For Immediate Release

    Independence, Ky. – The Libertarian Party of Kentucky strongly condemns the hurtful comments of Republican senate candidate Rand Paul.

    Rand Paul belongs to the Republican Party of Kentucky, an association which he makes of his own free will. Dr. Paul’s sole libertarian credentials come from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, former adversary Republican Secretary of State Trey Grayson, and many in the mainstream media. In an effort to clear our good name, we make this public statement.

    Rand Paul is not a libertarian. There are clear differences between the Libertarian Party, including the philosophy upon which is it based, and the philosophy and campaign rhetoric of Rand Paul. While the Libertarian Party shares some stances traditionally associated with the Republican Party, the LP also shares common ground on positions traditionally associated with the Democratic Party, and not always for the same reasons. We are an alternative to the two party system, not constrained by the model that defines both major parties.

    Libertarians want a complete repeal of the PATRIOT Act, closure of Guantanamo Bay, and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rand Paul has stated that he wants to continue military detentions at Guantanamo Bay, a retroactive official declaration of war by Congress, and has denied that he seeks to overturn the PATRIOT Act.

    In further contrast, libertarians want to provide a mechanism by which non-traditional couples can receive equal protection under the law. Rand Paul has voiced his support of the discriminatory “one man, one woman” definition of marriage and his opposition to any other civil contract option.

    In 2009, social conservatives in Kentucky outlawed adoption by anyone not living in a traditional, legally-recognized marriage – a concept so extreme that even family counselor and conservative talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger has opposed it. The Libertarian Party stood in strong opposition to this legislation. Rand Paul has acknowledged that he agrees with his party in this, squarely placing himself at odds with the Libertarian Party of Kentucky and libertarians nationwide, who have a strong record of fighting these inequities.

    The Libertarian Party of Kentucky has primarily avoided being involved in the race for US Senate to date, other than to defend our party and the philosophy upon which it is built, and we intend to continue avoiding involvement. Rand Paul’s statements regarding all forms of discrimination are not consistent with, nor do they reflect the views of, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky. Rand Paul does not speak for us or for our party. We condemn all bigotry based on any and all factors.

    The Libertarian Party of Kentucky is the official state affiliate for the Libertarian Party, America’s third largest political party. Founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party prides itself on a history of fighting for oppressed members of society and the rights of all citizens. More information is available on our website, http://www.LPKY.org.

    ###

  24. Pima Community College Conservative Tea Party Patriot

    Some of you people sound more like hippie queer communists not like Libertarians.

    Eric Dondero and Sonny Landham are exactly right!

    If any of you disagree with what they say…I challenge you to find one thing that is not 100% true and correct.

    We need more Landham-Lieberman-Palin-Beck-Dondero Libertarians…..

  25. Pima Community College Conservative Tea Party Patriot

    #40 From petitioner #2 thread……..

    http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/07/libertarians-in-kentucky-forget-how-to.html

    Eric Dondero said…

    If the LP kicks Sonny off the ballot they will be risking severe ramifications for the Party for years to come.

    Most signers for the LP petition “signed for Sonny.” Kentuckians LOVE their Native American Hollywood Actor native son. The guy is enormously popular.

    If the LP dumps him, Kentuckians will be real upset with the LP, and justifiably so.

    Not too mention Sonny himself and all his supporters.

    Imagine how his supporters feel, the guys who collected signatures just for Sonny at parades and festivals, to now find out that he won’t be on the ballot.

    And why should Sonny be punished for being a Rightwing Libertarian? This is a Leftwing Libertarian witch hunt at its worst. You say something a little politically incorrect, or something that doesn’t jive with the Leftist line, and you get savagely attacked, called a racist and all sorts of other bad names.

    KENTUCKY LIBERTARIAN PARTY PLEASE KEEP SONNY!!
    #

    41 Country Steamer // Jan 29, 2011 at 12:28 am

    keep #40 in mind as you read this…

    http://libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com/2008/07/fight-racism-and-socialism-in.html

    Sonny Landham Brings Racism and Socialism to the Libertarian Party

    The Libertarian Party has become such a “big tent,” its candidate for US Senate from Kentucky, Sonny Landham, has engaged in Arab-bashing and endorsed socialism. According to Independent Political Report:

    “In a pair of interviews on The Weekly Filibuster Wednesday and Friday, Sonny Landham expressed support for genocide against Arabs and Muslims, whom he called repeatedly, ‘camel dung shovellers,’ ‘camel jockeys’ and ‘ragheads.’ He also called for an end to all immigration from Arab and Muslim nations, nationalization of businesses which employ ‘illegal’ immigrants, and nationalization of rental property of landlords who rent to them.

