« Site transformation | Main | Quote of the Day »

June 18, 2004

Politically, I count myself a strong conservative, with some libertarian tendencies. Getting government's hand out of my wallet would be an exceptionally good thing. Consistent with protecting the country against danger to our existence and protecting citizens from the depredations of homegrown miscreants, I am generally a government minimalist.

There's a reason, though, that I am not now nor will in the foreseeable future be a "big-L" Libertarian. Actually, there are quite a few reasons. The Libertarian Party has taken some stands that I find to be less than responsible, particularly with regard to the war on Islamofascism. Apparently, they'd rather we take a punch in the face before reacting, rather than preemptively shooting the terrorists while they wind up to deliver the punch. The Libertarians are not serious about ensuring our national survival.

They are ambiguous on the issue of abortion. While they (rightly) decry government funding of abortions, they seem to have no particular problem with abortion itself. How this squares with the rights of an unborn child is beyond my comprehension.

Then there's the Libertarian Party position on drugs.

Well, it's not so much a position as a sword upon which they repeatedly fall. They then get up, brush themselves off, and repeat. They wonder why no one takes them seriously.

Here's a hint, guys: when the issue you are consistently loudest about is the one that tells people you are a pack of raving stoners, you are not going to win many hearts and minds, nor do well at the polls. You can beat that drum all the live-long day, but people aren't going to dance to it.

(Well, they may try, but if they do they will be jerky and uncoordinated, will have fits of giggling for no readily identifiable reason and will occasionally wander off, muttering to themselves, to get some Twinkies™.)

Hence, I can sympathize with Neal Boortz when he notes:

I believe to this day that if individualism, freedom, economic liberty and constitutional government are to be restored and preserved in the United States it will be the libertarianism, if not the Libertarian Party, that gets the save. The way the party is playing right now, that save looks in doubt.
I think that's just about right.

Posted by Russ at 11:19 AM, June 18, 2004 in Politics

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Libertarianism:

Honey? Does this "News" make my Blog look fat? from Who Tends the Fires
The Word for the Day is: "Misfeasance" Kewl. We've discovered who the CuriousLabs of Blogdom is... Winergate is reverbating throughout Blogistan. Michele says Dave Winer is Still a Dick. "Ohhh I'm glad I'm not a welog dot com weiner That... [Read More]

Tracked on June 18, 2004 07:41 PM


My theological perspective precludes me from being a libertarian for the same reason it precludes me from being an anarchist -- Both assume the basic goodnes of humanity. I, as a Christian, believe in man's fallenness, and the basic depravity of humanity. Not that we don't have our moments, but taken as a whole, humans can be pretty brutish. Anarchists, and to a lesser extent libertarians, believe that if the government will just leave well enough alone (or cease to exist), people will pretty much get along and do the right thing. I don't buy it. I believe that one of the key roles of government is to protect people from each other.

Posted by: Brian B at June 18, 2004 12:47 PM