Former Libertarian Presidential Candidate Harry Browne Passes Away

HammerOfTruth.com ^ | 03-02-2006 | Stephen Gordon

[NewRomeTacitus]

Harry Browne, who was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, is reported by multiple sources to have died yesterday. I just confirmed the general information with Jim Babka of DownSizeDC. DownSizeDC intends to be distributing pertinent information by e-mail and on their website later this evening.

Pending a statement from family or friends, the best (speculative) published source of information about his condition is currently on Wiki:

"In June of 2005 an unknown neurological illness confined him to a wheelchair. After spending a considerable amount of time in the hospital, he resumed some of his writing and speaking, though it was uncertain whether he will walk again. He succumbed to illness on 1 March 2006."

[When_Penguins_Attack]

Was he as angry a person as other Libertarians tend to be? They always seem to be fuming over one thing or another.

I am not angry, except when I compare the campaign promises of the Republicans to their track record in office.

What makes YOU angry? Criticisms of Bush?

[ShadowDancer]

That was pretty snide of me. Not that I'm above that, mind you, but you didn't deserve it. I'm sorry.

[zbigreddogz]

Zbigreddogz & Billthedrill (real men are named after power tools): Browne was fiercely nationalistic to the point of isolationism - saying that other countries problems are theirs to deal with and if we devoted the resources we waste on their problems to our own we'd be living in a virtual paradise

Yah, that's what I said: He's a nutjob on FP.

His comments on Zell Miller make me think he was a nutjob period.

I have great respect for the 'less is more' libertarian philosophy of Government, and I usually (not always) agree with them, at least in principle.

But those feelings don't carry over to the Libertarian party, which, frankly, are either A. Really, really, really extreme, like, wanting to privatize roads extreme, or B. Drug addicts who want their stuff legalized.(a position I'm sympathetic to, to a point, but only to a point)

And even the ones that don't fit in to one of those two camps are nuts on FP.

[zbigreddogz]

People who think only in the abstract, and not in reality, and then criticize those people who pay attention to reality for not being 'pure' enough.

Those kind of people make me nuts.

[NewRomeTacitus]

I saw that interview and realized that he was being used at a time when he wasn't well (which was totally reprehensible). As I said, far better that we die quietly than to have our shambling shells trundled out for the baser motives of our formerly trusted allies.

Nine years ago I spoke with the man on a number of subjects and he had clear reasoning on them all. The "Zell" interview was not with the same man. Don't grind me when the people closest to him should have kept him home. Lou Gehrig Disease is an identity and dignity robbing bastard that you wouldn't wish on your worst enemies.

While attending several LP meetings around 1996 I saw that most were of the fervent "let's fix this wagon" mindset. When I left them in 1999 the Democrats had thoroughly infiltrated to the point where I had to literally flee the stink of patchouli oil (my nose says it smells like excrement).

Despite that I never saw any "stoners" nor smelled any marijuana at the Libertarian meets. I did smell Liberal Democrats and that is something you want to keep from your olfactory memory - trust me on that.

[zbigreddogz]

The libertarian candidate for Governor in my home state of Washington ran on a 'Legalize Gay Marriage' platform. She was a lesbian.

If you wanna do that, fine with me, but it's utterly against libertarian ideals to have the Government sanctioning relationships like that. I'd say the only completely consistent Libertarian position would be to get government out of marriage (a position that I think there is something to), or possibly even allowing ANY adults to be married, be they related, more then two, etc. But forcing a government saction of marriage to a specific group like that isn't consistent with any libertarian principles I've ever heard espoused by ANY libertarian before.

[Paradox]

I voted for him in '96, RIP Harry.

[AmishDude]

RIP, Harry.

And I'm sure he's happy.

Because no matter where he is now, he's arguing that there's really no difference between between Heaven and Hell.

[AmishDude]

That is, he's arguing that there's really no difference between Heaven and Hell.

Nothing like ruining a good line with a typo.

[Daveinyork]

"Howzabout calling it staying the hell out of the lives of other people?"

or even better - keep your hands to yourself and mind your own business.

