Chris Christie attacks libertarians

[WD-NY]

Wowzers.... Backlash from Ramesh Ponnuru = Epic Fail for Christie & NeoCons:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-26/christie-s-dumb-attack-on-libertarians.html

This was a *massive miscalculation* by Christie (and the neocons who showed their hand with their over-the-top-giddy support of his comments)

 

[Thor]

!!!!!

 

[Thor]

Wowzers.... Backlash from Ramesh Ponnuru = Epic Fail for Christie & NeoCons:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-26/christie-s-dumb-attack-on-libertarians.html

This was a *massive miscalculation* by Christie (and the neocons who showed their hand with their over-the-top-giddy support of his comments)

Good Article! They realize they need us.... Well some of them..... not the oafs like Christie Cream.

 

[Carlybee]

If the viewpoint that presidents are elected on attractiveness is true, I wouldn't worry too much...he looks too unhealthy. Being anointed by Kissinger is disturbing. Also found out one of the Koch's sits on the board of the Aspen Institute. Interesting?

 

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

Send him to the Congo. I'm sure they'd love to feast on him and his fat over there (literally).

 

[Dary]

They're jokes, OK?

Jokes.

They have no other "political" meaning other than to poke ribald fun at a fascist gasbag, which, honestly, is really the only treatment they all deserve, to be mocked and made fun of.

Jokes, man.

I'm an older crotchety fucker, and I swear I have a smaller stick up my ass about things than many people around here do.

Lighten up and laugh.

Otherwise you'll burn out to a crisp...trust me, I know.

"Lighten up." being the key words there.

 

[Anti Federalist]

"Lighten up." being the key words there.

Not only am I old and crotchety, but I'm also a fat bastard.

And I can laugh at it.

 

[Lucille]

Why Are Libertarians Upset . . .
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-are-libertarians-upset/

over the gurglings of Gov. Christie and other conservatives about the wicked libertarians? Hasn’t it been evident for a number of years now that what we are witnessing is the resurrection of classical liberalism? Like the classic liberals – before their name was taken away by the left wing of the rampant statism faction, to be opposed by the right wing of Leviathan – modern libertarians distrust power, oppose wars and police-states, focus on individual liberty and respect for private property, and can tell the difference between free-market capitalism and the business-system. Ron Paul’s statement – during the 2012 campaigns – that he had a better chance of getting elected president than getting nominated by the Republicans, reflects this transformation. It is a change that Rothbard long envisioned. His efforts continue to be a major catalyst for what is going on in our world. So, let the Christies, Bachmanns, McCains, Grahams, Giulianis, Reagan-worshippers, and the other modern Tories – who can occasionally throw the word “liberty” into their babblings to mislead the Boobeoisie – stake out their claims to immunity from principled thinking.

 

[Southron]

Rand needs an aggressive 'America First' style campaign if he runs for president in my opinion. No more mass immigration, lock down the borders, no more foreign aid, no more wars for Israel (without explicitly stating that's what they are.) The left has been relentlessly harping on the meme that the GOP is the party of white people and that therefore it's evil, hoping that will get us to embrace mass immigration and multiculturalism even further.

That would be nice, but I really don't think he's that strong on immigration. He actually seems pretty libertarian on immigration and things like tariffs from what I can tell, despite some libertarians not wanting to claim him.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That would be nice, but I really don't think he's that strong on immigration. He actually seems pretty libertarian on immigration and things like tariffs from what I can tell, despite some libertarians not wanting to claim him.

There isn't a libertarian answer on immigration. And... unless we presuppose that libertarianism = anarcho-capitalism, there's no clear libertarian answer on tariffs either.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

There isn't a libertarian answer on immigration. And... unless we presuppose that libertarianism = anarcho-capitalism, there's no clear libertarian answer on tariffs either.

Anything that involves initiation of force is un-libertarian, so while there may not be a single libertarian answer to immigration, anything that involves the government is not one of them.

The tariffs question is a softball. Tariffs are not libertarian, they require the initiation of force.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Anything that involves initiation of force is un-libertarian, so while there may not be a single libertarian answer to immigration, anything that involves the government is not one of them.

The tariffs question is a softball. Tariffs are not libertarian, they require the initiation of force.

For tariffs, if you're an ancap, tariffs are a bad idea. But for minarchists or other libertarians, who do believe in a little bit of government, I don't see how one way of funding government is inherently more or less libertarian than any other way. Tariffs seem better to me actually, they aren't entirely impractical to avoid.

Do you believe that minarchists are not really libertarians? Or is there simply something special about a tariff when compared to any other kind of tax, in your mind?

Now, with regards to immigration, Stephan Kinsella has this article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/09/stephan-kinsella/a-simple-libertarian-argument/

Now, of course, a libertarian can support fully open borders, indeed, at the end of the day, Kinsella rejects his own argument here. But there is dispute amongst libertarians with how to handle issues like this. Its not clear cut.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

For tariffs, if you're an ancap, tariffs are a bad idea. But for minarchists or other libertarians, who do believe in a little bit of government, I don't see how one way of funding government is inherently more or less libertarian than any other way. Tariffs seem better to me actually, they aren't entirely impractical to avoid.

Do you believe that minarchists are not really libertarians? Or is there simply something special about a tariff when compared to any other kind of tax, in your mind?

