Sunday, September 07, 2008

Hysteria from the left

Just a short note: The left is really racheting up the hysteria regarding Palin. I have to wonder if they know what they are doing. At this point, all they are doing is galvanizing the right and solidifying the base. There is a saying that dogs don’t chase parked cars. I think that applies here. I think Sarah Palin scared the left so much after her speech that they are almost apoplectic. If they really wanted her to go away and McCain to lose, they would have been better off to ignore her. I guess they took the bait. :)

Thank you for reading this blog.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Doubt you'll post this. Ironic considering your running a supposedly "Libertarian" blog here. Funny you and I must have different views of that word. I consider myself a strong libertarian and to me (and funny, most literature, Reason magzaine, and even Ayn Rand agrees) that means Pro-free market, pro-small goverment, anti-fundamentalism (and a strong barrier between church and state) AND pro-personal freedom--basically as long as you are a consenting adult and harm no one you can do pretty much anything you want.
Looks to me like your pretty much a garden variety conservative. Try considering what being a libertarian means from a social standpoint before you call yourself one.

Good luck in your self-delusion

LCranston

Jim Lagnese said...

No self-delusions here. Ayn Rand and I disagree on two issues. She was pro-choice and an atheist. I am pro-life and at worst a deist like Thomas Jefferson, at best a cafeteria Catholic. If you read my header, I said I am an old fashioned libertarian, or as some might posit, a classical liberal. If I had to take a stab at it, I'd say I am somewhere between Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams. You'll have to show me how I do not fit the mold. I do not believe that being a libertarian and believing life begins at conception are incompatible. Neither is believing in god. As for Ayn Rand, she also believed in a strong barrier between State and the economy, which I agree with, and if you are commenting about this particular post, I am having a lot of fun with these elections. I just think O'Stymie is a much worse choice than McCain, and Bob Barr is just taking up space. I have nothing against him, but the media will never give a third party candidate a fair shake. If you are a true libertarian, try taking a stab at Daniel Gutmann's blog at the DMR. Thanks for replying, and contrary to your opinion, I published it. At least you put in your name. Thanks.
JIm

Héctor said...

A true libertarian would NEVER support someone like Palin. A true libertarian would be more scared by the US PATRIOT Act-kind of pilicies that the G.O.P. promotes than by the Keynesian-kind of economic policies promoted by de Democratic Party.
Why? Civil liberties are the most valued good for a liberarian. Besides, do you really believe McCain and/or Palin will respect the free-market? Just like Bush and the mortage policies, right?
You are NOT a libertarian

Héctor said...

Also, a libertarian does NOT support interventionist policies (such as staying in Irak por the next 100 years).

Jim Lagnese said...

If I supported Bob Barr, how would that make things better. Believe it or not, may be 5-6% of people in this country identify themselves as libertarian. It's too small to have an impact at a national level. So basically, it is better to support Bob Barr, and in the process Obama gets elected? I understand your frustration, and honestly, November isn't here yet, and I haven't voted...That being said, you haven't demonstrated why I am not a libertarian. I don't support keynesian economics, and I have been rather hard on Bush at times (for the record, I support Friedman economics). I've never commented on the patriot act, so you do not know where I stand. As far as the patriot act goes, I think it is a law that can be used to violate our natural rights, and I am vigilant anytime the government takes steps that limit or infringe on our natural rights. I do not think Palin represents eight more years of Bush, nor does McCain. If anything, McCain is to the left of Bush, and Palin is probably more like Ronald Reagan. Bush is a typical business school graduate that picks initiatives to champion and push them through to show his is success. I'd rather have someone that uses judgement to do the right thing. So, to answer your question, as an absolute, no, McCain will not be 100% free market. It's hasn't been for 100 years. If you read my post about the bailout, you'd see that I am against the bailout, but all you did was respond to a response. Thanks for checking in Hector.
Jim

Jim Lagnese said...

Insofar as supporting Iraq, and I spelled it correctly, and it's funny, there is no K in spanish, I have not been supportive of the idea of going there in the first place. Thanks again, Hector, or whatever your name is.
Jim

Anonymous said...

Hector has a point. A true libertarian would not support anyone who would risk closing the already (at times) fragile gap between Church and State the way both Palin and your pal Steve Deace do. Personal freedom WITH economic conservatism is the watchword of this philosophy. I appreciate and agree with your overview of Friedman economic policies. I don't even have a problem with your belief in a higher power. Your abortion stand is debatable (again from the CLASSIC definition of libertarianism--which emphasizes personal freedom), but I will let that pass. However, the bottom line is you support those who would use their own religious philosophy to narrow civil liberties, place the government in areas it was never intended to be, and to effectively tip this country toward theocracy. This is anathema to those who consider themselves libertarian.

On another note you bemoan the "waste" of your vote to the Libertarian party. I would argue that if the party and it's platform were adequately introduced to the electorate, many more people would find themselves to be Libertarian than you suspect. Of course the current regime would never allow that.

For my part, I plan on voting for Obama. Why? I have a central belief in the basic, free-market principles of the American economic system to withstand even his dismal policies, but with the patriot act and the dangerous usurping of power in the GOP by the religious fundamentalists, my civil liberties are are danger of being taken away at an alarming rate--and once gone, they ain't coming back.

