Huckabee quote

Found this quote on the LRC blog:

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism;

If classic Republicanism is conservatism, wouldn't liberalism be the exact opposite and therefore the biggest threat?

it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says 'look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government.'

Wrong, eliminating government is anarchism, which is usually a part of Libertarianism. There's also Minarchism which says that the state is a necessary evil. Is there "social liberalism" in the movement? Yes, but there's also those of us who believe the federal government shouldn't legislate morals. Economic conservatism is a cornerstone of classic Republicanism, just as it was for the Bourbon Democrats.

If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it.

I never read anything by a libertarian that said "so be it" about this. We always say that the free market will take care of this. The only reason there's not a low-priced medical plan is because of government. To statists, this seems like a paradox. Think of it in terms of a rock in a sea. The water, or the markets, go around it. Without the rock (government), the water would flow right by. This is what libertarians believe.
And it doesn't even have to be the markets proper. Charities could spring up.

If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.'

Again, free markets would take care of this. Public schools have some of the best tools and facilities for students, yet (at least in NY), they fail miserably. If a provider does not provide a service well, they go out of business. When the government fails, they throw more money at it.

Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message.

*phew* Glad to know I'm not an American! I think an adventure is in order to find out what exactly I am.

It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people.

Truth, we're collectivists. Err, they, I forgot, I'm not an American.

That's not historic Republicanism.

More truth, historical Republicanism (I'm going way back) is neoconservative and protectionist at best and murderous at worst

Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be.

The government interfering in people's private lives means that there's not as little as there can be.

But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

Whoa, hey, holy excise taxes Huckman!

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ...

Not nearly as much as keeping the social structure up.

police on the streets,

Think we already have that. Oh, wait, you mean to keep the social structure. Wait, if the social structure falls, I think that means the police failed. Woops.

prison beds,

If we end the drug war, we won't need so many. Wait, if we do, somehow the social structure will collapse. Hm, I'm starting to see a pattern that statism bring more and more.

court costs,

Again, end the drug war. Also, stop ticketing people for not wearing seatbelts. Oh, right, seatbelts are going to lead to the collapse of the social structure.

alcohol abuse centers,

If the social structure collapses, there will be alcoholism? Or does alcoholism lead to the collapse of the social structre? Either way, more statism!

domestic violence shelters,

So, if we get our way, there will be more domestic violence? I just can't wrap my head around that logic...

all are very expensive.

Ya don't say?

What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say 'yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff.'

It is quite expensive. Again, the markets would come in at the very least.

But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community.

I dunno, it seems that private charity is better. You feel better giving money instead of having it taken, right? I'm sure most libertarians would support private charities and enterprises. Heck, maybe even most people. But if they don't want to, what does that say about using their tax dollars to? Well, that would be stealing. Stealing is a sin, isn't it Revvie?

You can take the cops off the streets

Not a bad idea. They aren't on my streets. They seem to look for trouble whenever I see them elsewhere.

and just quit funding prison beds.

Not a bad idea either. Private prisons would be far more accountable.

Are your neighborhoods safer?

If yes, no need for cops. If no, the neighbors will band together and form a neighborhood watch.

Is it a better place to live?

Without having to worry about being tasered? heck yes.

The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before."

I bet!

I think most minarchists would support a small, efficient (government and efficient?) force. Cut the drug war, no need for the DEA or all those funky militarized gagets. Will people lose jobs? Sure, but they'll find employment elsewhere. In the meanwhile, we'll have more money.

P.S. Nice not so secret shot at Ron Paul.

McCain isn't the only one that can quote a communist

Today in a speech he quoted Mao, "It's darkest before its totally black", in reference to his campaign.

Fine, I'll quote Deng Xiaoping in reference to his love for toiling for a greater good (i.e. the state), "To get rich is glorious"

Holidays for the Troops

I forgot to mention what I saw on C-Span yesterday. The president met with bikers that drown out the "God hates fags" crowd. Fine and dandy, but he said there had to be more holidays for the troops. Alrighty...
There's memorial day, veterans day (why celebrate armistice day?), and armed services day. There's probably more, but these are just off the top of my head.
Don't forget about statist holidays either: "loyalty day" and "'peace officer' day"
How many about the consitution? One. No one celebrates. Hell, I had to look it up at Wikipedia! And while we're there...

Private businesses often observe only the "big six" holidays (New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas).

Two out of six are dedicated to soldiers, one to the new year, one to work, one to our secession, one to the proto-americans, and one to Christianity.
I do think there needs to be more holidays dedicated to Leif Erikson though.

