Bob Barr recently teamed up with former Congressman Ronnie Shows (R) to write an article for Politico on a proposal from the Department of Education called Gainful Employment.
One area we agree on is the need to improve our education system. After all, no amount of tax cuts or government services have nearly the potential for improving our country as a well-educated citizenry.
So both of us are monitoring a new proposal by the Obama administration aimed at reducing the debt burden taken on by students who use federal student loans to be able to attend proprietary, or for-profit, colleges. The proposal reflects the administration’s position that proprietary colleges offer degrees but little hope of employment, and when these loans go into default, the U.S. taxpayer is left holding the bag. This is a decidedly one-sided perspective.
While the Education Department’s proposal — known as Gainful Employment — may be laudable, we have concerns about its underlying assertions, implementation and likely results.
Bob Barr was the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 2008. You can read the rest of the article here.
nf: …hard core (ie: ideologically less likely to make any compromises on or in principle) …
me: Yes, I’m familiar with this mindset. Interestingly, I’m finding that, as a TAAAList (theoretical asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist), I don’t find my “compromising” when I take what might be called moderate, incremental changes to the status quo. Freed of the need to create an “ideal” construct, I simply advocate changes to the current social order that enhance liberty and reduce coercion. Generally, I find positions that I believe will meet with the least amount of resistance,which increases the likelihood that such a position would be enacted. Holistic, all-things-considered assessments of the art of the possible are not, in my way of thinking, “compromises.”
I also want to comment on Erik G. Post #30- I agree that the term Libertarian is not at all optimal for a political party name. I agree that naming a party the same as a political philosophy is not a good idea. I don’t believe it is an accident that we do not have major national political parties with the names of Liberal and Conservative. I made an effort once to get the party to consider a name change at the 1985 national convention in Phoenix but got nowhere.
Just to beat this dead horse a bit more… I do not believe hard core libertarians are unhealthy extremists. I was only expressing a very subjective opinion that the people I have met during my 36 years of being involved with the greater libertarian movement that I consider to be hard core (ie: ideologically less likely to make any compromises on or in principle) also tended to be the sort of people who would avoid traditional medicine until all other alternatives had been exhausted. I perceive Tom to be in that category. I may be wrong but then again I often am.
Bob,
1. There is an excuse not to see a doctor today, if I can’t find a doctor who’ll see ME today.
2. I was unaware that I needed an excuse in any case. I am the owner of my life. If it pleases me to hang myself from the rafters or throw myself off a cliff, that’s my call to make.
3. Type 2 diabetes isn’t usually treated with insulin.
tk: I think he’s characterizing “hardcore libertarianism” as an “unhealthy extreme,” and positing that people who are given to one unhealthy extreme are likely to be given to others as well.
me: Could be that was his intent. If so, it seems to track with my experience. Extremists in one arena tend to be extremists in others, and was my personal experience. When I was a Randian/Rothbardian, for ex., I revelled in telling people that I loved punk rock and classical.
tk: Fear of walking along six-inch ledges 100 stories up is probably a “healthy fear.”
me: I’d characterize such behavior as contra-indicated. 😉 Any fear is contra-indicated, IMO. Love is always indicated. (I’m absolutist in this regard!) Such behavior strikes me as unloving, unless, of course, one is a window-washer with safety equipment!
nf, thanks for clarifying. I’m not sure what a “hard core” L, nor a “soft core” one might be, vs. what Susan Hogarth has called “fellow travelers.” In my case, I’m not an absolutist, abolitionist L (which I believe some might refer to as “hard core”), but I also have a healthy skepticism about medical “science,” for what it’s worth. I will see an MD if it seems indicated to treat symptoms. I maintain a healthy skepticism regarding medical “science’s” ability to suss out the cause of disease. How many times does the medical community have to reverse themselves before we recognize that they are simply employing educated guesses?
Godspeed to Professor Knapp with his current situation.
It’s a guy thing. Esp. a Marine. As much as a libertarian thing. What rugged individualist needs a doctor?
In my mother’s cse, she died from long-term complications. Pulmonary edema.
Bob,
I think he’s characterizing “hardcore libertarianism” as an “unhealthy extreme,” and positing that people who are given to one unhealthy extreme are likely to be given to others as well.
Fear of walking along six-inch ledges 100 stories up is probably a “healthy fear.”
Ralph is right. Diabetic shock>coma>death very possible. Hypoglycemia. Insulin shock>coma(too much insulin) that’s what I meant by get regulated.
