“Today on Morning Joe,” writes Lew Rockwell, “we had Scarborough belligerently justifying US prison camps in Cuba and elsewhere. ‘Habeas corpus was invented for American citizens,’ he said. ‘Next you’ll be wanting free speech for Danes.’
“Leaving aside the long English history of habeas corpus, which Blackstone traces to 1305, Scarborough reflects the alarming conservative belief that we get our rights from the federal constitution rather than from God or our nature. Libertarians can share this attitude, as we saw during the Heller hysteria.”
Rockewll is referring to a statement from Libertarian Party Chairman Bill Redpath lauding the Heller decision — which many Original-Intentists consider to have been wrongly decided — as “establishing” an individual right to keep and bear arms.
LRC earlier mocked Redpath for his belief in the statist-ahistorical notion that the Supreme Court “establishes” rights, rather than rights being natural or God-given.
I am not a Libertarian, but it seems to me that one could believe that 100 percent of the Libertarian political program _ought_ to be enacted into law without necessarily believing that it already _is_ the law by action of god or nature.
Requiring Libertarian figureheads to believe in natural law would be like requiring Green figureheads to believe in new age spirituality. Metaphysical beliefs are not political platforms.
Cop slapper?
What?
progressive alliance strategy, progressive alliance strategy, progressive alliance strategy cop slapper, cop slapper, cop slapper
It might be that Redpath’s GOP opponent, Jim Gilmore, is to the “right” of Redpath on guns. Hmmmm.
I agree with GE on federalism, which is why I was needling him on DOMA ignorance. DOMA was the most significant piece of pro-federalism legislation in decades, if not the 20th century. (Barr’s original legislation was more “right-federalist”, his current position more “left-federalist.”)
ummmmm hmmmmm……
Add Sean Haugh into the mix, and I’m with you, Matt.
I think the LP needs a two-man purge to get rid of Redpath and Barr, but that’s it.
Sorry Mike. I was not addressing you. I was addressing the noted Scholastic philosopher, Stephan Kinsella, master of “proof by ad hominem”, whose “a priori” is better than reality.
For those who don’t remember Theodoric of York, here’s a video.
Gene – I support no purge except a purge of those who literally want to remake the LP in a non-libertarian image. My view on the LP is that it should be a big enough tent to accommodate anyone who generally supports smaller government, however, the top of its ticket and its national staff, etc., should provide a consistent libertarian line. Even here I’m flexible. I don’t think Gary Nolan or Aaron Russo were 100% libertarian, but they were certainly “good enough.”
Regardless, let me ask you this question: Do you think Bill Redpath should be called out for his statement — as LP Chair — that our rights are “established” by the Supremes? He basically said that until Heller, when the Supremes benevolently granted us a “new” right, we had no right to bear arms.
Maybe that will prompt him to refute his previous support for gun registration. Oh wait — those “strict constructionist” Supremes invented several government powers out of thin air as part of that decision that the LP loved so much.
Ah, a new title. I’ll keep this one. 😀
So is there anything against musing now?
Ah, Theodoric of York, Medieval libertarian has joined us. Pray do tell us how your alchemical ruminations are superior to actually doing something to increase liberty.
This is only tangential, sorry. But, this thread really reminds me of my youth as an anarcho-communist/libertarian socialist hanging around with Marxists.
The Marxists were always bickering over who had the “correct line”. This is where the phrase “politically correct” originates — not from Rush Limbaugh or whoever. You know; who had the more politically correct line on the post-Stalin Soviet Union, who was clearer on the nature of “democratic centralism”, Lenin’s April Theses, blah blah blah.
Anyway, carry on.
I’m not aware of any radicals who would like to purge the likes of Orvetti and Theodore. “Real†libertarian talk is a response to the non-â€real†libertarians who try to purge the radicals!
Well, not exactly, G.E.
Both factions have attempted to purge one another over the years. In fact, I have known some Libertarians who quit the party because of the “we’re real libertarians and you’re not” talk and they felt extremely unwelcome because of it.
These are people who could have grown into stronger libertarians, but were chased off.
It’s not a sense of purging. Was it Jim Davidson that was talking about how we all get supremely pissed at the smallest of differences? Don’t recall.
I enjoy the Phillies acknowledgment of Libertarians disagreeing on everything.
