Please Don’t Feed Me Neo-Con and Tell Me That It’s Liberty (Part 3)

by

This post is the third in a three post series. Click for part one and part two.
Though the press has made much of the notion that Paul Ryan is a “conservative of the libertarian kind,” I actually believe just the opposite. Within the Republican Party there are two competing ideologies: traditional conservatism emphasizing fiscal temperance and constrained government on the one side, and neo-conservatism with an emphasis on social legislation and foreign influence on the other. I believe not only that Paul Ryan is firmly in the camp of the neo-conservatives, but also that he is the pivotal figure in the neo-conservative metapmorphosis of the Republican Party. In my view, the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney’s running mate is an indication that the neo-conservatives believe that their transformation of the Republican Party is assured and they are ready to challenge the Democrats on their own turf: Establishing, Embracing and Controlling Big Government.
The real tell that this is the moment the neo-conservatives have been building toward can be seen by comparing

Read more

Why Do Professional Economists Overwhelmingly Support the State?

by

In reflecting on Paul Krugman’s seemingly 100% record of supporting state intervention as exemplified in my last post, I recall having formerly wondered why economists overwhelmingly support State-based economic views and rarely support free market views. 

Read more

Please Don’t Feed Me Neo-Con & Tell Me That It’s Liberty (Part 2)

by

This post is part two of a three-post series.  Click here for part one and here for part three.

The Republican establishment, and to some extent the Democrats as well, are labeling Paul Ryan “a conservative of the libertarian kind.” I reject this characterization in its entirety. Libertarianism has three basic positions: strict adherence to free markets; strict protection of civil liberties; and strict defense of property rights (which strongly correlates with non-intervention in foreign affairs). Paul Ryan has affirmed in word and deed his desire to limit civil liberties, legislate morality and spread around the world his version of Americanism by use of force. Ryan, therefore, has denied two of the three tenets of libertarianism right out of the gate, but he does not renounce the third: he claims to support free markets and tries to continue to lay claim to the label of fiscal conservative. The question is, what kind of conservative is Paul Ryan really?

Read more

Please Don't Feed Me Neo-Con & Tell Me That It's Liberty (Part 1)

by

Everyone is abuzz with Romney’s “bold choice” of running mate, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. Every bobble head with a press badge is telling us that the Tea Party and Ron Paul supporters should be psyched because, to borrow a phrase from Harry Reid: “The word is out!” Ryan’s a libertarian!
What else could he be? Ryan quotes Austrian economists and loves Ayn Rand – he must be a libertarian! And anyway, everyone says he is: Forbes calls Ryan “Ron Paul-esque,” the Financial Times calls him “a conservative of the libertarian kind,” and New York Magazine calls him “Your Annoying Libertarian Ex-Boyfriend.” He even has a libertarian-sounding name for crying out loud: Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan…it just flows! As a matter of fact, someone said to me yesterday that Ron Paul was Romney’s running mate—true story! I mean those two are practically interchangeable!
What was that? You’re not so sure? Oh come now, don’t be such a purist, and don’t you dare let those nagging doubts about Ryan’s voting record bubble up to the top of your brain. And of all things, please don’t fall for it when Democratic operatives say things like, “while he may be a devotee of Ayn Rand, he has voted more like a Republican hack than a revolutionary,” or “Paul Ryan Record Shows He Could Be Running Mate of Obama.” Libertarians really do need to be more pragmatic.
Sure, Ryan denies being a libertarian

Read more

The Great Chicken Wars: A Victory for Statism

by

Given that I’m neither very religious nor gay, I do not take an emotional stand for or against gay marriage.  As an extreme libertarian, I don’t think marriage of any kind should be sanctioned or certified by the State, nor should any privileges accrue to encourage one social choice over another.  As an anarcho-capitalist (the most extreme kind of libertarian), I don’t even recognize the legitimacy of the State much less wish the State to recognize the legitimacy of my marriage.
Nevertheless, I have been trying to get at what exactly is fueling the pro-Chick-fil-A demonstrations.  I got a tweet during the last show saying it was homophobia plain and simple, but I don’t buy that.  If Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy had said Chick-fil-A will no longer serve or hire gays, I doubt he would have experienced an upwelling of support.  On the contrary, it is my experience that the vast majority of Americans are appalled at discrimination and would not have wanted to be associated with a purely bigoted policy.  A minority might have supported him, but not for long–I suspect the company would have been out of business with a policy like that, legal or illegal.
Was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day a wild success because people wanted to show their support for the First Amendment like many claim?  I don’t think so.  It’s true that Rahm Emanuel, the Mayor of Chicago, and Tom Menino, the Mayor of Boston, want to control Cathy’s speech by using the force of the State to punish him economically, but I did not get the sense that the crowds in Atlanta were focused on these northern mayors.
Are Chick-fil-A appreciators coming out in droves to show their disapproval of gay marriage in particular and homosexuality in general?  I’m sad to conclude there is an element of that in all of this, but it’s not the driving force.
I believe that the overwhelming driving force behind the record-breaking success of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day is

Read more

Guest Post: END THE FED? IT’S BEEN DONE!

by

This summer has me running in all directions, so I haven’t been able to post much. My apologies for that, however, as luck would have it, my sister Booie wanted to share some thoughts on Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed Bill recently passed by Congress….

When England tried to place the colonies under the monetary control of the Bank of England, many in America were strongly opposed. This was one of the factors leading to the Revolutionary War. Nevertheless, the First Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791, thanks to the machinations of Alexander Hamilton, in line with Northern mercantile interests. In exchange for support by the agrarian South for the bank, Hamilton agreed

Read more

Report

Contains mature or sensitive content
Contains spam, fake content or potential malware

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

  • See blocked member's posts
  • Mention this member in posts

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

Report

You have already reported this .