A different take on Pawlenty at Cato

This piece from the Washington Post gives a bit of a different take on the meeting at the Cato Institute. The audience questions are not really referenced in great detail.

Pawlenty also had little to say about the Republican plan to overhaul Medicare, which some GOP leaders are blaming for the party’s loss of a special congressional election Tuesday in a heavily Republican district in Upstate New York. Asked what he thought of the Ryan plan in the wake of Tuesday’s results, Pawlenty credited Ryan for a “courageous” plan but said he would put out his own, different proposal soon.

Pawlenty's lack of plenty in answers

David Weigel's piece on some of the answers provided by presidential contender Tim Pawlenty is a recommended read. One part:

In the wake of NY-26, what did Pawlenty make of the Ryan plan? This elicited the safe, smart, tapioca answer that Pawlenty's been giving for weeks.
"In general," he said, "I think the direction of it is positive, but I'm going to have my own plan."
Issue, dodged. Pawlenty pointed into the crowd again.
"We'll take the guy in the purple tie," he said. "That's a Vikings color!"
Unfortunately, the wearer of Vikings colors worked for the Marijuana Policy Project, who asked Pawlenty how he could be taken seriously on health care since he had opposed "my group" on medical pot.
"What was it?" asked Pawlenty? "Marijuana? Yeah. Well... I stood with law enforcement issue on this issue... we just have a respectful difference on this issue."
End of audience questions.

He should have kept answering questions, rather than create the impression that drugs are a key issue or that he will avoid tough questions on the Ryan plan ...

Bock touchstone on Libertarian Issues

Libertarian columnist Alan Bock has died at age 67.

Bock wrote four published books: Ecology Action Guide (1970) and The Gospel Life of Hank Williams (1976), Ambush at Ruby Ridge (1995) and Waiting to Inhale: The Politics of Medical Marijuana (2000). He attended UCLA as a National Merit Scholar and majored in political science and journalism.

He died early Wednesday morning at his home in Lake Elsinore, from cancer. He was a senior editorial writer and columnist for the Register’s Opinion section from 1980 to 2011.

Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act

Ron Paul making headlines again:

MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.

"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."

It's not a new position from some in the Libertarian party:

"This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist," said the Texas congressman. "That's just outlandish."

Paul appealed to the free market, and argued that if a business owner were to post signs declaring segregation in his or her business, people wouldn't patronize it.

"For you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that," he said. "And if they did they would be an idiot and out of business."

That written, there are quite a few postings out there labeling Paul as a racist for this position. He really had two choices, support his free market theory and have some label him a racist or say he would have supported it and then be called a hypocrite for not believing his stance on the free market ...

Hey, idiots! Stop pointing lasers at planes!

Recommended article from Time where I admit I tend to agree that creating another law doesn't appear to be the real solution. Though as the daughter of a former pilot I completely understand the dangers, this part was entertaining as a visual:

It takes only about five seconds of thought to see that Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's amendment to impose federal penalties — up to a five-year prison sentence — for attempted plane zapping would be completely useless. How exactly would it be enforced? Would pilots who get lasered in the air contact a federal anti-laser-pointer task force on the ground? Would Tommy Lee Jones be recruited to lead the manhunts? And if a local cop somehow caught a 12-year-old goof-off trying to Luke Skywalker a 747 with a laser pointer he stole from his corporate mom, would the kid go to the federal pen? Sure, it's conceivable that someone with truly menacing intentions would point a laser into a cockpit. But does Congress think there's nothing in the existing federal code that would allow him to be prosecuted for trying to blind a pilot in midflight?

Libertarian paternalism is "in" again

It's interesting to watch words and catch phrases return. Libertarian paternalism is one of those, it's also referred to as "soft paternalism" meaning government can:

help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will as well as the sharpness of mind. But unlike 'hard' paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aims only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice

Some credit Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein from their book "Nudge" -- but the reality is the term has been around much longer.

Even before Thaler and Sunstein wrote a 2003 piece for the Chicago Law review, "Libertarian Paternalism Is Not An Oxymoron" -- However most seem to have not noticed that.

Libertarianism, the New Anti-Americanism?

Apparently so, according to this The Market Oracle piece. Part of:

Why should you or I celebrate less an improvement in the welfare of a South Korean than we celebrate a comparable improvement in the welfare of a South Carolinian?

That's it. So finally we have it: after years of telling us that libertarian economics -- deregulate this, deregulate that, believe that the free market is always right -- is best for America, they admit that, in the end, they just don't care.

This philosophy has the perverse virtue of perfect logical consistency: if you don't care about what's good for Americans, why not have free trade? I must grant -- and the reader should, too -- that the entire policy of free trade makes perfect sense if one adopts this premise.

The idea of caring equally about the well-being of people all over the world sounds, of course, like a very sweet and humanitarian philosophy. And in a perfect world, maybe it would be. But there are two very big realities that get in the way:

1) We live in a world of ruthless economic rivalry, so if Americans aren't willing to stand up for the economic interests of Americans, we just get rolled by multinational corporations and foreign powers that lack such delicate qualms.

