Are libertarians part of the conservative movement? An interview with Jonah Goldberg

American Enterprise Institute ^ | Feburary 10, 2012 | AEI Podcast

[zzeeman]

Im sorry to hear that your husband in such a tragic way. I truly hope that more and more people wake up to the grave dangers of pharmaceuticals before they have to suffer a loss as tragic as yours. And while it is certainly the subject of a different thread, these dangers have gotten worse once they started getting fueled by BigGov via medicare and medicaid $$$$.

[Texan5]

Thanks for posting that-too bad that more people have never paid attention to histoey-there are lessons to be learned in history, but people have to pay attention.

[Raider Sam]

And I dont think we need laws to protect people’s souls. That is for the citizens to do themselves, take an active role in the community. And we already have rules against harming someone who did not want it. I dont think we need laws to protect people from harming themselves.

[Durus]

"Only if legalization led to a vast increase in use, which is highly doubtful. It stands to reason that most people who aren't deterred from using, say, heroin or meth because of the properties of the drugs themselves also aren't deterred by the possibility of jail time. One might anticipate a significant increase in marijuana use - because there the penalty for illegal use is worse than the drug itself - but not nearly enough to "destroy this country"

It wouldn't take a vast increase in drug use. We are teetering on the edge of beneficiaries of public largess outnumbering the tax payers in our country. Roll back the welfare state and socialized medicine so I'm not responsible for someone else's lack of responsibility and lets talk about it. That seems like the most logical way to go about it.

"Why before? Why not in parallel with?"

Because at best the government is stupid, at worse is maliciously trying to destroy our nation. We can't give them any excuses to mess up our country more than it already is.

[PapaBear3625]

Yes, but if your late husband was alive and could see that libertarians now wish to gut the military, are in favor of queers serving openly, and could see how they want to close military bases all over the world, I’m sure he would be disgusted.

I consider myself a (small l) libertarian, and am not in favor of gays in the military, nor gutting the military.

I AM in favor of ending our involvement in operations that do not benefit our national security, such as Bosnia, and was opposed to our sticking our noses into Libya.

As far as places like Somalia, I would prefer we not set foot there again, and focus on blowing away pirate boats. Better yet, not stand in the way of the shipping companies contracting with private outfits to blow away the pirates for them.

[Texan5]

I really like your solution to the pirates, who are really terrorists-blowing a few up is the only way to get outrages like that stopped.

[PapaBear3625]

The pirates are not terrorists, they are in it for the ransom money. Make the risk high enough, and the profits from successful hijackings low enough, and piracy will disappear.

I would go with a doctrine where being if a passing ship is approached by fast-moving armed Somalis, then that is sufficient to blow the Somalis away. A couple of Predators armed with rockets could patrol the length of the Somali coast and keep things clear of pirates fairly cheaply. I'm sure the ship insurance companies would be happy to pay somebody for that.

[Persevero]

“And I dont think we need laws to protect people’s souls. That is for the citizens to do themselves, take an active role in the community. And we already have rules against harming someone who did not want it. I dont think we need laws to protect people from harming themselves.”

I think we need laws to protect OTHER people’s souls. For example, I don’t think my kids should be at a bus stop looking at a giant ad of two naked men getting it on. The “right” of these two naked men to destroy themselves does not extend to public advertising.

As for protecting people from harming themselves, I already agreed with you.

[Raider Sam]

I wouldnt argue the bus stop thing. I would be fine with any city doing that, but not the Federal government. I honestly think any people who agree ahead of time to an activity should be allowed to participate. The citizens will take care of issues like pornography in public, but I dont think it should be a law anymore than I think we should ban smoking in public.

[Persevero]

“I wouldnt argue the bus stop thing.”

I appreciate that, and I think the problem with Libertarian social philosophy is what they think of as “victimless” crime is not generally victimless. Particularly, children are hurt the worst by “victimless” crime. Also, other legitimate dependents.

In a perfect Libertarian world, we’d all be rational adults helping or hurting ourselves as we please. However, we aren’t all adults, we aren’t all rational, and some of us are quite dependent on others, often through no fault of our own.

[Texan5]

I would think insurance companies would buy into that in a heartbeat-no risk to any humans except the bad guys, no liability, no potential for a lawsuit. Sounds like a winner to me.

I’ve read and heard that a number of those pirates are connected to terrorist organizations and funnel ransom money to them for terrorist activities. If true, while they might not be terrorists in the most literal sense, they are complicit in those activities.

[PapaBear3625]

The original primary purpose of the US Navy was to protect US merchant ships and allow secure trade between the US and the world, and to go after pirates which attacked US ships.