LCranston

Jim Lagnese said...

Thanks for your post LCranston. The thing is, I cannot get by the life issue, it's something I believe is inviolate, as I believe a fetus has the same rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't consider abortion a liberty, but something terrible of last resort. I think this is something that would be understood by even Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson. On the flipside, I do not wish to have a theocracy at all. In fact, if you read into what I have said in the past, I can be pretty hard on that issue. In fact, if I can't make a secular argument, then I feel it is something that caters purely to emotion and not worthy of something I ascribe. As far as the election, I cannot vote for Obama. He is a collectivist, a socialist and marxist in his soul. While you may be correct that we can withstand his dismal policies, I fear that it will push us down the road towards full blown socialism. This is more anathema than anything Palin or McCain can do. Are there perfect candidates? No. I too lament that I cannot find someone that I can even agree with 50%. I haven't pulled the lever yet, and there's plenty time between now and November. If I don't vote for McCain, it will be Barr, or I will write in myself just because my aversion to Obama. Thanks for writing.
Jim

PS, the reason I listen to Steve Deace is that he challenges my secular positions. If you have a dialectic with people you agree with, there is no synthesis, no moving forward. This is the same reason I used to listen to Ron Kuby and still watch Pat Condell's videos. Without challenges, opinions and positions are like a one legged chair.

Héctor said...

I assume you ara against tha PATRIOT ACT (otherwise, you wouldn't even call yourself a libertarian). My point was that, to a libertarian, any law attacking his civil liberties is more dangerous than a law attacking his economic liberties. Or, at the very least, laws like the PATRIOT ACT are more disgusting and scary than keynesian policies. As a libertarian, I would vote for Obama (I agree, a vote for Barr is a wasted vote).
And, again, do you truly believe Mccain/Palin will fight for free-market policies even against popular will?

Héctor Antonio Portillo González Saravia said...

Oh, and Héctor IS my real name.
And there is a K in spanish... you didn't kow? It's not commonly used, but it is used in Irak ;o). Anyway, I appologize for that (and other) misspellings, you may have deducted that English is not my first-language

Jim Lagnese said...

I don't ever recall using a K in 4 years of Spanish and there is no K in Italian...Thank you for the clarification. Since Obama is a marxist, I consider that antithetical to anything close to libertarianism or classical liberalism. If you understand black liberation theology, that's where he is coming from. Mccain hits 50% with me and Palin a bit more. We'll see come November. As far as the patriot act goes, I have no problem with it in terms of things outside America, as in eavesdropping on foreign calls. Internally, I'd rather not. But I have heard of abuses in their monitoring of information in telecommunications and even libraries. Calling it the patriot act is misleading. It's a surveillance law. I would have done it differently. BTW, the NSA monitors all communications over public phone and data lines. Everything. Put in the right keywords in an email, and you'll get a visit. Not cool. The congress actually passed a law so the telecoms can't be sued. But it's nuts everywhere, right? Look at all the cameras in England...

Jim Lagnese said...

I don't ever recall using a K in 4 years of Spanish and there is no K in Italian...Thank you for the clarification. Since Obama is a marxist, I consider that antithetical to anything close to libertarianism or classical liberalism. If you understand black liberation theology, that's where he is coming from. Mccain hits 50% with me and Palin a bit more. We'll see come November. As far as the patriot act goes, I have no problem with it in terms of things outside America, as in eavesdropping on foreign calls. Internally, I'd rather not. But I have heard of abuses in their monitoring of information in telecommunications and even libraries. Calling it the patriot act is misleading. It's a surveillance law. I would have done it differently. BTW, the NSA monitors all communications over public phone and data lines. Everything. Put in the right keywords in an email, and you'll get a visit. Not cool. The congress actually passed a law so the telecoms can't be sued. But it's nuts everywhere, right? Look at all the cameras in England...

Héctor said...

So you agree with the PATRIOT ACT outside U.S. borders? But a man is a man (and so, following liberal thought, still has his rights) regardless of where is he. I think a liberal ought to be outraged by ANY violation of liberties anywhere in the world.
I wouldn't think of Obama as a marxist. I think he is more of a keynesian. At least, I have never heard marxist arguments fomr him. A marxist would have a more dialechtical cosmovision, whereas a keynesian would only argue for more public spending. Anyway, I don't think I need to point out the differences between marxism and keynesianism to you...

Jim Lagnese said...

Keynes was a socialist...I don't draw a strong distinction between the two. They both suck. No, if you look at who he has surrounded himself with and his pastor, his mother, etc, his ideology was born out of radical 60's socialism and marxism. He always talks in collectivist tones. If you listen to him, he is scary, at least to me. Insofar as the patriot act goes, what would you have the government do? I believe in making sure we have intelligence. You need men on the ground for that. If you want my honest opinion, traveling is a much more an incursion of my rights. The TSA is very abusive and doesn't stop much. It would be better if I was allowed to be armed on the plane that have to go through the crap they make you go through here. People have been killed and hurt by TSA.

You also might like:

Related Posts with Thumbnails