    Other opinions which Mr. Landham expressed in those interviews include: high oil prices are a form of ‘terrorism,’ support for the trade union activities of Eugene Debs, John Lewis and Jimmy Hoffa, and a call for economic nationalism and protectionism, particularly of the steel industry. Landham said that the federal government should reorganize the economy as a partnership between unions and corporations while erecting barriers against the international flow of goods and labor and using total war – including weapons of mass destruction – to acquire resources it considers ‘vital’ on behalf of its corporate-trade union-military-industrial axis.

    Landham also defended his role in producing a video for the Council of Conservative Citizens and said the message of the Libertarian Party is ‘States Rights Now, States Rights Tomorrow, and States Rights Forever,’ evoking a famous line from George Wallace’s inaugural speech as Governor (replacing ‘segregation’ with ‘States Rights’). However, Landham also said he is not qualified to explain or defend the views of the Libertarian Party, repeatedly saying ‘ask them.’”

    Landham’s racist, anti-Arab remarks should require no condemnation; denying Arabs their individualism is obviously anti-libertarian. I’ve written about this problem in the LP before in the May 2008 California Freedom, page 5.

    But consider Landham’s claim that “high oil prices are a form of terrorism.” Few LP members would (at least, openly) support Landham’s racist remarks, yet I have heard self-proclaimed libertarians and conservatives say that high oil prices give the U.S. moral ground to invade nations, if it’s in the “national interest,” and thus a form of “self defense.” Objectivists are especially prone to such lunatic remarks.

    Yet when Ayn Rand appeared on The Phil Donahue Show, about the time of the late 1970s gas shortage, Donahue asked Rand what is to be done about high oil prices and “windfall profits” for the oil companies? (Remember President Carter’s “windfall profits tax”?)

    Regarding the oil companies, Rand replied, “You must pay their price, and say thank you!

    It was classic Atlas Shurgged. I’m sure conservatives, libertarians, objectivists all cheered. But when the Arabs raise their prices, many on “the right” see it as justification for war. Apparently, Americans can morally raise their prices (Hail John Galt!), but foreign Muslims cannot.

    There sure are plenty of racist, anti-property rights hypocrites among objectivists, conservatives, and libertarians.
    ……………

    Eric Dondero and Sonny Landham are exactly right!

    If any of you disagree with what they say…I challenge you to find one thing that is not 100% true and correct.

    We need more Landham-Lieberman-Palin-Beck-Dondero Libertarians…..

  26. paulie Post author

    Neither Randal Paul, Sarah Palin or Glen Beck are even close to being libertarian. They are just conservatives and thus as far from libertarianism as socialists, just on different issues.

    I would say, if anything, they are further from being libertarians.

  27. paulie Post author

    If Rockwell is such a racist and a lover of cops, why does he publish so many articles condemning police brutality (with most of them being written by Will Grigg, who just so happens to be black)?

    That is a good question.

  28. paulie Post author

    After all, there are far more deserving targets of my contempt, like the 99% of the people in DC that don’t have a libertarian bone in their body.

    I wouldn’t say it is anywhere near that high a percentage. Remember, most people in the district are just regular working people like anywhere else. They don’t all work for the government, there are plenty of small businesses too.

  29. paulie Post author

    Half a million dead and several million maimed for life, all just to preserve the ideological fiction of one “nation”. Stupid. Just plain stupid.

    Letting the south secede and therefore ending fugitive slave laws would have brought the slavery system down quickly. That is why they had to have the fugitive slave laws to begin with.

    It would have also been better for the whole world in the long run, since the US empire would not have developed as much as two separate countries.

    Remember, it was only US intervention late in WWI that prevented a negotiated truce. The world would have been spared Hitler and perhaps the Soviets had that negotiated truce taken place (it was the humiliation of Germany in WWI and the crippling sanctions that enabled Hitler to rise to power).

  30. paulie Post author

    We need more Landham-Lieberman-Palin-Beck-Dondero Libertarians…..

    …about as much as we need intestinal worms and brain cancer…..

  31. Andy

    “Libertarian Party of Kentucky: Rand Paul is not a Libertarian or a libertarian”

    I’d say that the jury is still out on Rand Paul. He did say some stuff that made him sound less libertarian than his father (although this still puts him ahead of everyone else in the Senate on the libertarian scale), however, it is possible that he just said that stuff to get elected (as in he may have just been playing to the Republican base to get them to vote for him).

    Let’s see what Rand does in office and then make judgements based on that.

  32. paulie Post author

    Data already coming in on that. He proposed cuts in the budget, but very little of them from the military budget relative to other parts.

