Are conservatives capable of sufficient self-restraint? I doubt it.

Speaking of political alliances, Glenn Reynolds writes about the schism developing in the conservative-libertarian coalition. Bush's election victory came from a voting block that came together despite their differences due to their support of the War in Iraq, overlooking the appalling record the administration in other matters. But since the war appears to being going well, fractures lines are showing. Intervention in Major League Baseball on the steroids issue, Congressional activism in the Schiavo case, phony federalism, and reckless spending make the Republicans a poor choice for anyone who favors limited government. Personally, I don't think I've ever been as disgusted by the behavior of the Republican Party as I am these days.

Share this

I bet we could really piss

I bet we could really piss off the Republicans if we started up a Republican 2 party.

The platform of the Republican 2's will be--unlike that of the Republican 1's--a party favoring small government, minimal federal spending, and pro-freedom.

After all, Republicans have long since lost the rights to their name.

The Republican 2 Party:

2 Hip 2 Compromise.

I agree, but I do wonder why

I agree, but I do wonder why you are laying the MLB steroid circus at the feet of the Republican party. That bit of foolishness seems to be bi-partisan.

On a side note, I simply don't understand McCain's popularity. He certainly enjoys playing the part of the "national scold", sometimes with horrible results.

"Bush’s election victory

"Bush’s election victory came from a voting block that came together despite their differences in support of the War in Iraq"

What makes you think so? I'm more inclined to think that libertarians opposed to the Iraq war voted for Badnarik, Kerry, or nobody, and Bush's "coalition" was with Democrats of the hawkish and anti-abortion varities.

Er, make that variEties.

Er, make that variEties. Good spellers also voted for Bush.

The GOP, in general, is a

The GOP, in general, is a coalition between folks who can be described as "libertarian conservatives" and the "religious right". This coalition has been successful for 25 years or so. If the Democrats would let go of their desire democratic socialism they would rapidly sway the "libertarian conservatives" away from the religious right.

I tend to agree with Eric,

I tend to agree with Eric, except that I seriously doubt that either party will jettison it’s irrational base. The LP seems to have alienated a majority of both coalitions by audaciously insisting upon individual liberty…gotta love consensus.

Jay, You're right. But

Jay,
You're right. But Republicans should have tried to stop such nonsense.

Digamma,
Poor phrasing on my part - I've changed it. I meant that the group came together despite their differences on other policies because they supported the war in common.

The first thing the

The first thing the republicans need to do is jettison Delay. By the time the democrats get through with him, if they have the guts, will make the Gingrich vs Wright drama look like kindergarden play.

I bet we could really piss

I bet we could really piss off the Republicans if we started up a Republican 2 party.

I have always thought "Jeffersonian Democrats" would be a better name for the Libertarian party.

I’m more inclined to think that libertarians opposed to the Iraq war voted for Badnarik, Kerry, or nobody, and Bush’s “coalition” was with Democrats of the hawkish and anti-abortion varities.

I laugh at anyone who opposed the war in Iraq and voted Kerry.

I would also say that the

I would also say that the small government govt. conservatives and libertarians who allied with the neo-cons and religious right to elect Bush did so, in large part, because they couldn't stomach the thought of John "Dukakis-Kennedy" Kerry in the White House. The truth is that most of us had really serious issues (whether we are talking libertarians or small govt. cons) with the Bushie crowd. But, as bad as the idiocy rolling across D.C. is right now, I can only imagine the joy if we had elected Mr. Christmas in Cambodia.

None of the Republicans'

None of the Republicans' actions lately should have been a surprise to anyone.

The internet is inherently

The internet is inherently good because it forces to become better at information theory. Instead of having one or two sources of data, you now have thousands. Anyone who is reasonably competent will be able to sort out what seems most likely to themselves. Control of information is degrading by the second, which is why certain people in power are trying hard to regulate it. When people in power control information, the information available tends to complement those in power. When everyone has a voice, when central informational distribution dies, the entire society of people processing such information grows greatly in the quality and richness of their information. It's a self-correcting network heuristic that is a core part of the notion we call intelligence.

I tend to think all this

I tend to think all this talk of politics is an unnecessary distraction--or perhaps I'm just unduly pessimistic. Nothing libertarian is going to come out of the democratic process--or is that not clear by this point? Our victories will all be nothing but symbolic shows against a creeping mass of socialism.

We should devote our times to investigating alternatives if we are truly serious about liberty.

Then again, perhaps this talk of politics helps to show how distracting it is.

Personally, I don’t think

Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever been as disgusted by the behavior of the Republican Party as I am these days.

Personally, I don't think I've ever been as "disguisted" by your spelling as I am these days.

"Our victories will all be

"Our victories will all be nothing but symbolic shows against a creeping mass of socialism."

I may be dreaming, but I certainly hope that blogs will serve as an excellent marketing tool for liberty in general and libertarian influence in particular.

Mr. Scheule complains,

Mr. Scheule complains, cogently, that hardcore (read: anarchist) libertarians will always find themselves disappointed by democracy. Most sane citizens want a State strong enough to perpetuate itself and, also, a State that can (and does) act with enough force to make other States back the fuck up.
Therefore, most sane citizens are not anarchists, nor 'minarchists,' nor hardcore 'libertarians-with-a-capital-L.'

The Dems'n'Repubs have, as Robert noticed, carved up the Irrational Vote pretty evenly. Strictly marginal gains available on that front.

Most rational voters who're dismayed by the GOP spend-a-whirl are still saying: "What?!? You think Kerry woulda been BETTER? Or anyone BUT Kerry had any chance to win??"

