An Open Letter to Libertarians

The BIDINOTTO BLOG ^ | 10/25/04 | John Hospers

[Beemnseven]

There's no edit or delete button that I'm aware of. That's why you saw my reply twice.

Now, your point that Bush believes we were right to go into Iraq is academic now that we're already there. While I am no fan of John Kerry, his position on Iraq is virtually identical to Bush's, and frankly, his goal to get the troops out as soon as possible is the right position as opposed to one that admits there's no end in sight, with no clear objective as to the final withdrawal of our armed forces cited. Will this be another Germany and Japan or Korea where are troops are stationed there for another 60 plus years? That ought to improve the way we're looked at by the people of the middle east!

Just because Bush has sent the military after the terrorists doesn't mean he deserves a free pass to another 4 years. People who support the president simply because of those three little words "War on Terror" I think tend to cite that without much thought, and use it as an easy way to weasel out of defending his decidedly nonconservative ways and in some cases outright incompetence. They should spend more time investigating just how effective Bush has been fighting it. Recruitment for Al Queda is reportedly up. Reckless and ill-advised planning on Iraq, thumbing our noses at our allies, and emboldening the anti-American sentiment throughout the middle east isn't what I'd call a passing job for the War on Terror.

There are basically two differences between republicans and democrats. The "R's" like to throw us a nickel every now and then, while the "D's" want to tax us into oblivion. Abortion is the other difference. But like the Cato Institute put it so well, giving Bush a pass for the tax cuts he has proposed is kind of like thanking a thief for returning $10 of the hundred that he stole from you. The president, with his "oh, just charge it" mentality on the deficit and failing to veto one single spending bill from Congress is counterproductive to the cycle that forces the hardworking taxpayers to repay the bill that these two 'party animals' have run up. If you're a libertarian, (which I highly doubt) you cannot carelessly dismiss these facts, blindly support George Bush, and wake up tomorrow morning without feeling just a tad intellectually dishonest.

Affirmative Action? What good is Bush's opposition to it when the Supreme Court whose majority was appointed by republicans rules the way they do? You're grasping here, friend.

George Bush has had the luxury of 4 years in office, and a good portion of it with a Congress that will rubber stamp practically anything he does. What accomplishments has he made against the "Constitutional abomination" of Roe vs. Wade? Abortion is the rallying cry of every conservative during each election cycle yet they go home dejected and unhappy every single time with no positive results to speak of. When are you people just going to drop that useless issue? The majority of Americans are against you on that anyway.

In closing, I will continue to vote my beliefs, my ideals and my philosophies, whether my candidate loses the election or not. You can continue to vote republican if you wish, and walk away yet again with that familiar sinking feeling in your stomach, when you realize that the candidate you voted for will do nothing to reduce government, return us to liberty and the Constitution, and carry us further into the socialist abyss to which this country is inevitably headed.

I sincerely hope you're happy about that.

[Nystrom]

This open letter would be worth reading if the Republican incumbent was, say, Barry Goldwater, Robert Taft, or perhaps even Ronald Reagan. Instead, it is George Walker Bush, who has dramatically increased the size and scope of the federal government and aggressively invaded another country. No thanks. If anything, a Kerry win would be beneficial, because it might purge the neoconservative movement from the Republican Party.

[Rocky2]

Since 1900, Republican rhetoric has been great, its the actions that are appalling. Is gov't smaller? Are taxes lower? Are we on the gold standard? Has any department EVER been cut? Are we out of the filthy organization the U.N.? Are our troops home securing our border? Is the EPA no longer strangling corporate America? Is the tax code simpler? Are gun rights better? Are there fewer laws? Do you feel more free then the citizen of 1900?

So after what, 10(?) Republican administrations since 1900, they've done what exactly? The Libertarian is wasting HIS vote?

[A CA Guy]

Thank goodness you're marginalized.

[NMC EXP]

Thank goodness you're marginalized.

Yeah.

It is more difficult for marginalized individuals to point out the facts and embarrass those of you in the majority.

[A CA Guy]

Somehow getting Democrats elected while telling conservatives what is wrong doesn't cut it.

[NMC EXP]

...telling conservatives what is wrong ...

Your premise is wrong. The republican party is no longer conservative.

[WildTurkey]

In closing, I will continue to vote my beliefs, my ideals and my philosophies, whether my candidate loses the election or not.