    Re-read the articles and comment threads linked in comment 26 here. Lots of information there.

    The case for Rand P being a libertarian is more than a little weak, especially on civil liberties and peace issues. I believe he said what he meant and meant what he said on those issues.

    And as for more libertarian than anyone else in the Senate…assuming he did not grossly misrepresent himself to get elected, which would have been fraud and thus not very libertarian either, that depends on which issues you consider most important. I’ll grant that he’s the most fiscally conservative Senator, but not necessarily the most libertarian one.

  33. Robert Capozzi

    L15: If Rockwell is such a racist and a lover of cops, why does he publish so many articles condemning police brutality (with most of them being written by Will Grigg, who just so happens to be black)?

    Me: Compensatory behavior might explain it. Or a sincere change of heart might also explain it. Actually, I have no idea what was or is going on in Rockwell’s head. He – or whoever wrote the hate in those newsletters – might not have been themselves “racist” or “homophobes,” but rather the author may have been pandering to haters. Those newsletters were in part fundraising devices. And there are sometimes different forms of hate: sometimes it’s overt, sometimes it’s merely an adoption of stereotypes.

    L19: If Rockwell and Co. occasionally overstate their claims, it’s probably because they feel that it’s necessary to offset the overwhelming bias in the opposite direction, that is basically drilled into every student’s head by the educational establishment.

    Me: Yes, could be. I think it’s a poor strategy. I seem to recall the revisionists and Rothbardians used to claim the Confederate Elite Insurrection was not about slavery, only states rights and tariffs. This overstatement hurt their credibility, since the Internet makes it easy to find many, many cites in which the Insurrection leaders themselves cited maintaining slavery as a primary motive.

    I don’t think that the LRC crowd is successful in “offsetting” the conventional wisdom. Some who are predisposed to buy into a countervailing myth are prone to embrace alternative interpretations of history. Fair-minded seekers of truth, however, are likely to move on to more credible sources when they see that the LRCers are being histrionic in their history.

    P33: Letting the south secede and therefore ending fugitive slave laws would have brought the slavery system down quickly. That is why they had to have the fugitive slave laws to begin with. + It would have also been better for the whole world in the long run, since the US empire would not have developed as much as two separate countries. + Remember, it was only US intervention late in WWI that prevented a negotiated truce. The world would have been spared Hitler and perhaps the Soviets had that negotiated truce taken place (it was the humiliation of Germany in WWI and the crippling sanctions that enabled Hitler to rise to power).

    Me: Can we stipulate that you are speculating here? If so, then while I agree that those outcomes were possible, other outcomes are also possible.

    I would note that the Domino Theory and the Dondero Islamofascist Threat Theory are ALSO based on speculation. Speculation, then, is a dangerous thing, and is certainly not a sure thing. I can’t say I never speculate, but my default position is to deal with facts as they are, not how they might have been if X, Y and Z were true.

    If the Mafia took control of Baltimore and seceded, we could hope that any damages the Mafia wrought post secession would eventually cease. I’d still say that those damages to Baltimoreans in that period would be a great concern, even if the Baltimoreans were technically no longer US citizens.

  34. langa

    L: “After all, there are far more deserving targets of my contempt, like the 99% of the people in DC that don’t have a libertarian bone in their body.”

    P: “I wouldn’t say it is anywhere near that high a percentage. Remember, most people in the district are just regular working people like anywhere else.”

    Yeah, I phrased that poorly. When I said “people”, I was actually referring to politicians and those closely connected to them (e.g. bureaucrats, journalists, etc.)

  35. langa

    P: “I’ll grant that [Rand Paul is] the most fiscally conservative Senator, but not necessarily the most libertarian one.”

    I’m certainly not a big fan of Rand, and I don’t really consider him to be a libertarian (except maybe in the broadest sense of the term), but I’ll be pretty surprised if he doesn’t turn out to be the most libertarian Senator by almost any reasonable measure.

    The reason I say that is because the Senate is generally much more uniformly statist than the House, where there’s more tolerance of ideological diversity. The Senate is filled with “moderates” like Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and John McCain. These people are basically pure authoritarians. They are in favor of big government on virtually every issue. (For an excellent discussion of why “moderates” are terrible from a libertarian perspective, see http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory126.html

    Even the supposedly “radical” Senators (such as Bernie Sanders on the left or Jim DeMint on the right) are mostly just rhetorical radicals. When it comes time to cast their votes, they usually go along with the rest of their party, or whatever seems politically expedient. Of course, Rand may do the same thing, but I don’t think we can just assume that he will. Time will tell.

  36. paulie Post author

    @ 39 I’m not ruling it out either.