Now, with regards to immigration, Stephan Kinsella has this article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/09/stephan-kinsella/a-simple-libertarian-argument/

Now, of course, a libertarian can support fully open borders, indeed, at the end of the day, Kinsella rejects his own argument here. But there is dispute amongst libertarians with how to handle issues like this. Its not clear cut.

His entire premise is squared firmly within the Matrix, a utilitarian discussion. Which is fine, and can make for needed exchange of ideas for policy prescriptions, but it doesn't address what my point is, which is that the initiation of force violates libertarianism. Phrases like 'more' or 'less' libertarian indicate that those specific positions are indeed not libertarian, but instead contain varying degrees of force.

Minarchists are not libertarian since they accept the initiation of force on multiple levels (tariffs not always included). They are certainly more libertarian than anyone else on the 'libertarian scale', however.

Think of it this way: you are either 7 feet tall or you are not. If you are 6'10", you are very tall, and also close to being 7 feet tall, but you are in fact not 7 feet tall.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Minarchists are not libertarian since they accept the initiation of force on multiple levels (tariffs not always included). They are certainly more libertarian than anyone else on the 'libertarian scale', however.

Think of it this way: you are either 7 feet tall or you are not. If you are 6'10", you are very tall, and also close to being 7 feet tall, but you are in fact not 7 feet tall.​

Except that there's no precedent for defining "Libertarian" as "Anarcho-capitalist and nothing else."

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Except that there's no precedent for defining "Libertarian" as "Anarcho-capitalist and nothing else."

Libertarianism is the rejection of the initiation of force. If it means anything else, it's utterly pointless to call anything or anyone libertarian, since it could mean almost anything. If one could believe in initiating force and still be a libertarian, what amount of force makes one unlibertarian?

 

[mczerone]

Anything that involves initiation of force is un-libertarian, so while there may not be a single libertarian answer to immigration, anything that involves the government is not one of them.

The tariffs question is a softball. Tariffs are not libertarian, they require the initiation of force.

OTOH, if the government is granted the ability to own/manage international ports, due to "national security" concerns, then they could charge importers/exporters to use their ports based on the type/number/quality of the goods passing through the port.

It wouldn't be an initiation of force to impose these tariffs, it would be a pay-to-play system of being able to move goods into the country.

(And, like Kinsella on national immigration policy, I present this argument as a voluntarist analyzing what a nominally 'legitimate' government could do.)

 

[AuH20]

His entire premise is squared firmly within the Matrix, a utilitarian discussion. Which is fine, and can make for needed exchange of ideas for policy prescriptions, but it doesn't address what my point is, which is that the initiation of force violates libertarianism. Phrases like 'more' or 'less' libertarian indicate that those specific positions are indeed not libertarian, but instead contain varying degrees of force.

Minarchists are not libertarian since they accept the initiation of force on multiple levels (tariffs not always included). They are certainly more libertarian than anyone else on the 'libertarian scale', however.

Think of it this way: you are either 7 feet tall or you are not. If you are 6'10", you are very tall, and also close to being 7 feet tall, but you are in fact not 7 feet tall.

Which explains why we should save our acrimony for our real enemies, aside from partaking in the odd philosophical debate here and there.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

OTOH, if the government is granted the ability to own/manage international ports, due to "national security" concerns, then they could charge importers/exporters to use their ports based on the type/number/quality of the goods passing through the port.

It wouldn't be an initiation of force to impose these tariffs, it would be a pay-to-play system of being able to move goods into the country.

(And, like Kinsella on national immigration policy, I present this argument as a voluntarist analyzing what a nominally 'legitimate' government could do.)

Those ports would be privately owned in a free society, so said 'government' would be a paid agent of the property owner.

I understand what you're saying, I just reject the premise.

 

[mczerone]

Except that there's no precedent for defining "Libertarian" as "Anarcho-capitalist and nothing else."

Actually, there is such a precedent. The minarchist position is that "the initiation of force is wrong, except to fund national defense, police, roads, laws, etc."

If you're not a voluntarist, you're not a libertarian who's followed the ZAP to the logical conclusions.

You might have very persuasive reasons for not wanting to oppose force in those areas, but so do Democrats and Republicans for the things they want to use force to achieve. Deeming certain goods or services as classes of "public goods" or "societal rights" doesn't mean that force isn't being used, it's just attempting to justify that force.

The only definition of libertarian that's ever been functional and meaningful is the one that denies aggression against others. And "Libertarian-leaning" people that favor a strict-Constitutionalism or other such rule systems are mere allies to libertarians.

I've tried to keep this as academic as possible without saying that any one belief system is "correct" at the expense of the others. I just wanted to parse the definitions.

 

[mczerone]

Those ports would be privately owned in a free society, so said 'government' would be a paid agent of the property owner.

I understand what you're saying, I just reject the premise.

I agree. I'm just saying that if we grant a govt based on "protecting only life liberty and property by providing law, police and national defense" (the minarchist dream) - then tariffs wouldn't necessarily be an additional aggression.

And, presumably, there'd need to be policing against smugglers trying to deliver goods to non-govt-controlled ports. And then they'd need to outlaw private ports. And then they'd need to inspect all coastlines and flat spaces that could be used as airstrips to make sure no smuggling was taking place. And then , and then, and then, and then ... you'd end up with a behemoth, a tyranny, an objective drain on the well being of the people.