As for my 2 cents: I voted for Bush because he overthrew at least one evil tyrant and at least one evil theocracy. That's libertarian enough for me.

Mr. Scheule complains,

Mr. Scheule complains, cogently, that hardcore (read: anarchist) libertarians will always find themselves disappointed by democracy.

I am an anarchist and quite proud to be one, but that was hardly germane to the point, for I don't see how anything the Bush administration has done can be construed as libertarian in the least, no matter where one falls within the group.

Mr. McCain's examples of interventionist victories may be libertarian enough for him, but my feeling is few other libertarians would find strong foreign policy to be a defining characteristic of libertarianism. From what I can tell, libertarians tend towards the agnostic in regards to foreing policy.

No, it's true, Libertarians

No, it's true, Libertarians haven't supported the advance of liberty in the Middle East with as much vigor as one might have hoped.
Thus, Libertarians have brought down a curse on their own heads.
The curse is: Libertarians, in future, will find themselves to be exactly as much use to one another as the Libertarian Party and movement was to the Iraqi people.
:lipssealed:

McClain: we invaded a

McClain: we invaded a country that was not a threat to the US, for a cause other than that of our own people. You call that "libertarian", I call it global social-engineering...

We'll see just how much

We'll see just how much "liberty" the new democratically elected government of Iraq gives them. Democracy and liberty are not synonymous.

Fine, don't believe me.

Fine, don't believe me. Make up whatever excuses you want to call yourselves 'libertarians' while opposing liberation and democracy.
But karma's a funny thing, and I wasn't joking about that curse.
:no:

I would support privately

I would support privately funding resistance fighters, which I think is entirely consistent with the libertarian ideal. Of course this isn't really an option for our government since it would be hypocritical to allow this, but at the same time seize funding of al Qaeda.

How would it be hypocritical

How would it be hypocritical unless they aided groups that targeted civilians?

Somehow I doubt private donors could possibly do any worse than how the government chose "freedom fighters" to prop up w/ our tax dollars under Reagan...

McClain, who's opposing

McClain, who's opposing liberation & democracy? We oppose blind altruism as foreign policy.

I'd have been the first to cheer if the iraqi people had an uprising an' left the baathists swinging from lampposts while they constructed a representative liberal republic. Instead they have terrorists flooding the place and a party of Koran-thumpers poised to take control, with us stuck there playing defense for them.

Right. Oppose, oppose,

Right. Oppose, oppose, oppose: it's all libertarians do, and we don't do it sucessfully.
Gov't shouldn't do this, gov't has no right to do that.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people vote for positivity, not negativity.

How would it be hypocritical

How would it be hypocritical unless they aided groups that targeted civilians?

al Qaeda aims to take down the US government as well as its non-muslim population. Either way it would be a condoned open season on the US government.

McClain, what's your solution? So far all I have heard from you are criticisms of libertarians and justifications of how you're a libertarian, but at the same time supporting a party who has done plenty to increase the size and scope of government.

"since the war appears to be

"since the war appears to be going well . . ."

???

"...in the real world,

"...in the real world, people vote for positivity, not negativity"

Hippie...:grin:

I don't think the invasion

I don't think the invasion of Iraq and the overthrowing of Saddam violates any libertarian principles in and of itself. The only part that is in violation of libertarian principles is the fact that the funds used were collected via taxes. So I only see the libertarian objection to this as more of a tax protest than anything else.

There are plenty of people who did want to see the taxes that were squeezed out of them used in Afghanistan and Iraq. Inaction is as much a choice as action, so even when libertarians object to a particular use such as this they are violating someones desire to see their money spent as they see fit. It sure would be better if we could spend our the moneys taken from us via taxes by ourselves, but barring that a libertarians desire to go or not to go to war is no different than any other tax slaves.

I do see a difference between spending programs that only squander the taxes and those that actively violate even more rights. I find it much more objectionable to have the taxes spent on enforcing price controls than I do if they are spent helping free some opressed people.

Now I'll wait for everyone to start screaming I'm no libertarian.

Yeah, "much more

Yeah, "much more objectionable to have the taxes spent on enforcing price controls than ... spent helping free some opressed people."
Exactly.

I'd like to see Libertarians playing kingmaker from the center rather than starting food fights at the kid's table. So to speak.

Myself, I'm registered Libertarian, but usually vote for whichever Dem or Repub is "less-anti-libertarian."
The idea is to make both major parties pander to the libertarian vote.
As opposed to indulging in self-marginalizing "libertarian" behavior like whining about how you don't wanna pay any taxes so, therefore, the liberation of Iraq was wrong because it was paid for with tax money.
Whichever major party wants to lower taxes is libertarian enough.
You want representation without taxation? Good luck.
Or anarchy? Anarchy is just those 15 minutes between the collapse of the old order and the rise of the new warlords.

There's a big chunk of normal, mainstream, centrist swing voters - "Reagan Democrats" they've been called in the past - who show distinct libertarian sympathies, yet are turned off by the embarrassingly utopian extremist dogma coming out of the 'official' libertarian camps.
Any success the Libertarian Party can hope for will come, not from aligning ourselves with "conservatives," nor from running 'protest vote' candidates, but from MARKETING our ideas to the 'swinging centrists' - that "Reagan Democrat" mainstream swing vote.

"Whichever major party wants

"Whichever major party wants to lower taxes is libertarian enough."

Except that's not always a choice. Typically, the choices are between one party that wants to raise taxes, and one party that wants to raise taxes even more.