    But have you read all the articles and comment threads linked @ 26?

    It’s more than enough to give me pause.

  37. langa

    RC: “I seem to recall the revisionists and Rothbardians used to claim the Confederate Elite Insurrection was not about slavery, only states rights and tariffs.”

    I don’t recall them ever claiming that slavery had nothing to do with it. Rather, they have argued that slavery was a fairly minor issue when compared to states rights and free trade. The fact that Lincoln actually offered to support a Constitutional amendment making slavery permanent if the Southern states would agree to stay in the Union and accept his tariff increases lends considerable credence to this hypothesis, the Confederacy’s rhetorical justifications notwithstanding.

  38. paulie Post author

    He – or whoever wrote the hate in those newsletters – might not have been themselves “racist” or “homophobes,” but rather the author may have been pandering to haters. Those newsletters were in part fundraising devices.

    That “paleolibertarian/paleoconservative” strategy was spelled out explicitly. So has the admission that it didn’t work. The alliance they are pursuing now is the broad anti-empire, anti-corporatist alliance with Ron Paul and Ralph Nader, and by extension (Campaign for Liberty) including greens, constitutionalists and libertarians, both in alternatives parties and big box parties, as well like minded independents. I think it’s a far better strategy.

  39. paulie Post author

    the Internet makes it easy to find many, many cites in which the Insurrection leaders themselves cited maintaining slavery as a primary motive.

    That is true. However, it was a fool’s errand. Chattel slavery would have collapsed anyway, quickly, without the fugitive slave laws. Even if the war speeded that up by a year or five years (and it may not have even done that), was it worth the hundreds of thousands of people killed, all their families bereaved, and all the people beaten, raped, maimed, made homeless, falsely imprisoned, etc?

    And while it is true that preserving slavery was a big part of the confederate elite’s reason to secede, ending slavery was a fairly minor part of the Yankee elite’s reason to prevent them from seceding.

    Their main reasons were mainly to maintain a larger population base to tax, more territory to claim as their own, an unnatural monopoly through tariffs over southern cotton for their factories in their economic competition with Europe.

    And as for freeing the slaves, many northerners such as Lincoln himself were racists, segregationists and white supremacists. They wanted to ship the blacks to Africa. They certainly did not want equal rights. Some wanted to keep all African-Americans, slave or free, out of the western territories.

    If you’ll recall, Lysander Spooner and other abolitionists, before the war, wanted the North to secede from the South. Some northern states came close to doing so on more than one occasion. Nor did those abolitionists approve of Mr. Lincoln’s war when it happened.

    So, if I had to vote between Abe Lincoln and Jeff Davis, I’d vote None of the Above, or write in Lysander Spooner. And rhetorically, libertarians should ally neither with the confederate aristocracy nor with the yankee imperialists, but with the abolitionists who supported both dividing the union of states and freeing the slaves.

  40. langa

    Paulie, I haven’t read all those threads, but I have read enough to convince me that Rand is telling the truth when he says he’s a conservative and not a libertarian. Particularly troubling was his opposition to habeas corpus for “enemy combatants” and his refusal to rule out a nuclear first strike against Iran, not to mention his insistence that the Ground Zero Mosque (or whatever you want to call it) was a matter to be dealt with by “the people of NYC” (so much for private property rights).

    As far as his record so far, the main thing we have to judge him on is his proposal for budget cuts, which had some good stuff (calling for the total elimination of a few whole departments and the gutting of several others) mixed with some bad stuff (for example, only cutting the military by 6.5% is an absolute joke, and I also found it ridiculous that he only wants to cut NASA, of all things, by a paltry 25%). He repeatedly calls himself a “Constitutional conservative”, but my copy of the Constitution didn’t seem to mention anything about space exploration. Maybe I got struck with the abridged version.

  41. paulie Post author

    I seem to recall the revisionists and Rothbardians used to claim the Confederate Elite Insurrection was not about slavery, only states rights and tariffs.

    That’s probably overstating it, but I agree they have a tendency to downplay how much of the conflict – on the southern side, anyway – was an irrational and futile attempt to preserve an immoral and doomed institution.

    To some extent, that is so as to undermine the continuing logical and propagandistic justification for expanded federal bureaucracy that the Lincolnian version of the war narrative provides to this day. And to some extent, at least while the “paleo” strategy was in play, it was to give racists a dog whistle and make them consider libertarians as allies. The first part is still legitimate now. The second, not so much.

  42. langa

    I agree with Paulie’s arguments at #43, and I would add that one reason Confederate leaders may have used slavery so often as their primary justification is because “keeping the Negros in their place” and “maintaining our way of life” was more likely to inspire the average white southerner than talk of abstract and complex subjects like free trade and state sovereignty.