2) Libertarianism, for all its pretensions of universalist humanitarianism, is in fact a notoriously selfish philosophy. Someone once defined a libertarian as "an anarchist with a credit card;" they were onto something.

Tea Party story making media rounds

This article on the Tea Party movement has been making it's rounds since it was released by AP -- this NPR link is one example. Libertarians are still being linked with the Tea Party, some will agree with that, some will not.

One part of the AP piece:

Some tea party activists — part of a loose-knit, libertarian-tinged network advocating small government and less federal spending — already are dismayed to see their new lawmakers plunge into familiar patterns of raising political cash, hiring former lobbyists and stopping short of the often-heard vow to "change the way Washington works."

I'll say 'I told you so' later -- if you don't change the system but only change the players? Nothing ever changes ...

Beam's piece has unintended consequences

Another item out there in response to the Beam article referenced a post or so down is this one from American Culture where it's claimed Beam's piece has positive unintended consequences:

In all, I appreciate Beam’s article above all for an unintended consequence: It highlights what makes the libertarian/classical liberal position so important, relevant, and appealing — today more than ever.

Libertarian debate from NY post article

A piece written earlier this month by Christopher Beam is causing some reaction on the internet. One example is this American Conservative article.

It's been interesting to follow. Beam states things like this:

For all the talk about casting off government shackles, libertarianism is still considered the crazy uncle of American politics: loud and cocky and occasionally profound but always a bit unhinged. And Rand Paul’s dad is the craziest uncle of all. Ron Paul wants to “end the Fed,” as the title of his book proclaims, and return the country to the gold standard—stances that have made him a tea-party icon. Now, as incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Fed, he’ll have an even bigger platform. Paul Sr. says there’s not much daylight between him and his son. “I can’t think of anything we grossly disagree on,” he says.

James Banks this:

Movements like these aren’t “crazy,” “impossible” or “utopian.” They seek to implement policies which are not so far beyond the pale of what an average American would be willing to live with. But the lengths to which libertarian activists go seem out of proportion from the perspective of the general public; why move to New Hampshire or a seastead in the ocean when the average citizen’s most intimate, obnoxious interaction with government occurs only once a year (in mid-April) and he is still free to express his opinion at the ballot box? For this reason, some politicians and voters will always channel their inner-libertarian (when organizations like TSA exist to hate)–but being fully possessed by that inner-libertarian is as rare as channeling him is common.

Father and son reunion

It's more of a fluff story than one related to Libertarian politics, but the Houston Chronicle recently reported that Ron Paul and his son Rand will be sharing a condo in Washington, D.C. The story also states that while the two men will be sharing a home and share some similar political philosophies, it's not expected for Rand to be too much like his father.

Political analysts say it would be a mistake, however, to say that Rand Paul is a carbon copy of his father.
"In his two presidential campaigns, Ron Paul ran to educate," said John Samples of the libertarian Cato Institute. "Rand Paul is more about holding power and making changes, pushing the agenda to libertarianism."
Occasionally, Rand Paul may push in directions his father won't go. But the junior Paul promises it'll never get personal.
"We don't really have heated disagreements," he said of his relationship with his father. "Neither of us are yellers. I do joke that I don't criticize my dad on TV or I might get kicked (out) from the adult table."

Will 2012 be the year of the libertarian?

That's the premise behind this National Review piece that I recommend reading. One small part:

If Gary Johnson were president, he would immediately cut all federal spending — entitlements, defense, education, everything — by 43 percent to rectify our fiscal blunders. And he’d just be getting started. In a recent interview with National Review Online, the former governor of New Mexico — and a rumored presidential candidate — outlined his governing philosophy and some of its practical applications.

What is that philosophy? In two words: limited government. From 1995 to 2003, Johnson served as governor of the Land of Enchantment, where Democrats outnumber Republicans two-to-one. During his tenure, he vetoed more bills than the other 49 governors combined — 750 in total, one third of which had been introduced by Republican legislators. Johnson also used his line-item-veto power thousands of times. He credits his heavy veto pen for eliminating New Mexico’s budget deficit and cutting the growth rate of New Mexico’s government in half.

Is a Libertarian society a pipedream?

I really enjoy some of the discussion and questions that takes place on the Wall Street Journal discussion forum. At times I wish I had more time to participate, but for now I enjoy reading many of the discussions. This recent one where the question of "Is a Libertarian society a pipedream?" is a recommended one. As always there are some great answers and some not so great answers. One part of a comment that I'm not sure I agree with but really made me stop and think:

"In other words, libertarianism works only in books, on lifeboats or among people stranded somewhere for a length of time not to exceed six months. After that, human nature takes over and anarchy/totalitarianism/starvation and death take over."

Ron Paul's lone no vote gets attention

The article on Ron Paul being the only no vote on a resolution honoring Nobel winner Liu Xiaobo linked here makes a very valid point. If Paul really believed that such resolutions were something that the House shouldn't do, then he should have not voted for any resolutions in the past.

Unless he wants to try to argue that honoring Chi Chi Rodriguez is somehow more important, but then he'd lose that argument once you factor in his voting yes on a resolution about Romanian adoptions.