Before we had so many ridiculous rules and taxes applied to our merchant fleet, in 1955 we had 1,072 US-flagged commercial ships, carrying 25% of the world's cargo. Today the US merchant fleet is 191 ships carrying 2% of the world's cargo.

What we should do is reduce regulations that provide an incentive for ships to register under the flags of places like Liberia, and have the US Navy once again have as a main mission the destruction of pirates which attack US ships, or ships carrying US citizens. (Ships under foreign flags can look to their country of registry for protection, or re-register as US ships). We should have our military look after US interests.

[LibertyLA]

“What we should do is reduce regulations that provide an incentive for ships to register under the flags of places like Liberia, and have the US Navy once again have as a main mission the destruction of pirates which attack US ships, or ships carrying US citizens. (Ships under foreign flags can look to their country of registry for protection, or re-register as US ships). We should have our military look after US interests.”

****************************************************

Love the idea - we should have the biggest shipping empire in the world under the US flag. It would also give our Navy the right to take out these pirates. The message is, don’t mess with our ships, anywhere in the world.

Instead of building some globalist cooperation nightmare we should look after America and Americans first. Where are the “America First” candidates?

Aren’t we a sovereign nation anymore?

[Texan5]

I recall learning in History class about the Navy’s original mission, and how the early Navy went after pirates. I certainly think it would be a great idea to return to that, seeing that we don’t have a major world war going on at present, and put an end to limited intervention, which the soldiers hate because it ties their hands while turning them into targets.

[PapaBear3625]

Love the idea - we should have the biggest shipping empire in the world under the US flag.

One of the biggest impediments would be (you guessed it) the unions. US-flagged ships would be under the jurisdiction of Seafarer's International Union, which has been compared to the Teamsters and Longshoremen unions in their level of thuggery. We need a Maritime Right To Work Act to deal with that.

Then, of course, a US flagged ship would be subject to EEOC regulations, OHSA regs, EPA, etc, etc. A bunch of regulatory agencies would need to be cut down to size.

[PapaBear3625]

Another benefit of making our merchant fleet more viable, is that it would be a place for Navy veterans to go after they finished their tours.

[LibertyLA]

Exactly, but again an over regulated, monster FedGov makes everything impossible.

We are being choked to death by a FedGov gone mad. We need a candidate that will push to really burn away these laws & regulations - not just repeat the same old lies we hear about (when they are in campaign mode) - how they’re ‘really’ going to do it ‘this time.’ Then right back to business as usual (DC corruption mode), while we US citizens slowly choke to death on these endless, nonsensical, laws and regulations as well as having our pockets picked for the privilege.

Reminds me of The Who song “Won’t Get Fooled Again” - the line I’m thinking of is:

“...meet the new boss - same as the old boss...”

I just hope we stop being fooled... eventually.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Unfortunately, the actions of many of your co-horts (Yes Nannies, I mean you) speak to an opposite truth. While they say they oppose Ron Paul, there is always a qualifier.

"While I wouldn't vote for Paul, he is right on the Constitution

You seem eager to put words in my mouth. Please give the exact quotation of my alleged statement about Ron Paul - and stop making things up.

You took umbrage that that? Really?

Well OK, let me modify for you:

“I WOULD vote for Paul, because he is right on the Constitution”

or

“I wouldn’t vote for Paul, he is WRONG on the Constitution”

Feel better now?

Why would I? That's THREE things I never said.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

we aren’t all adults, we aren’t all rational, and some of us are quite dependent on others, often through no fault of our own.

Which is no argument for a drug ban on anyone other than those people and their caregivers.

[Persevero]

“we aren’t all adults, we aren’t all rational, and some of us are quite dependent on others, often through no fault of our own.

Which is no argument for a drug ban on anyone other than those people and their caregivers. “

I disagree. Virtually all of us are parents and grandparents the greater part of our lives. Virtually all of us have dependent parents at some point. Our neighbors need to count on us being rational in any number of situations, as do our fellow shoppers, people at our workplace, and people at places of recreation. People who are retarded or crazy are liabilities and need special attention wherever they go.

If they aren’t making themselves retarded or crazy on purpose, I have no problem making allowances.

But if they are deliberately retarding themselves or making themselves irrational, they are affecting others virtually all the time. We can’t have the laws go in and out depending on whether Mr. Crackhead is asleep or awake, alone in the house or has a sick wife with him, driving down an empty road or a full one, working at a bank or working all by himself in a field, had a parent nearing dementia one day and over the line the next, sitting in a classroom or sitting in a cave.

Wherever you go, there you are. You don’t live on your own personal island.