  43. paulie Post author

    P33: Letting the south secede and therefore ending fugitive slave laws would have brought the slavery system down quickly. That is why they had to have the fugitive slave laws to begin with. + It would have also been better for the whole world in the long run, since the US empire would not have developed as much as two separate countries. + Remember, it was only US intervention late in WWI that prevented a negotiated truce. The world would have been spared Hitler and perhaps the Soviets had that negotiated truce taken place (it was the humiliation of Germany in WWI and the crippling sanctions that enabled Hitler to rise to power).

    R37: Can we stipulate that you are speculating here? If so, then while I agree that those outcomes were possible, other outcomes are also possible.

    PRedux: I agree that it is speculation, but I have what I consider good reasons for speculation. The American military imperial machine that started coming into its own on the world stage with the Spanish-American war was disproportionately composed of southern personnel and northern industrial resources.
    As two separate countries, they would have been far less likely to emerge as superpowers, no?

    The underlying tensions that led to WWI would still probably have led to a similar war, maybe not at the exact same time, but likely in the same time frame and with roughly the same results. That is, the sides were evenly matched, and were essentially ready to call it a truce.

    It was the late entry of the US that upset the balance and made it a rout and not an even split. And I’d say that my speculation about the terms of Germany’s surrender making Hitler’s rise possible are widely accepted.

    R: I would note that the Domino Theory and the Dondero Islamofascist Threat Theory are ALSO based on speculation. Speculation, then, is a dangerous thing, and is certainly not a sure thing. I can’t say I never speculate, but my default position is to deal with facts as they are, not how they might have been if X, Y and Z were true.

    PRedux: Speculation has its place. What we do know for sure is that Lincoln’s war helped lay the foundations for much of the federal expansion and US military expansion that came later. Many of the weapons and military leaders came out of that war as well. Precedents for various expansions of federal power were set. And so on.

    R: If the Mafia took control of Baltimore and seceded, we could hope that any damages the Mafia wrought post secession would eventually cease. I’d still say that those damages to Baltimoreans in that period would be a great concern, even if the Baltimoreans were technically no longer US citizens.

    P: I don’t think that is a valid analogy. I believe chattel slavery was doomed in the short term with or without the war. Other than that, would a confederate government have been worse than the reconstruction government or the essential reimposition of sate rule a decade or so later? Even if we say it would have been somewhat worse, balance it against all the loss of life, liberty and property that took place in the war and all the precedents for government expansion, etc.

  44. Robert Capozzi

    p47: Speculation has its place. What we do know for sure is that Lincoln’s war helped lay the foundations for much of the federal expansion and US military expansion that came later.

    me: My first point of feedback is that calling it “Lincoln’s war” is inaccurate. Many in the Union could read; read the Constitution; saw nowhere the word “secede” or anything like it; saw the word “insurrection”; saw US citizens being denationalized by the Elite Insurrectionists; saw federal property being stolen; and acted accordingly. Yes, Lincoln was president at the time, inheriting this insurrection situation. It was a constitutional crisis, and he didn’t handle the situation flawlessly. Nor would I say he was an enlightened saint.

    We can also speculate (if we must!) that the CSA Elites could have acted in a more civil manner. Inventing a power to “secede” where none existed without first at least attempting to attach a rider to the contract (an amendment) led to many senseless deaths. The CSA’s hasty poor judgment is IMO the proximate cause for most of the dysfunction that ensued.

  45. Darryl W. Perry

    RC,

    Would you say that the “elites” that constructed and supported the Declaration of Independence were “responsible” for the British response and the war for (colonial) independence that followed?

  46. Robert Capozzi

    dwp, yes, the American colonists claimed their independence, but they were not at all surprised that the British attempted to quash their claim of independence militarily. Normatively, I support the motive and intent of the colonists with no real reservations. The Confederate Elites, OTOH, had some grievances that I believe were well motivated, but other motives that were IMO extremely harmful. Procedurally, the Confederate Elites had not exhausted their peaceful, lawful options, making their normative case even weaker.

  47. Fun K. Chicken

    Mr. Capozzi,

    “Lincoln’s war” is more accurate than “civil war,” which would have meant the south wanted to conquer all of the USA.

    The word secede does not have to be covered by the constitution – See the 9th and 10th amendments and their historic context in the Declaration of Independence.

  48. Fun K. Chicken

    Also, some states, including Texas, attached a “rider” that they could secede at any time when they voted to join the union. I believe Virginia and maybe North Carolina did too, maybe some others.

Leave a Reply

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