Edit: National Gold Star Mother's Day, National Korean War Veteran's Armistice Day, Pearl Harbor Rememberance Day (fo Pearl Harbor, but certainly turns into a day to those troops), and quite possibly National Defense Transporation Day (though I guess it could be defensive driving...I don't know)

In terms of weeks, we at least have a Consitution Week, but also a police week.
Months? Well, Steelmark month is so incredibly protectionist that I think my head exploded.

Edit again: I love Hawaii. They have a Fr. DamienDay

Libertarian Party Convention

I watched C-Span from a bit before 10:30 until 6. Here are some of my thoughts:
Caught the last part of a show about the national guard. I hate hearing people whining about why you should respect someone. If we do, we know. If not, leave those folks alone. It reminds me of the people on Histoy's show Axemen and Tougher in Alaska. I don't care if you almost die every day, I don't have to respect you. And if I did, I sure don't because you're whining. Be more like the Ice Road truckers. You're alone, going to starve to death, then get eaten by a polar bear? Just curse a lot. Of course, I like the axmen/soldiers/Alaskans that don't whine (unless they're asses).
I caught a presentation about locks of love after that. I was wondering what this had to do with Libertarianism until the presenter mentioned that it's an example of individual contributing to somethiing without government coercion. Perfect!
Then C-Span cut to an interview with George McGovern. I didn't pay too much attention since the meatballs were ready.
Somewhere between this point and before a commercial for Thomas DiLorenzo's appearance discussing Lincoln aired. Too bad I won't be able to catch it.
Then the LP convention speeches started. I can't remember who the first speaker was, but boy did he look like he doesn't take any crap from anyone.
Then the chairman announced the order the candidates were going to speak. First was Root. I was turned off by the Mancow endorsement. Normally I'd like a guy named Mancow, but that just goes to show you how much of a jerk I think he is. I didn't catch the debate, but it sounded like he was trying to appeal to gamblers. Surprise surprise, he had no support in Nevada.
The order gets a bit fuzzy at this point, so I'm just going to post the ones that come to mind.
Barr gave a decent speech. One part made me a bit nervous. I'm well aware of his stance on South America, but I think the line he said made me wonder if he really was going to intervene.
Christine Smith gave an awesome speech. In fact, I went in rooting for Barr, but ended up supporting her (and two others later on).
Mary Rewart gave a good speech too. Honestly, I probably wouldn't have remembered her too well thogh. What made me? Well, the clever signs and Guy Fawkes. Yep, someone wore a V for Vendetta mask there. It was awesome.
Steve Kubby gave a great speech. He ended up getting my support as well.
Phillies...I honestly had to look at Wikipedia to remember him since his nominators took up a lot of time.
Mike Jingozian seemed to just be a Gravel fan. He had a multimedia presentation that messed up a few times (though it was the CD drive's fault). Alright, not his fault, right? Well, at the end, the audio/video was messed up.
And finally Mike Gravel. I boo'd him (yeah, I was doing this at home), but clapped a few times. I have to say, I have a lot of respect for him now. A hell of a lot. He said that he did't believe some of the things the LP stood for. Okay, we knew that. But then he said he'll put the party before himself. Yes, he'll support things he doesn't believe because the people that nominated him did. I know, he could be a liar, but you know what? I do believe him and that he would do his best.
I said I ended up supported three, but I only admitted to two. The third is coming up.
I was never prouder to be a New Yorker than today. The delegate chair was just too awesome.
Anyway, first round, Smith and Jingozian are out. Jingozian wants to give a speech. he mentionsthat he'll be back (I think). Then Smith comes on. She gives the single greatest speech of the day. Seriously. Maybe even of the year. Or this century! She gives a non-endorsement of Bob Barr. It was more passionate than Zell Miller. And more awesome.
She also went on an intelligent rant for reporters.
Kubby lost the next round and endorsed Ruwart. I support her, not because of the endorsement, but because of the Mary-Barr shenanigans that's been going on during votes. Or maybe that was next round. Eh, one of these rounds.
Phillies loses. Whoop dee doo. Also a tie, holy cow!
Then Gravel. It's also another tie.
Root's gone! Mary's in the lead! Sounds like Barr is going to win since they pretty much ant to run together.
And then Barr wins.

Though I supported Barr going into this, I must say it as a bit dissappointing at the end. I'll support most of his ideas, and might vote for him. I just hope the mainstream media doesn't label everything he believes as libertarian.
It's like hoping that fire won't burn me if I stick my hand in though. If the LP was a major party, they would play on this crack in the wall. Make it larger. Since they aren't, they'll try to mold it into their mainstream vision.