[Daveinyork]

If we refused to vote for every politician who said or did something that we disagree with, we would be electing nobody, and this includes President Bush. I voted for him, I worked for his re-election, and would do so again if he could run again, but he has done and said much that has angered most Freepers.

I think a lot of Libertarian positions on foreign policy are naive and dangerous, and they often are the same as Jefferson's and Washington's. In the real world, Jefferson and his proteges Madison and Monroe, had to use real world policies in the real world of international politics.

Candidate Bush spoke against nation building, but President Bush is nation building out of necessity. I suspect that a Libertarian President would learn real world politics just as quickly, while reducing the domestic government activities toward those boundaries perscribed in the Constitution.

[Toby06]

RIP Harry Browne.

I voted for him in 1996. I was in a blue state where a republican vote was useless.

[NewRomeTacitus]

And you correctly concluded that the lesbian candidate for governor was trying to use their platform to push her personal agenda. You found where the line is drawn in the Libertarian Party's Statement of Principles: Basically, you can do what you want unless it harms the freedoms of others. Gayness, whether it be inborn genetic trait or a developed preference (jury's still out on that), is not something to be encouraged or regarded as some sort of normal path toward adulthood. The homosexuals I've met seem to be very miserable human beings - not from society's condemnation but from their own self-punishing self image as people not worthy of God's love, or the love of their fellow human beings. They have a high suicide rate because of this. Some would say "great, let's give them guns for efficiency", but I suspect that a lot of talent would be wasted by wasting them like the Taliban (and if that's not a group of repressed perverts...).

Granting them marriage is ridiculous in light of so very few of them can keep a relationship together for more than a few years. Factor in the casual transmittance of communicable diseases and their prevalence for "thrill sex" with total strangers...no respectable society can condone that.

But you meant to veer my egotistical self off track, didn't you?

Bottom Line: The Libertarians have been taken over by radical Democrats to the point where Greenpeace and ANSWER have to be consulted before they make any major moves. The former Libertarians of conservative bent went to the Constitution Party. They have this odd idea that we should adhere to our founding document and the freedoms it guarantees rather than believing that it can be rewritten at will for political expediences for those who hold the most power at any one time. Imagine that.

[SmoothTalker]

A good man. I really with the libertarian party had made some traction and been able to force the Republican party to make some major corrections to keep voters. I am really, really, really sick of big government conservatives. They have driven the libertarian wing of the party to the brink of extinction. Losing a few congressional seats to the libertarian party would have been a great wake-up call and would have done this country some good.

[SmoothTalker]

"They are basically big social liberals.

Or maybe you prefer the term Socially Tolerant!"

I don't think most libertarians are socially liberal. I think most libertarians think that the government shouldn't have much of a role in social policy and shouldn't be pushing any kind of social values or social agenda. Libertarians want as small and narrowly focused a government as possible.

[SmoothTalker]

Thank you!

[massadvj]

I first became aware of Harry Browne in 1974 when I read his book about monetary policy and gold. So much of what he had to say in that book has been validated, but he underestimated the ability of the regulators to keep the patient breathing. Ultimately, the Humpty Dumpty economy will fall, but it will probably not be as catastrophic as he predicted.

Next to Ayn Rand, he has been the most influential philosophical thinker in my life. RIP.

[ErnBatavia]

No worries! See ya on the Silliness Thread!

[bassmaner]

I admired much of Browne's writing on domestic issues, but he obviously was clueless about Islam or the Middle East.

My sentiments exactly -- I met Browne at an LP convention in 2000 and voted for him that year, so I had a lot of respect for the man, but I was seriously disappointed with some of his statements after 9/11. Despite that, he was a true patriot and advocate for liberty, and will be sorely missed.

Harry Browne, R.I.P.

[eleni121]

Libertarians have this annoying but dangerous belief that the President can make policy unilaterally. I find this quality to to be suspect...and would never want a Libertarian to be in any office given their predilection alpha male behavior.

Read your Constitution!