lib•er•tar•ian

[HaloGuardian]

lib•er•tar•ian
n. 1. a person who believes in the doctrine of the freedom of the will
2. a person who believes in full individual freedom of thought, expression and action
3. a freewheeling rebel who hates wiretaps, loves Ron Paul and is redirecting politics

By Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch
Sunday, November 25, 2007; B01

How to make sense of the Ron Paul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ron+Paul?tid=informline) revolution? What's behind the improbably successful (so far) presidential campaign of a 72-year-old 10-term Republican congressman from Texas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Texas?tid=informline) who pines for the gold standard while drawing praise from another relic from the hyperinflationary 1970s, punk-rocker Johnny Rotten?

Now with about 5 percent (and climbing) support in polls of likely Republican voters, Paul set a one-day GOP (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Republican+Party?tid=informline) record by raising $4.3 million on the Internet from 38,000 donors on Nov. 5 -- Guy Fawkes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Guy+Fawkes?tid=informline) Day, the commemoration of a British anarchist who plotted to blow up Parliament and kill King James I in 1605. Paul's campaign, which is three-quarters of the way to its goal of raising "$12 Million to Win" by Dec. 31, didn't even organize the fundraiser -- an independent-minded supporter did.

When a fierce Republican foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism is able, without really trying, to pull in a record haul of campaign cash on a day dedicated to an attempted regicide, it's clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics.

That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him -- and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties' soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it's listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast "obscenities" or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries.

Paul, who entered Congress in 1976, has been dubbed "Dr. No" by his colleagues because of his consistent nay votes on federal spending, military intervention in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Iraq?tid=informline) and elsewhere, and virtually all expansions of federal power (he cast one of three GOP votes against the original USA Patriot Act). But his philosophy of principled libertarianism is anything but negative: It's predicated on the fundamental notion that a smaller government allows individuals the freedom to pursue happiness as they see fit.

Given such a live-and-let-live ethos, it's no surprise that at a time when people run screaming from such labels as "liberal" and "conservative," you can hardly turn around in Washington, Hollywood (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Hollywood?tid=informline) or even Berkeley (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Berkeley?tid=informline) without running into another self-described libertarian.

The lefty Internet titan Markos "Daily Kos (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Kos+Media+LLC?tid=informline)" Moulitsas penned a widely read manifesto last year pegging the future of his party to the "Libertarian Democrat." The conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg declared this year that he's "much more of a libertarian" lately. Bill Maher (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bill+Maher?tid=informline), Christopher Hitchens (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Christopher+Hitchens?tid=informline), Tucker Carlson, "South Park" co-creator Matt Stone -- self-described libertarians all. Surely it's a milestone when Drew Carey (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Drew+Carey?tid=informline), the new host of that great national treasure "The Price Is Right (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Price+Is+Right?tid=informline)," becomes an outspoken advocate of open borders, same-sex marriage, free speech and repealing drug prohibition. As Michael Kinsley, an arch purveyor of conventional wisdom, wrote recently in Time magazine (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Time+Inc.?tid=informline), such people are going to be "an increasingly powerful force in politics."

Kinsley is hardly alone in recognizing this trend. In April 2006, the Pew Research Center (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Pew+Research+Center?tid=informline) published a study suggesting that 9 percent of Americans -- more than enough to swing every presidential election since 1988 -- espouse a "libertarian" ideology that opposes "government regulation in both the economic and the social spheres." That is, a good chunk of your fellow citizens are fiscally conservative and socially liberal; in bumper-stickerese, they love their countrymen but distrust their government. Anyone looking to win elections -- or to make sense of contemporary U.S. politics -- would do well to understand the deep and growing reservoir that Paul is tapping into.

Though relatively unknown at the national level, Paul is hardly an unknown legislative quantity. A former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, he has at various times called for abolishing the Internal Revenue Service (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Internal+Revenue+Service?tid=informline), the CIA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Central+Intelligence+Agency?tid=informline) and several Cabinet-level agencies. A staunch opponent of abortion, he nonetheless believes that federal bans violate the more basic principle of delegating powers to the states. A proponent of a border wall with Mexico (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Mexico?tid=informline) (nativist CNN (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Cable+News+Network+LP+LLLP?tid=informline) host Lou Dobbs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Lou+Dobbs?tid=informline) fawned over Paul earlier this year), he is the only GOP candidate to come out against any form of national I.D. card.