A Message to Gold Standard Crusaders

As a gold standard crusader, I'm worried about the future. As long as we stay with the fiat dollar, our money will be nearly worthless if more hyper inflationists become the Federal Reserve chairman.
However, the Gold Standard may bring more frightening problems. Populists like Lou Dobbs and the Democratic Party (of the Irony) will end up fighting for Free Silver. This will be as dangerous, or even more dangerous, than the Fiat Dollar.
If we can ever return to the gold standard, I see free silver becoming an issue within a few decades. Unfortunately, I can see McBamaton fighting for it.
And this is the problem with populism. With a gold standard, it hurts the government (causes it to bankrupt) while the fiat dollar hurts businesses. This is mainly because without the issue of free silver, the populists will turn their sights to wages and some of the more socialistic ones will tax the rich to make one class which the parasite can devour.

Polar Bears

The government deemed that they need protection. It's the first global-warming centric reasoning too. Not only are they going to be illegal to kill, but industry is likely going to be killed too. Make up your minds, do we want to keep jobs here or not? If yes, stop regulating! If no, well, keep it up I guess...
God forbid that a polar bear wonders into a town. No one will be able to legally kill it. Of course, I'm betting the government is going to tell us to wait for our local lawa enforcement agencies to tranquilize it. You can always trust the government to protect you!

Uh, what?

Some town hall meeting in Cape Girardeau: Barack is going to crack down on countries that won't allow our products and is going to tax companies that sends jobs overseas.
Crack down? Like, go to war? Sanctions (which is always immoral)?
Oh, and want to keep jobs here? Get rid of minimum wage.

Bob Barr #10

On Yahoo's top searches.
Certainly a moderate, but I'm considering voting for him. I'd say there's a 30% chance (pretty high considering).
I have a bad feeling that the media is going to make him the poster boy for libertarianism and try to take down the movement. Well, they're reporting that Gravel is one, even though he was kicked out of the nominating process.

Al Gore is right

Saw this on the front page of yahoo:
citizensugar.com/1609388

Al Gore says that the cyclone in Myanmar is a result of global warming. He told NPR yesterday:


And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated. And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.

Gore said that because ocean temperatures are on the rise, extreme and dangerous weather is also on the rise.

Critics of Gore say he's taking advantage of the deaths of thousands of innocent people to promote his political advantage. But, if he truly believes that we must address climate change to stop such disasters and save future lives, doesn't he have an obligation to speak up? If he is wrong about global warming, what harm is there in taking better care of the planet anyways?

Is Gore right to tie Myanmar Cyclone deaths to global warming?

How dare anyone question whether or not it was global warming's fault for all these deaths! Just like all the horrible Asian cyclones, Katrina was due to global warming.

Of course it has nothing to do with the government. Nope, it was global warming's fault that the Burmese government didn't give people proper warning. It was global warming's fault that the levies broke in New Orleans too. And George Bush's. Nope, how are anyone claim the government is incompetent.

Good for them

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/04/30/palace.takeover/

Things Which are Seen and Things Which are Unseen: Excise Tax

I will applaud John McCain for getting rid of the tax on gas for the summer. Would it be nicer to get rid of it altogether? You bet, but I'm for any tax cut as long as taxes on others aren't raised to compensate for it.
You bet Hillary Clinton's plan is going to eventually include a compensation to save the highway projects (or whatever they're crying about losing). I have a sick feeling that taxes on tobacco are going to be raised. Think about it. They won't suffer any monetary loss and it might encourage people to quit since they can't afford it anymore.
Let's apply Bastiat's great essay in this hypothetical case. The things that are seen are slightly lower fuel costs and a decrease in smoking. We see jobs being lost and infrastructure collapse.
Certainly collapsing bridges are tragedies. Of course it's incredibly regrettable that so many people are going to be out of work.
What is unseen though? Non-driving smokers are going to "subsidize" drivers. The infrastructure can be saved by cutting elsewhere. With fewer people on the government's payroll, the tax payers may get more money which they can use to buy goods with.
Does that seem uncaring? Sure, but they can surely get new jobs with private contractors. If they were sub-par workers, why should the taxpayers' money go to pay them? Can I not say that it seems like the objector is the uncaring one? With more taxes, wouldn't that mean less money would go to the micro economy?
Of course, the mainstream certainly does not remember Bastiat since they consider the crazed hyperinflationists at the Federal Reserve great economists.
I certainly do not claim to be a good one (I'm just a lowly armchair economist), but if Hillary Clinton actually cuts taxes, I'm sure she'll increase them elsewhere. And of course, Boobus will celebrate because she says she's for the working man even though the unseen things hurt them even more than they claim free markets do.