Removed by Mr. Phillips, who posted it here, at Mr. Lussenheide’s request.
Tom, there is no excuse to not see a doctor TODAY, tough guy.
Your symptoms sound classic. You probably need insulin injection/s. Problems with extremities-sometimes leading to amputation-usually toe/foot/leg. Eye problems-retinopathy. Macular degeneration.
Diabetes is not to be screwed with.
RC- no disrespect intended by my use of the term “hard core libertarian”. What I meant by that is that the really independent minded folks I have met over the years in the libertarian movement seem to me to be the opposite of hypochondriacal. I know I am dangerously generalizing here but many of the people who spring to mind would try many health care alternatives first before finally seeing a medical doctor. From Tom’s symptoms I think that time is past.
It’s back!
nf: A healthy fear of doctors is one thing but it would appear you have carried it to a very unhealthy extreme. All in all not surprising for a hard core libertarian.
me: Pregnant statement. Please don’t leave us hanging…whatcha mean by this? “Hard core” Ls are paranoid? What’s a “healthy fear”…sounds like a contradiction in terms? What does someone politics have to do with their trust or lack of trust in medicine?
NewFed,
Thanks for your concern.
In less than an hour, my significant other will be burning up the phone lines trying to get me in to a doctor’s office ASAP (she’s better connected for that stuff than me, as she works at one of the nation’s top medical schools).
I’m not particularly afraid of doctors. I just generally hate spending a great deal of time or money on that kind of stuff if I can avoid it. I admit that having a drill bit shoved through my eyeball (to remove a lodged particle) freaked me out a bit, but mostly not afraid.
If you don’t get treatment quite soon, Tom it could be adios. A healthy fear of doctors is one thing but it would appear you have carried it to a very unhealthy extreme. All in all not surprising for a hard core libertarian. Get help!
Ralph and Bob,
Thanks for the advice (for those who don’t know and who care one way or another, they’re talking about this).
I don’t use emergency rooms, nor have I had a primary care physician for oh, 25 years or so.
I had what I rather suspect is my last “regular” soda last night, and my blood sugar had already fallen significantly as of a couple of hours ago.
This is not something that came on suddenly, it’s something I’ve suspected for at least a couple of years.
I’ll start looking for a doctor today, and expect that I’ll find one (Tamara thinks her internist would take me on as a patient). Doubt I’ll be able to get an appointment for today, but I’ll shoot for Monday and avoid sugar as much as I can over the weekend.
Can’t do without caffeine, though, so I guess I’ll finally be trying Coke Zero (I avoid aspartame).
eg30, if we had a wayback machine, I’d prefer Liberty or Freedom Party to Libertarian, but more because the alternatives are plainer, more accessible words.
On the main point, my take differs. It’s not that the LP was named for an ideology, it’s that the ideology when first codified was flawed and extreme. The GOP isn’t named after an ideology, yet the right wing loves to label its moderates RINOs, for ex.
It’s human nature to have love/hate relationships, hurting the ones you love. You court each other, then you blame each other for your woes.
The LP suffers this phenomenon to the extreme, because many believe L-ism as codified in the Randian/Rothbardian tradition is a very specific worldview and prescriptive model. The State is aggression, aggression is “wrong,” therefore there should be no State. (Transition plans are OK, but we won’t dirty our hands with those, we’re too busy proselytizing the NAP.)
Further, Rand and Rothbard were both vicious in attacking those they disagreed with (including each other!), so much of the intra-LP static we see is an (unconscious) imitation. We’re playing out the tradition; doing what we learned from the “greats.”
The extremism is codified in the SoP, although it’s somewhat camouflaged. As we saw in Portland, 3/4s of the party in convention wanted to delete the overt extremism in the SoP, but the party’s founders thought the language was SO right-on that they protected it with a 7/8s hurdle.
That speaks volumes to me about the LP’s founders and foundation. I appreciate what they were trying to do, but it’s obvious to me how dysfunctional it was at the outset.
Fixing flawed foundations is not easy. Think Deepwater Horizon.
Tom, you are sick? My mother died from diabetes. Go to ER & get checked/regulated. Then see your primary & specialist.
Tom:
Sorry I can’t post at your site re your article on self-diagnosis. Your website does strange things. Posting a comment here.
What you have sounds like pancreas failure, an allergy or poisoning causing diabetic failure, or diabetes. Cut your carb consumption to maybe 20 g a day and see a doctor for a full work-up immediately. If I were you, I would have someone drive me into the emergency room now.
This is serious. You could suddenly go into a coma or just drop dead.