Such positions may not be fully consistent or equally attractive, but Paul's insistence on a constitutionally limited government has won applause from surprising quarters. Singer Barry Manilow (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barry+Manilow?tid=informline) donated the maximum $2,300 to his campaign; the hipster singer-songwriter John Mayer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Mayer?tid=informline) was videotaped yelling "Ron Paul knows the Constitution!" and 67,000 people have signed up for Paul-related Meet Up pages on the Internet. On ABC's "This Week" recently, George Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+Will?tid=informline) half-jokingly cautioned his fellow pundits, "Don't forget my man Ron Paul" in the New Hampshire (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+Hampshire?tid=informline) primary. Fellow panelist Jake Tapper seconded the emotion, saying, "He really is the one true straight talker in this race."

Yet Paul's success has mostly left the mainstream media and pundits flustered, if not openly hostile. The Associated Press (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Associated+Press?tid=informline) recently treated the Paul phenomenon like an alien life form: "The Texas libertarian's rise in the polls and in fundraising proves that a small but passionate number of Americans can be drawn to an advocate of unorthodox proposals." Republican pollster Frank Luntz has denounced Paul's supporters as "the equivalent of crabgrass . . . not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff." And conservative syndicated columnist Mona Charen said out loud what many campaign reporters have no doubt been thinking all along: "He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians."

When conservatives feel comfortable mocking the victims gunned down by Clinton-era attorney general Janet Reno's FBI (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Federal+Bureau+of+Investigation?tid=informline) in Waco (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Waco?tid=informline), Tex., in 1993, it suggests that a complacent and increasingly authoritarian establishment feels threatened.

And little wonder. In the 1990s, conservative Republicans rose to power by relentlessly attacking Big Government. Yet the minute they took control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they kicked out the jams on even a semblance of fiscal responsibility, signing off on the Medicare (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Medicare?tid=informline) prescription drug benefit and building literal and figurative bridges to nowhere. From 2001 to 2008, federal outlays will have grown by an estimated 29 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, according to the Office of Management and Budget (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Office+of+Management+and+Budget?tid=informlin e).

The biggest Big Government expansion during the Bush era is the one that Americans now despise most: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Afghanistan?tid=informline), whose direct costs are already an estimated $800 billion, plus 4,000 American lives. Paul's steadfast bring-the-troops-home stance -- not just from Iraq, but Korea and Japan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Japan?tid=informline) as well -- is the major engine powering his grass-roots success as ostensibly antiwar Democrats in the majority can't or won't do anything on Capitol Hill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Capitol+Hill?tid=informline).

But if war were the only answer for his improbable run, why Ron Paul instead of the perennial peacenik Dennis Kucinich (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Dennis+Kucinich?tid=informline), the Democratic congressman from Ohio (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ohio?tid=informline) whose apparent belief in UFOs is only slightly less kooky than his belief in the efficacy of socialized health care?

Part of the reason is Republican muscle memory. Paul's "freedom message" is the direct descendant of Barry Goldwater (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barry+Goldwater?tid=informline)'s once-dominant GOP philosophy of libertarianism (which Ronald Reagan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ronald+Reagan?tid=informline) described in a 1975 Reason magazine interview as "the very heart and soul of conservatism"). But that tradition has been under a decade-long assault by religious-right moralists, neoconservative interventionists and a governing coalition that has learned to love Medicare expansion and appropriations pork.

So Paul's challenge represents a not-so-lonely GOP revival of unabashed libertarianism. All his major Republican competitors want to double down on Bush's wars; none is stressing any limited-government themes, apart from half-hearted promises to prune pork and tinker on the margins of Social Security.

College kids (a key bloc of Paul's support) have seen no recent evidence that the GOP has anything to do with libertarianism. Yet there's no reason to believe that Democrats will do anything useful about the government intrusion that so many young people abhor: the drug war, federal bans on same-sex marriage, online poker prohibitions, open-ended deployments in Iraq.

This is the mile-wide gap in the Maginot line of "serious" Washington politics. Undergrads aren't the only ones weary of war and moralizing, and more interested in exploring new frontiers of technology and culture than in heeding the stale noise coming from inside the Beltway.

