Conservatives' core duty on WMD

CS Monitor ^ | July 08, 2003 edition | Doug Bandow

[Captain Kirk]

I think we agree. I would probably agree with the details of the Rothbard/Hoppe position though the de facto result would be much more open borders than today.

[Truthsayer20]

"Most Old Right libertarians of the Rothbard, Austrian school, Southern Jeffersonian liberal.. are closed borders, pro-life, state rightists, and have little in common with the left-libertarians who support interventions abroad and a strong central state to over-ride local laws (the Texas sodomy ruling two weeks ago was an excellent example of the split.)"

So in other words they are libertarian only when it comes to the federal government? How can a philosophical libertarian support non-libertarian local laws? Would Rothbard have supported the Texas sodomy laws? I hate it when people hide behind convenient ideological facades to push an agenda which actually has very little to do with the principles the proclaim. And this is true also for many folks on the neo-conservative side.

[Protagoras]

And our President is not capable of lying.

ROTFLMAO!!!!! Great one, thanks! They have a spot for you in the standup comedy revue. LOL

BTW, why would "real conservatives" believe in and support a President who isn't even close to being even a marginal conservative?

[JohnGalt]

What is this 'libertarian' you speak of?

Rightwing Libertarianism is a political philosophy on self-government; leftwing libertarianism is an ideology based on abstract rights. There is broad spectrum of debate, far wider than the facade of Party A taxes us as 47%, Party B taxes us at 49%.

Rightwing libertarians believe in local cultures and don't believe in using the power of coercion to change how local cultural behave, even if they are acting 'silly' (Clarence Thomas's words).

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Who is this 'they' you are referring to?

I'm talking about the Cato Institute, the same organization Doug Bandow belongs to. Their official position is the same as the Wall St. Journal's, which is quite libertarian on immigration. There may be some within it that favor tighter borders, but not many.

[JohnGalt]

Cato (and the Wall St journal) are considered neoconservative operations amongst libertarians. If you have an ideological beef, its with neoconservatives, not libertarians of the rightwing variety at least.

[Protagoras]

Their wacky positions on open borders and economic theories makes them about as conservative as Donald Duck.

Open borders? The Cato Institute advocates OPEN borders? Please cite the proof of that or withdraw the comment.

BTW, the Cato Institute is not and does not claim to be conservative.

And if free markets are your idea of whacky economic theory you ain't a conservative either.

[Protagoras]

Wherever it comes from, open borders is their official position is it not?

Get a clue before you pop off. WWW.cato.org.

[JohnGalt]

Lets keep the Cato Insitute in context; their funding comes from neoconservatives and they have to tow the company line on many issues.

[JohnGalt]

He was asking a question in fairness. Like many, he has been misled about just who libertarians are.

I agree, its strange to dismiss this piece over the question of whether Cato supports Open Borders or not, but that is another issue.

[jpl]

Real conservatives are smart enough to know that looking for stuff that can fit inside a suitcase-sized container in a country the size of California is going to take more than a couple of months. That's assuming that the stuff is even still in Iraq and wasn't all transported to Syria during the year-long runup to the war.

[jla]

You certainly know I meant to willfully & knowlingly lie.

[Truthsayer20]

"Rightwing Libertarianism is a political philosophy on self-government; leftwing libertarianism is an ideology based on abstract rights."

But Rothbard claimed he was a proponent of natural rights! As did Jefferson. In other words, the two men most paleo-libertarians hail as their ideological predecessors claimed to believe in abstract human rights. Both were hypocrits, however, as are many of their contemporary proponents.

[RJCogburn]

You, carefully it seems, avoid the points raised by this article.

How come?

[Protagoras]

I support the Cato Institute and I'm not "neo-conservative" however you define that. The Cato Institute does not conform it's views to the supporters, the supporters are drawn to the views. You have it backward IMO.

[RJCogburn]

we just believe our President.

Okay, but Bandow says,

The point is not that the administration is necessarily guilty of misbehavior, but that it should be forced to defend its decisionmaking process.

What's the problem with that statement?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Get a clue before you pop off.

No you get a clue before you pop off. Read the link to post #17. The Cato Institute has been peddling amnesties, open borders, and guest worker programs for as long as I can remember. They're still doing it.

And what's free trade to you... encouraging companies like Nike to dump American workers so they can move to Vietnam, pay workers .20 an hour than flood our markets with their cheap sneakers for the same $100.00 price? Sorry, but that stinks to me and is not conservative in the least. Up until the 1980s and the Reagan Administration tariffs were imposed on dumpers to protect American jobs. It was in the Republican platform into the seventies. "Free trade" with third world countries is recent policy, and Americans are losing their jobs by the millions because of it.

[Protagoras]

He was asking a question in fairness.

The question came after the statement. It should have been accompanied by a retraction or admission of ignorance.

[Blzbba]

"You certainly know I meant to willfully & knowlingly lie. "


Sorry - but that's not the same as "is not capable of".

No biggie, though. I think he'll be proven correct, ultimately. I sure hope so.

[JohnGalt]

I am greatly confused on the hypocrite charge since that mostly is launched with left leaning ideological warriors, however, there is merit to what you are saying.

The problem seems to be that you are confusing 'libertarianism as praxeology' adherents versus 'libertarianism as ideology' adherents. Fair statement?

Perhaps Tom Fleming's eulogy for Rothbard would be interesting reading for you:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/December2000/1200Fleming.htm