Good luck.
Tom, JT, ME-not get it! You(plural) not get it.
Tom, as a former/forever Marine, how can you stand this sloppy woosie politics? Your great delegates nominated Bob Barr, who you yourself-yes, YOU, wrote an article describing him as a dixiecrat conservative.
& YOU, yes you, have been on a don’t root for Root binge for YEARS!
& all the rest of the CRAP-Ron Paul, Barr getting slickly into LNC & then trying to get LNC to draft Ron Paul etc. which George pounced on. & all the rest of the rightist crap.
& you have the gall to bust my balls for trying to help Native Americans.
What would you have us do about them? Nothing i.e. status quo? if that’s libertarianism, then damn right I ain’t.
Tom, I previously said the exact thing that you did @ 26. Milnes doesn’t get that though.
He dreams of an easy way to ensure that, somehow, any person he doesn’t consider a libertarian never is nominated or elected by LP delegates–even when most of those LP delegates prefer that person.
He wants to override the preferences of most of them with a central quality-control mechanism that always yields the outcome he desires.
He says “How about if it was agreed beforehand what schools of thought are libertarian & which are not?” without understanding that there would be no need for any peer-review board if all Libertarians agreed on that.
And, like a child throwing a tantrum, he calls Libertarians losers and assholes when his great ideas aren’t implemented. Gotta love it.
Re: Eric @ 30: Then party members would just argue over who really favors Liberty and who doesn’t. Different name, same argument.
@27 –
Thanks!
Bob,
Yes, the national convention system is unreliable.
Total rule by a Committee for the Libertarian Party’s Safety, with guillotine in place next to the meeting table, might be more reliable.
Reliable /= Preferable.
As a side note, if you think it would be possible to find seven people in the LP who would look at your platform and then stamp your papers “Libertarian,” I think you need to cut back on the crack.
Tom, the national convention system is unreliable.
When you have a democratic convention, everybody there is a democrat-republican convention same. But a Libertarian convention is loaded with people who are NOT libertarians. & in 2008, 2 of them wound up on the ticket! ABSURD!
This is a major problem.
Again, most of this goes back to having a party named after an ideology (the infighting over who is and isn’t a ‘libertarian’). Had the party been named the ‘Liberty Party’ or something similar instead (personally, I favor the name Freedom Party, all Turtledove references aside), people probably wouldn’t be arguing so much about who is and isn’t a libertarian (unless, of course, ‘libertarian’ became/is the proper name for one who voted Liberty).
Hammer of Truth – Free Talk Live
Hammer of Truth was a Libertarian news website. The site was started in 1999 by Stephen VanDyke as a personal blog, and disappeared in mysterious circumstances in late 2006
wiki.freetalklive.com/Hammer_of_Truth – Cached
Bob Barr is clearly past his prime but for some reason libertarians lap him him. I don’t pretend to fucking understand that relationship. Maybe if he shaved off the perv stash and traded in the palin glasses I might have some reason to take his whole image/message seriously, but to be honest he looks like a high school principle trying to act hip.
As for his policy paper… blah blah, I’m sure it will be amazing… -ly boring and safe, and no one outside a few political circles will even bother to circulate it much less actually read the whole thing.
If however, reading the thick policy papers with a glass of wine in the candle light makes you hot, then my apologies and carry on.
PS- Hammer of Truth is back, and so am I. What’s cracking, bitches?
wolfefan,
The Bill Lussenheide article you are talking about was also posted here:
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=5987
The LP already has a peer review board in place for every party office and presidential/vice-presidential nomination.
That peer review board consists of those selected by their fellow LP members to serve as delegates to the party’s national convention.
If that peer review board doesn’t get it right, what makes you think that a board selected by one party official who was in turn selected either by that other board or by a senior official selected by that other board would?
Perhaps instead of a unanimous vote, a consensus?
Meanwhile we are burning daylight. For 2010 & 2012.
You libertarians are screwed up. Unfortunately, you being screwed up screws me up.
You are losers. Since I need your help to get out of being a fellow loser, I have put a lot of thought into this.
I don’t think this is censorship and/or standards. & even if it is, so what? We censor our thoughts & actions & those of others a lot. & we have standards. We have weights & measures too. We judge-jury duty. We choose-voting. Basically we do the best we can.