More than at any other time over the past two decades, Americans are hungering for the politics and freewheeling fun of libertarianism. And with the dreary prospect of a Giuliani vs. Clinton death match in 2008, that hunger is likely to grow even faster than the size of the federal government or the casualty toll in Iraq. Ron Paul may lose next year's battle -- though not without a memorable fight -- but the laissez-faire agitators he has helped energize will find themselves at the leading edge of American politics and culture for years to come.

gillespie@reason.com

matt.welch@reason.com

Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch are editors at Reason magazine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299_pf.html

[djangojazz]

College kids (a key bloc of Paul's support) have seen no recent evidence that the GOP has anything to do with libertarianism. Yet there's no reason to believe that Democrats will do anything useful about the government intrusion that so many young people abhor: the drug war, federal bans on same-sex marriage, online poker prohibitions, open-ended deployments in Iraq.

Except vote repeatedly to end it and draw up measures that are vetoed for troop reductions. Of course votes don't count though, the news says they are doing nothing so the news is stronger than reality. Yes the DNC that has raised the minimum wage and trys to foster a return to individuality and science in passing stem cell research that was also vetoed. Is clearly making laws that get vetoed by the president and can't get GOP support to get a 2/3 majority is clear that the DNC is just like the GOP so young people should believe the evidence that is in front of them and believe the GOP is the answer since they have been in charge for 6 years and are showing they will not change.

Yes from not reading the news and just starting to pay attention to politics last year it can clearly be seen that the answer to all the world problems is Ron Paul and that world events, elections, and laws made by Congress are not evidence of a GOP hold that the DNC is fighting since the first ever vetoes from Bush came when they were elected on Stem Cell research, 2 vetoes against troops withdrawal in under one year since they got elected, and one veto against SCHIP in October. Yes clearly those that maintain evidence based only on the internet from hearsay can see the DNC is doing nothing and these votes and measures they are passing are merely a ploy to trick people to think they are doing something. So as when Bush goes on vacation for a month and a half in August and the GOP has had so many laws passed in the public eyes that are outstandingly amazing, it can be seen that their silence and vacation is action and laws are nothing. And I learned all that from an internet site and try to limit my news reading from things on paper by people that leave this country or write on things from a scope bearing a timeframe of more than one year.

I think the funniest thing is that the person that wrote that can't look at the 2006 election and saw that the vote for the DNC was a direct vote against the GOP in Congress. The first measures ever passed to get troops out was when they were in power. Only the severely inept could possibly correlate troops not leaving with a DNC fault at this point. I think by this person's amazing judgment and understanding of the last 7 years everyone under 20 should vote for Jeb Bush as an end to the GOP rule! I can't believe how many young people are against the DNC in what online and TV ads say based on nothing real that has happened and mostly all of it is complete bullshit that is not even close to accurate on even recent events.

[Kewl]

according to facebook i'm a libertarian.

[HaloGuardian]

College kids (a key bloc of Paul's support) have seen no recent evidence that the GOP has anything to do with libertarianism. Yet there's no reason to believe that Democrats will do anything useful about the government intrusion that so many young people abhor: the drug war, federal bans on same-sex marriage, online poker prohibitions, open-ended deployments in Iraq.

Except vote repeatedly to end it and draw up measures that are vetoed for troop reductions. Of course votes don't count though, the news says they are doing nothing so the news is stronger than reality. Yes the DNC that has raised the minimum wage and trys to foster a return to individuality and science in passing stem cell research that was also vetoed. Is clearly making laws that get vetoed by the president and can't get GOP support to get a 2/3 majority is clear that the DNC is just like the GOP so young people should believe the evidence that is in front of them and believe the GOP is the answer since they have been in charge for 6 years and are showing they will not change.

Yes from not reading the news and just starting to pay attention to politics last year it can clearly be seen that the answer to all the world problems is Ron Paul and that world events, elections, and laws made by Congress are not evidence of a GOP hold that the DNC is fighting since the first ever vetoes from Bush came when they were elected on Stem Cell research, 2 vetoes against troops withdrawal in under one year since they got elected, and one veto against SCHIP in October. Yes clearly those that maintain evidence based only on the internet from hearsay can see the DNC is doing nothing and these votes and measures they are passing are merely a ploy to trick people to think they are doing something. So as when Bush goes on vacation for a month and a half in August and the GOP has had so many laws passed in the public eyes that are outstandingly amazing, it can be seen that their silence and vacation is action and laws are nothing. And I learned all that from an internet site and try to limit my news reading from things on paper by people that leave this country or write on things from a scope bearing a timeframe of more than one year.