• Same sex marriage
• Open borders
• legalized cocaine

[Beemnseven]

Same sex marriage
Open borders
legalized cocaine

-- Gay Marriage -- Funny, it was my impression that in a free country, no one should be able to have any say in the private, religious contracts or associations between consenting adults. How do you conservatives get away with calling yourselves in favor of "smaller, less intrusive government" when your stated position is to require people who love each other to bow and beg before the mighty alter of government for its approval to get married?

-- Open Borders -- This is a concern of a Bush supporter ?!? It may surprise you to learn that Michael Badnarik suggested abolishing the Border Patrol and replacing it with the branch of government that is actually responsible for the protection of our borders - the military. What a concept. Think your buddy George will propose anything like that? I don't think so, that would have severely limited his ability to purchase more hispanic votes, don't you think?

-- Cocaine -- Here we go again with that concept of freedom that conservatives find so troublesome when the topic shifts to drugs. Do you own your body? If so, how is it that the government gets to decide what substances it will allow you to put into your body? Are you a sovereign individual? Or are you a slave to the state? Because when the government prohibits you from injesting substances it doesn't like, essentially they are telling you that you are tampering with government property. How does it feel to be property, owned and controlled by the government?

See, it's the ever increasing number of asterisks that conservatives put behind the word 'liberty' that I have a problem with. That's why I vote Libertarian.

[WildTurkey]

That's why I vote Libertarian.

That's why Libertarians only get about 0.3 percent of the vote and decreasing.

[WildTurkey]

-- Open Borders -- This is a concern of a Bush supporter ?!? It may surprise you to learn that Michael Badnarik suggested abolishing the Border Patrol and replacing it with the branch of government that is actually responsible for the protection of our borders - the military. What a concept. Think your buddy George will propose anything like that? I don't think so, that would have severely limited his ability to purchase more hispanic votes, don't you think?

Uh, you didn't read it all. Badnarik proposes unlimited immigration "subject only to brief vetting to ensure that they are not terrorists" How would that "severly limit" George's Hispanic votes ...

[WildTurkey]

-- Cocaine -- Here we go again with that concept of freedom that conservatives find so troublesome when the topic shifts to drugs.

Some see it as freedom not to be attacked by cocaine addicts.

[ThinkDifferent]

Some see it as freedom not to be attacked by cocaine addicts.

Non sequitor. I don't want to be attacked by drunks either. In both cases government can and should punish the attackers.

[WildTurkey]

Non sequitor. I don't want to be attacked by drunks either. In both cases government can and should punish the attackers.

You cannot compare the effects of a drunk to those of a crack-crazed guy.

[Beemnseven]

Looks like YOU didn't read carefully:

Badnarik:

". . . As president, I would work to eliminate the Border Patrol and treat border issues as what they are: defense issues coming under the mission and scope of the armed forces. . ."

[Beemnseven]

"You cannot compare the effects of a drunk to those of a crack-crazed guy."

Let's see, there are about 40,000 deaths annually from alcohol related incidents. Contrast that with the deaths attributed to cocaine, around 3000 per year, and you're right -- the comparison is VERY weak.

[WildTurkey]

Let's see, there are about 40,000 deaths annually from alcohol related incidents. Contrast that with the deaths attributed to cocaine, around 3000 per year, and you're right -- the comparison is VERY weak.

Legalize cocaine and see that number multiply.

[Beemnseven]

"Legalize cocaine and see that number multiply."

Legalize cocaine and watch the black market dry up. Nobody kills for the protection of their 'turf'. Dealers and kingpins no longer reel in such massive profits because the supply of their product is eased and isn't as lucrative as it used to be. Police will be able to concentrate on those who actually infringe upon the life, liberty and property of individuals rather than divert time, money and manpower away on those who only destroy themselves.

Look, we've been through all of these arguments before when the topic was Prohibition. Why would Prohibition work with narcotics when it was such a dismal failure with alcohol?

[WildTurkey]

The "number" in my post you pasted was the number of addicts that would multiply if cocaine were legalized.

Legalize cocaine and watch the black market dry up. Nobody kills for the protection of their 'turf'. Dealers and kingpins no longer reel in such massive profits because the supply of their product is eased and isn't as lucrative as it used to be. Police will be able to concentrate on those who actually infringe upon the life, liberty and property of individuals rather than divert time, money and manpower away on those who only destroy themselves. Look, we've been through all of these arguments before when the topic was Prohibition.

Ah, ending alcohol prohibition got rid of all the gangs, turf wars and crime ...