The problem here is simple. There are a lot more of people who are not libertarians than are but join the LP nevertheless & dominate it to the point of absurdity. e.g. 2008 ticket composed of 2 NON-libertarians.-OR non-libertarians tend to seek party office & candidacies(as opposed to obviously anarchists) & the higher up the office/candidacy, the more tendency for the non-libertarians & to go & for them to vote for same. Another example-persecuting AK out. & trying to pass a convict persecution bylaw(aimed at me I suspect). & causing the splitoff of BTP. etc. & who knows how many of these are not loyal to the LP & libertarianism? & government agents/dupes. Bribable, extortable, blackmailable, dealing for time off sentence etc. The simple solution is to not allow non-libertarians to hold LP party positions and/or be a candidate.
Could you imagine if the 2008 democratic and/or republican ticket was not composed of 2 democrats & 2 republicans? COULD NOT HAPPEN. Why not? Because they employ common sense in these matters. & libertarians do not. Libertarians insist on FREEDOM NOW! Vote join run.
Gridlock? Maybe. How about if it was agreed beforehand what schools of thought are libertarian & which are not? That way the only judgement is whether an individual is or is not one of the above.
Boy is that convoluted, Milnes. I know this is giving this idea more attention that it deserves, but I got some free time so here goes anyway:
Milnes: “Let’s say one person out of 7 voted for example Root has been appointed/hired as a Peer Review Board member but I as a member also vote that no he is not a genuine libertarian. Claiming to be a libertarian conservative & I find yes he is a libertarian conservative & that is not a legitimate school of libertarian thought. Review-revote.”
So the ED or Chair first selects the members. Then, the members must unanimously vote to confirm each one to ensure each member really has some kind of libertarian perspective.
So, as per your example, you block Root. He or a like-minded member blocks you back. The anarchist blocks the minarchist and vice versa. The utilitarian blocks the natural rightist and vice versa. Etc.
There’s no need to “review-revote” because no one is suddenly going to change his or her mind as to what really constitutes a libertarian viewpoint. Gridlock.
Basically, you’re assuming all of the members would accept anyone you think is a libertarian and reject anyone you don’t think is one. Sorry, that ain’t gonna happen.
As a libertarian, how in the world are you to make an argument for censorship and standards. What is that?
I triple dog dare you to fit in!!!
Voting is a consent mechanism, and if allowed, peole voice in america with their vote. If the people decide Barr is a Libertarian, then that is their vote. Libertarians are anchored in accountability. Free will also includes mistakes.
Did your dissertation on freedom come with a collar?
JT, yes, ok, sorry for the delay in answer to your very legitimate question.
I believe I addressed this issue very recently in IPR comments.
Postulating the LP passes a resolution & a bylaw. Then presumably the Ex. Director or Chair would call for positions to be filled-job opening-perhaps a call for paid volunteers. Then resumes & interviews-pretty standard stuff. Perhaps applicants would be asked about what libertarian school of thought/philosiophy they are or aspire to etc. & then be interviewed about it. The employer agent-Ex Dir or Chair-would then hire a designated # + alternates.(like alternate jurors). Then they would meet asap & determine by unanimous vote that all were in fact some sort of libertarian. One dissenting vote would require further deliberations. Let’s say one person out of 7 voted for example Root has been appointed/hired as a Peer Review Board member but I as a member also vote that no he is not a genuine libertarian. Claiming to be a libertarian conservative & I find yes he is a libertarian conservative & that is not a legitimate school of libertarian thought. Review-revote.
Presumably by a process of LP members only, volunteering, resume, interview & peer review, we could wind up with a reliable Peer Review Board.
Or something like that. I don’t claim to have ALL the answers & I can’t do everything. This is just a suggestion. & I think it is a pretty good one & badly & urgently needed.
@16 –
Thanks, Daniel. It seems to me that best practice would be to replace it with a “this post was removed by the author” placeholder or something. I’m not complaining – I enjoy IPR and it’s free, and the authors can do as they wish… I just think it’s more clear that way.
tk: …the most abolitionist material imaginable…
me: Does this mean that you advocate anarchy or a “stateless society”?
Ya know, I wish I could get out more. Doin’ the best I can.
You’ll likely not be surprised to hear that I’m skeptical that many other than the most committed abolitionist outlets will be interested in explicitly abolitionist materials, but, then, I’ve been wrong before.
Let’s try this again, Milnes.
Milnes: “All that would be needed would be a resolution, bylaw, something such that only a genuine libertarian can be a LP party official and/or candidate; to be determined by a Peer Review Group.”
Who would choose the members of the group? And how?
Tom, if abolitionists -you say abolitionist I say radicals-are so gregarious & publicity seeking & recognition seeking etc., why did Mary turn down vp with Barr?