Real libertarianism…I don’t see it as carrying around Healing Our World like a bible. I acknowledge just a common understanding of the principles, and the way a smaller government can solve many of the problems. I don’t see how we can freak out at these little things. It’s embarrassing.
The simplest acknowledgments of principles can lead to further things. You know what turned me on to the idea of libertarianism? A Ron Paul flier. I knew all these things, they just were never systematized into an ideology.
I’m not aware of any radicals who would like to purge the likes of Orvetti and Theodore. “Real” libertarian talk is a response to the non-“real” libertarians who try to purge the radicals! At least from the LP partisan perspective, and I don’t think that’s what Mr. Kinsella is talking about.
I find nothing whatsoever wrong about calling out a completely statist notion by the chair of the so-called “Libertarian” Party. If you’re comfortable with the chairman of the party wanting to register guns and having a post-New Deal view on the Supremes, then fine. But some of us don’t like it, and we will speak out on it.
I stand with Orvetti.
I set forth some problems w/ Milsted’s fumbling political philosophy here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella19.html
What’s wrong w/ “real libertarians,” Orvetti? Some are real, some are posers.
Actually G.E., I think Carl Milsted resigned from, or left the LP.
However, the genius Carl has NEVER said anything mistaken.
Since I am nearly always at odds with Milsted’s positions, then by extension, I am nearly always mistaken.
I will point out that one of the rare times that Carl and I agreed was opposition to Redpath’s pet project of proportional representation. Carl, in 2002 pointed out on the debate floor at the LP convention in Indianapolis that the countries which had proportional representation, were much more socialist than in the U.S. The platform plank was passed by a standing count, and barely at that.
I wonder, with the new platform, is this no longer there? If not, maybe that’s why Carl was so adamant about revising the platform in the reformers vision. Nah. Carl is just a reformer himself.
The fact that Death Merchant Carl Milsted defends gungrabber Bill Redpath tells you all you need to know about the sorry state of the LP.
I think I found mine.
…
Sorry…
Lew Rockwell wrote something stupid.
But I repeat myself.
Unless of course you’re a naked nationalist.
Ewwww….why’d you have to make them *naked*? Few thinmgs are as disgusting as nationalists, but NAKED nationalists? I think I’ve lost my appetite.
Prindle: “Oh please. Still fighting the irrelevant “natural law vs. positive law†battle, are we?”
Real libertarians do not believe rights come from the state. Period. The state, as a criminal gang, is in fact the antithesis of law.
johncjackson: “Really? I thought LR and his buddies were the ones who believe States have “rights†and not individuals.”
Of course not. “States rights” just means federalism–that the central state has only limited powers. See on this Cato’s Gene Healy, http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/007582.html
G.E.: “Lew Rockwell and many of his columnists are anarchists. They castigate liberal-libertines for calling on the feds as defenders of liberties.”
Not exactly. There’s nothing wrong with doing what you have to do to vindicate your rights–using the feds against the states, or vice-versa, is fine. But this does not mean the Constitution really empowers the feds to do this, or that we should pretend otherwise; nor does it mean it’s a good idea to set up a centralized system in the first place.
And for that matter, one must support neocon wars of aggression to “liberate” Iraqis, etc.
Same anti-“states’ rights” concept.
If one rejects the concept of “states’ rights” — as opposed to its unfortunate phraseology — then one must also reject national sovereignty and be in favor of the U.N. sending troops into the U.S. to defend the U.N.’s understanding of man’s “rights” — including the right to healthcare, etc.
Unless of course you’re a naked nationalist.
States’ rights is a bad phrase, but it comes directly from the Constitution. It just means that — as the Founders agreed — the federal government should not interfere with the internal governing of SOVEREIGN states.
Lew Rockwell and many of his columnists are anarchists. They castigate liberal-libertines for calling on the feds as defenders of liberties.
Really? I thought LR and his buddies were the ones who believe States have “rights” and not individuals.
Oh please. Still fighting the irrelevant “natural law vs. positive law” battle, are we?
Under both natural law and positive law regimes, unelected judges make up new laws and pretend they are just enforcing existing laws.
Under both natural law and positive law regimes, people who want to resist unjust laws can find an ethical basis for doing so.
As a descriptive matter, natural law is the one that is “ahistorical,” positing that “the law” (the one that matters, anyway) does not change over time but is merely “discovered.”
But why does any of this matter? Both theories are just a smokescreen over the real day-to-day operation of courts and the state.