I personally think all of those sorts of resolutions whether they take place in Congress, a state general assembly or a local council are a waste of time and effort, but once you vote yes? It's hard to later decide resolutions are of no value.

Where are the female Libertarians

There are female Libertarians, I've met plenty, but I found it interesting that the question of Where are the female Libertarians was being asked.

Honest answer is that they like Republican and Democratic women don't get the same level of support when it comes to campaigning as men do and the additional hurdle of fundraising that Libertarian candidates face is a problem. There are organized groups out there that try to help women run for office, but most of them are ran by Democratic or Republican organizations.

Why Ron Paul's newfound power both pleases and worries libertarians.

Slate piece on the recent power of oversight of the Federal Reserve ending up in the hands of Ron Paul -- LINK. While I recommend reading it, what I find most amusing is the assumption that if you are a Libertarian you automatically support Ron Paul.

Then again there's the assumption if you are a Democrat or Republican you automatically support everything elected Democrats or Republicans do.

What it will be is interesting ...

Is Christianity compatible with libertarianism

Topic of discussion - Is Christianity compatible with libertarianism - raised on the Wall Street Journal discussion boards. Anytime religion is part of the discussion it typically creates many responses. As you can see it's already up to 82 comments.

One part of one of the comments that I enjoyed:

Of course Libertarianism and Christianity are compatible; or can be compatible; or can be compatible for most Christians most of the time. They are not by definition incompatible, unless you are a particular type of Christian, probably a fundamentalist. A central distinguishing feature of fundamentalism (Christian as well as Islamic) is a search for certainty and a belief that certainty is available to Man. This inevitably leads to choosing positions and judging others. In my view, this is false Christianity and not true to the teachings of Jesus.

Ames & Levine column generates apology

Adding to the controversy over a recent column by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine on the TSA saga comes this apology to John Tyner from The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel.

Part of:

As Glenn Greenwald of Salon quickly pointed out (and as other writers echoed), the article wrongly suggested that John Tyner, the libertarian citizen-activist who coined the "don't touch my junk" protest against the TSA's security procedures, might be linked to an Astroturf operation. Ames' and Levine's article didn't directly call Tyner a plant, and they didn't say that he was funded by the Koch brothers. Nonetheless, their article gave that impression--by placing Tyner in the article's lead and by using a generally disparaging tone to refer to him. The article also used innuendo to cast doubt on Tyner's motives, and when Tyner denied any connections to lobbyists and to Koch-funded organizations in an interview, we printed his denial--but we didn't press hard enough to get clarity on his actions and intentions. We should have stopped and done just that, and if Tyner's story checked out, we should have removed him from the piece.
We have published a reply by Ames and Levine that acknowledges some of these problems, but as editor of The Nation, I also want to apologize to John Tyner. The Nation hasn't been--and never will be--in the business of muffling citizen protest.
We are, however, committed to bold reporting and to airing intelligent debates even--or especially--when they challenge our preconceptions and make our readers uncomfortable.

How do you compare libertarianism and the Tea Party conservatism?

The title of this post is a recent item posted for discussion online at the Wall Street Journal.

There are only 23 comments at this point, but a few of them are thought provoking content that you might enjoy.

Top myths in American politics

Recommended article by Lee Roscoe -- LINK. The myths:

• That Democrats are socialists. We should wish they were. It is a failure to move to a redistributive economy with legislated limits to greed (and to corporate funding of elections) that is pushing America on the road to ruin.
• That socialism is a bad thing. Modern socialism has nothing to do with totalitarian communism. The countries that are doing the best for their citizens in terms of schools, health and child care, vacations, full employment, full housing, clean energy, and caps on CEO salary are, in fact, socialist in their economies, democratic in their governments. They have not done away with capitalism, but simply have turned it to the common good. This is the case in much of Scandinavia and many EU countries, such as Germany.
• That the government should not spend money and get us into debt. The mantra that so-called fiscal conservatism is good for this country is at this point nothing more than a slander. It shows a basic misunderstanding of the way capitalism works. The government must spend money, as FDR did for a massive jobs program, if we are to have an economy again.
• That the Republicans want less government and the Democrats want more. The Republicans have created more government, such as the Patriot Act, which is a totalitarian blueprint, and the huge Homeland Security apparatus (employing over 800,000 people — ironically this spy network is the only growth industry in the U.S.). Republicans are fine with huge subsidies of taxpayer monies for agribusiness, big pharma, the defense industry and other corporations. They are fine with huge tax cuts for the rich and increased taxes for the middle and working class. They want more government for the rich and less for the rest of us.
• That we have a "liberal press." In fact huge corporations, almost always larger contributors to Republicans than to Democrats, own the major networks and cable companies, and many of what few newspapers are left.
• That the tea party is just a group of angry but benign folks. NAACP reports just issued show that the tea party has a large preponderance of leaders affiliated with white nationalist movements which consider Jews to be Satanic, and blacks to be subhuman (and who hate Obama for being black). The tea party is funded by such as the Koch family, huge oil and corporate interests that want no protection for the environment or workers, and no benefits — except for themselves.