& it goes without saying, correct me if I’m wrong.
@10, I would venture that the author likely took it down.
Bob,
I was very careful in what I said. If that’s your “impression,” maybe you should get out more.
Right now, one of my jobs is attempting to get the most abolitionist material imaginable into “mainstream channels to the electorate” (and to everyone else).
Last week I submitted one or more pieces of the most abolitionist material imaginable to 1,623 “mainstream channels” for publication (this week it will be 1,652 “mainstream channels”). Awaiting word on two other “exclusives” from two other “mainstream channels,” one of which is in serious perpetual contention for the title of most influential newspaper in the United States.
No, not a lot of it gets picked up (although right now I’m awaiting release forms to sign from one of the largest newspapers in the United States pursuant to their acceptance of an “exclusive” abolitionist column), but some does (we had a piece in one of the top 100 US newspapers by circulation a couple of weeks ago), and relative lack of success is not an indicator of “lack of interest.”
Not that “non-mainstream” channels are to be sniffed at, either. Today I received word that an African-American “alternative” newspaper in Oregon, with a single-city circulation of 10,500, has picked up one of our pieces — the second time that paper has done so. Our AlterNet postings of content get us good results for the search territory we’ve staked out.
Tom, I’m not a mas0chist; I don’t blog at Daily Kos or politico. I get ignored enough here.
tk 4, the operative word is “real.” And I did say “impression.”
Our articulate abolitionist brethren may well fancy the idea of sitting down with David Gregory or sitting in with the NY Times editorial board, expounding on the virtues of, say, a 5 year plan to transition to a stateless society. Gregory might be amused or dumbfounded. Maureen Dowd might sit there with that bemused look on her face.
But, seriously. Seriously?
The vibe I get from abolitionists is that they view theirs as an underground movement that might become “major” when western civilization collapses, or in a few hundred years, or something.
The few instances I’ve seen abolitionists get even close to the mainstream media, they generally sound like centrist Ls. Yes, there are exceptions, like the Congressional candidate who told the WaPo that private nukes were aOK. But while there may be a case for an abolitionist approach, intuitively most recognize that that sort of extremism just doesn’t play with the mainstream.
Tom, if you were paying attention you would know that is not what I said.
Let’s give Bob Barr Tom’s litmus test.
Does he or does he not have Corinthian leather in his car?
Hi –
Off-topic, but wasn’t there a Bill Lussenheide post up yesterday? Where did it go? If it was pulled for some reason, shouldn’t this be noted on the front page?
Speaking of African-Americans, Barr was also recently named #5 on the list of “The Blackest White Folks We Know.”
http://www.theroot.com/multimedia/blackest-white-folks-we-know
Who says the LP has no diversity?
“Who would choose the members of the group?”
A randomly selected board of hybrid African-Americans / genetically engineered Comanches who had been “repatriated” to Africa with compensation, per Milnes’s 2008 presidential platform.
Milnes: “All that would be needed would be a resolution, bylaw, something such that only a genuine libertarian can be a LP party official and/or candidate; to be determined by a Peer Review Group.”
Who would choose the members of the group?
Actually, Bob, it would take you about five minutes to get yourself published in Politico if you were paying attention.
Like DailyKos and other sites, Politico has open blogging. All you have to do is register.
“Do you think for one nanosecond that I or any radical libertarian could get published in politico?”
No but perhaps Mental Health Monthly. 🙂
“I was under the impression the abolitionists, at least, have no real interest in mainstream channels to the electorate.”
Maybe you should get out more.
All that would be needed would be a resolution, bylaw, something such that only a genuine libertarian can be a LP party official and/or candidate; to be determined by a Peer Review Group. Anyone can be a member & rightfully so. But as it is, non libertarians, like Barr, dominate the LP. This is a major problem & has led to such absurdities as the 2008 LP ticket consisted of 2 non-libertarians! Even Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian yet has been a presidential candidate & has a lifetime membership.
Basically BTP exists because of this problem.
What is needed is a purge & a revolution. The LP can take its rightful place in an election winning inclusive progressive movement.
No, highly unlikely.
I was under the impression the abolitionists, at least, have no real interest in mainstream channels to the electorate. They seem more attracted and interested in using “underground” vehicles, with the Web facilitating that sort of communication.
Relevance is the gate for the mainstream. If an advocate makes a conscious choice to shun relevancy, then for the most part that means shunning mainstream channels.
All good, of course.
Do you think for one nanosecond that I or any radical libertarian could get published in politico?
Mary Ruwart?