I think the funniest thing is that the person that wrote that can't look at the 2006 election and saw that the vote for the DNC was a direct vote against the GOP in Congress. The first measures ever passed to get troops out was when they were in power. Only the severely inept could possibly correlate troops not leaving with a DNC fault at this point. I think by this person's amazing judgment and understanding of the last 7 years everyone under 20 should vote for Jeb Bush as an end to the GOP rule! I can't believe how many young people are against the DNC in what online and TV ads say based on nothing real that has happened and mostly all of it is complete bullshit that is not even close to accurate on even recent events.

If you didn't notice the Democrats have the majority in the house and senate. If they really wanted to end the war it would have been ended by now. All we get now is empty promises, Bush blaming, and un-Constitutional congressional actions over the war...


Also, wasn't it the Democrats who were pushing for a 4 day work week and even more time off? It seems like if they were really committed they would be busting their asses to do anything to end the war. That's not reality though...

[TheZenMan]

I just got this today

http://www.mises.org/store/images/ForeignPolicy.jpg

He still seems nuts, but I don't like to just come to that from cherry picked sound bites.

[Stingray427]

You know its bad when you out write Django...

[MsThang]

Well, in all fairness, the guy that wrote the article did type it out in a comprehensive, cohesive manner. Also, he probably got paid to write that much.

[iaacp]

I just got this today

http://www.mises.org/store/images/ForeignPolicy.jpg

He still seems nuts, but I don't like to just come to that from cherry picked sound bites.

I got these yesterday:

http://inkeehong.com/articles/image/Levitt_Freakonomics_HC.jpg

and

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/221/463282394_1b1e191332.jpg

[djangojazz]

If you didn't notice the Democrats have the majority in the house and senate. If they really wanted to end the war it would have been ended by now. All we get now is empty promises, Bush blaming, and un-Constitutional congressional actions over the war...

Who vetoes their laws? Did you read what I wrote first? Right above:

I think the funniest thing is that the person that wrote that can't look at the 2006 election and saw that the vote for the DNC was a direct vote against the GOP in Congress. The first measures ever passed to get troops out was when they were in power. Only the severely inept could possibly correlate troops not leaving with a DNC fault at this point.

So by your rationale we should elect the people not doing anything but supporting Bush to bring troops home and by no logic what so ever that would be a better choice?


Also, wasn't it the Democrats who were pushing for a 4 day work week and even more time off? It seems like if they were really committed they would be busting their asses to do anything to end the war. That's not reality though...

That doesn't make sense Halo, you can work four 10 hour days and still work the same as five 8 hour shifts to obtain a 40 hour work week. They also have fought harder to get a larger minimum wage and overtime pay. In all reality I know I personally would prefer to work from 8 to 6 with no breaks and get really into doing some work I may have on installing multiple programs and events and then know I get a 3 day weekend to recharge longer.

[MsThang]

4 day work week for themselves. I know he can't read this, but still, come on.

[HaloGuardian]

Who vetoes their laws? Did you read what I wrote first? Right above:

I think the funniest thing is that the person that wrote that can't look at the 2006 election and saw that the vote for the DNC was a direct vote against the GOP in Congress. The first measures ever passed to get troops out was when they were in power. Only the severely inept could possibly correlate troops not leaving with a DNC fault at this point.

So by your rationale we should elect the people not doing anything but supporting Bush to bring troops home and by no logic what so ever that would be a better choice?

How many times do I have to tell you this. All it takes is a simple majority to deny funding for the war. It doesn't take some long written out law. It doesn't take someone sneaking one sentance in saying the war is dumb. It doesn't take bitching and moaning about Bush. It takes a simple "No" from more (which the Democrats have) than "Yes" votes. That's it. Pretending your the general, which congress doesn't have the authority to do (like setting timetables for withdrawl) isn't their duty.

It's like how Hillary whines about Bush's war. Bullshit. She voted to give him the authority to declare war (Which is congress's job, not the Presidents). To me that is the equivalent of giving the President the authority to make laws. It's wrong. And Illegal.

My rationale is VERY simple. I want a congressman/woman/president who will end the war. Only 3 major candidates running for President have a consistent, and strong position opposing the war. Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul. That's it. Anyone else and you are compromising. If you like someone who's position starts out as weak, you can only imagine what would happen when they compromise with someone who's even more pro-war.


That doesn't make sense Halo, you can work four 10 hour days and still work the same as five 8 hour shifts to obtain a 40 hour work week. They also have fought harder to get a larger minimum wage and overtime pay. In all reality I know I personally would prefer to work from 8 to 6 with no breaks and get really into doing some work I may have on installing multiple programs and events and then know I get a 3 day weekend to recharge longer.

I was referring to the congressional work week.

[outsider]

If I was the owner of a building that the RNC or DNC wanted to host a shindig in I'd put rolls of toilet paper up with the Constitution printed on it.

[djangojazz]

How many times do I have to tell you this. All it takes is a simple majority to deny funding for the war. It doesn't take some long written out law. It doesn't take someone sneaking one sentance in saying the war is dumb. It doesn't take bitching and moaning about Bush. It takes a simple "No" from more (which the Democrats have) than "Yes" votes. That's it. Pretending your the general, which congress doesn't have the authority to do (like setting timetables for withdrawl) isn't their duty.

That's fine Halo that's your view I gave mine, I was in college during Kosovo in 1998. That conflict was only about a month or three. The GOP I remember even though it's been almost a decade did what you said, they lost massive support. Politicians have lot's to lose, they don't just cut funding when their state has a Boeing, MacDonald Douglas, etc. facilities there and then base their future of what they chose. They form laws for this purpose, of what I consider government. The person that wrote that article said that the DNC is no better than the GOP. The DNC is making laws to come home, that's different then a blank check which is what Bush has got from the GOP for 6 years. You can place all the ideas of worth on what they should do, but not doing something that would ruin most of them and then possibly starting another war when a GOP Congress comes back could start more problems.

I believe honestly laws to limit executive power and to stop this from ever happening again are the best measure. Are they the best humanity could possibly do in the USA? No, but I'm using to living in shit after living with Bush. Anything is better than the status quo and those affecting things to affect to change deserve better than idiotic op eds on how they are the same when they have done things that have stirred up the house caused the resignation of Gonzales, Rumsfeld, and Rove. I'm sure 1/2 of the DNC is exactly that liberal, because many of them did not want to even sign legislation short of "Total Withdrawal tomorrow". Some are centrist, the DNC is a more open body to ideas than the GOP in their messages.


It's like how Hillary whines about Bush's war. Bullshit. She voted to give him the authority to declare war (Which is congress's job, not the Presidents). To me that is the equivalent of giving the President the authority to make laws. It's wrong. And Illegal.

Yes it is, like I have said I think you are harping on 2002 and won't let it escape your mind of what she did 5 years ago. She was lied to, so was I. Were you alive in 2002 and told that Iraq was an imminent threat? Guess what you were lied to. Are you saying that if I lie to you, you get mad about it and want change, I can say you are weak for believing me when I tricked you? Bush has lied on many many occasions on many many things, saying those he tricked should be accountable and should not be allowed to form a coalition to get him later is saying you want bad things to continue because change is not acceptable. Only those that were extremely liberal voted against the war in 2002. Do you remember, which month, January or February 2003 when Colin Powell presented "Mobile Chemical Weapons Labs" to the UN? I do. Now everyone is not allowed to say "I was lied to, I change my mind." ??? So how she has voted in the last 3 years is not as important as the past? That is bullshit, elevating those wrong by writing off those lied to. That's blaming the symptom and ignoring the problem. Bush is to blame, EVERYONE should be allowed to change and vote against him and say 500 times they were lied to repeatedly.


My rationale is VERY simple. I want a congressman/woman/president who will end the war. Only 3 major candidates running for President have a consistent, and strong position opposing the war. Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul. That's it. Anyone else and you are compromising. If you like someone who's position starts out as weak, you can only imagine what would happen when they compromise with someone who's even more pro-war.

I agree my only dispute is that Ron Paul runs on a party that talks a lot and does very little. He is going to have to pick a cabinet and such. He may end the war but he has to make a plan for withdrawal that is decide by Congress and Paul and Guiliani/Romney/etc. is not going to be as liberal as he paints himself to be.


I was referring to the congressional work week.

Gotcha.

[TheZenMan]

I got these yesterday:

http://inkeehong.com/articles/image/Levitt_Freakonomics_HC.jpg

and

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/221/463282394_1b1e191332.jpg

I'm sorry to hear that.

[iaacp]

I'm sorry to hear that.


What the fuck is your problem?

I get something I want and you give me shit?

Seriosuly.... fuck off.

[outsider]

You forgot the citation.