Comments on: Libertarians and the Old Right http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/10/22/libertarians-and-the-old-right/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:19:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: liberranter http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/10/22/libertarians-and-the-old-right/comment-page-1/#comment-162857 liberranter Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:37:17 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4809#comment-162857 Michael: It looks like you'll have to spell out ATFQ. You've apparently lost Lawrence. Michael:

It looks like you’ll have to spell out ATFQ. You’ve apparently lost Lawrence.

]]> By: Lawrence http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/10/22/libertarians-and-the-old-right/comment-page-1/#comment-162832 Lawrence Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:51:04 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4809#comment-162832 Hi, Eep: Those are valid points -- and it's too true that the various factions speak only to each other. My wife and I are the only libertarians that actually attend the anti-war marches in our area, and we've been greeted with suspicion. Of course, LP members are completely absent and are now completely beside the point. As you say, there's a bit of the horse-blinders among the various groups. Sometimes I despair about this and wonder if anyone -- other than a very few -- ever learn anything new. To acquire new knowledge and change one's mindset is an act of psychological make-over. Real meaningful change is very threatening because in the minds of most people, it means "disowning" oneself. When you pinpoint fear as major factor, I have to agree, and it is fear that one may be wrong about something (especially if we overidentify with it) that is the most fearsome thing. People really have to get over the idea that they will have to grow and evolve over a lifetime and that they don't have to hold onto views they adopted when they were 18 (or even earlier for some troglodytes) for their entire lifetime. Hi, Eep: Those are valid points — and it’s too true that the various factions speak only to each other. My wife and I are the only libertarians that actually attend the anti-war marches in our area, and we’ve been greeted with suspicion. Of course, LP members are completely absent and are now completely beside the point. As you say, there’s a bit of the horse-blinders among the various groups. Sometimes I despair about this and wonder if anyone — other than a very few — ever learn anything new. To acquire new knowledge and change one’s mindset is an act of psychological make-over. Real meaningful change is very threatening because in the minds of most people, it means “disowning” oneself. When you pinpoint fear as major factor, I have to agree, and it is fear that one may be wrong about something (especially if we overidentify with it) that is the most fearsome thing. People really have to get over the idea that they will have to grow and evolve over a lifetime and that they don’t have to hold onto views they adopted when they were 18 (or even earlier for some troglodytes) for their entire lifetime.

]]> By: eep http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/10/22/libertarians-and-the-old-right/comment-page-1/#comment-162811 eep Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:24:27 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4809#comment-162811 I think the war was over fear on how vulnerable libertarianism is to be redefined into something that would be seen as negative, making it even more obscure. I agree with the argument in the links that the Ron Paul campaign was mostly preaching to the choir. Yet I don't think the leftist would have jumped in bed with him. Leftist writings seem to make libertarians out to be uncaring corporatist. I don't think Ron Paul articulated a vision that explained and dealt with their domestic concerns. I think people get too wrapped up in their tribal identifications. They read who they agree with as Lawrence Wilkerson pointed in his recent interview with Scott Horton. They talk at each other rather than discuss problems. The Libertarians, Paleoconservatives, and the antiwar left are going to have to get together to talk about domestic policy and leave the ad hominems and preconceived assumptions at home. I'm not trying to cause problems here. I'm just trying to point to the elephant in the room because it needs to be recognized and studied for their to be any challenge to the War Party from my point of view. <a href="http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/transcript1.html" rel="nofollow">I think Andrew Bacevich gets into that with his interview with Bill Moyers</a>. Americans need to articulate a new ideal of freedom and address our mounting domestic problems. I think he is right that American imperial policy is tied to American domestic dysfunction. I think the war was over fear on how vulnerable libertarianism is to be redefined into something that would be seen as negative, making it even more obscure.

I agree with the argument in the links that the Ron Paul campaign was mostly preaching to the choir. Yet I don’t think the leftist would have jumped in bed with him. Leftist writings seem to make libertarians out to be uncaring corporatist. I don’t think Ron Paul articulated a vision that explained and dealt with their domestic concerns.

I think people get too wrapped up in their tribal identifications. They read who they agree with as Lawrence Wilkerson pointed in his recent interview with Scott Horton. They talk at each other rather than discuss problems. The Libertarians, Paleoconservatives, and the antiwar left are going to have to get together to talk about domestic policy and leave the ad hominems and preconceived assumptions at home.

I’m not trying to cause problems here. I’m just trying to point to the elephant in the room because it needs to be recognized and studied for their to be any challenge to the War Party from my point of view. I think Andrew Bacevich gets into that with his interview with Bill Moyers. Americans need to articulate a new ideal of freedom and address our mounting domestic problems. I think he is right that American imperial policy is tied to American domestic dysfunction.

]]> By: Lawrence http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/10/22/libertarians-and-the-old-right/comment-page-1/#comment-162805 Lawrence Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:38:39 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4809#comment-162805 In case anyone doesn't check for themselves, the Rockwell link cited by Anthony contains a comment by DiLorenzo again castigating the lifestyles of those at Reason who discuss drug legalization. The point is that Rockwell and company spend such an inordinate amount of time criticizing the lifestyles of others that they appear to be opposed to drug legalization despite all of their protestations to the contrary. It's the problem with their communications and -- at times -- RP's. They are too distracted by their hatred of Reason and the Cato bunch to stop mixing their messages. And then they end up with nonsense such as DiLorenzo supporting that fraud, Murray Sabrin, who gambled his campaign money away. And Sabrin, by the way, has a long history of betraying libertarian movements. But that would require research into his past. In case anyone doesn’t check for themselves, the Rockwell link cited by Anthony contains a comment by DiLorenzo again castigating the lifestyles of those at Reason who discuss drug legalization. The point is that Rockwell and company spend such an inordinate amount of time criticizing the lifestyles of others that they appear to be opposed to drug legalization despite all of their protestations to the contrary. It’s the problem with their communications and — at times — RP’s. They are too distracted by their hatred of Reason and the Cato bunch to stop mixing their messages. And then they end up with nonsense such as DiLorenzo supporting that fraud, Murray Sabrin, who gambled his campaign money away. And Sabrin, by the way, has a long history of betraying libertarian movements. But that would require research into his past.

]]> By: Lawrence http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/10/22/libertarians-and-the-old-right/comment-page-1/#comment-162803 Lawrence Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:32:49 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4809#comment-162803 Shame on you, Anthony, for deliberately misinterpreting my message in a public place. Bow down before the one you serve; you're going to get what you deserve. Shame on you, Anthony, for deliberately misinterpreting my message in a public place. Bow down before the one you serve; you’re going to get what you deserve.

]]> By: Anthony Gregory http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/10/22/libertarians-and-the-old-right/comment-page-1/#comment-162802 Anthony Gregory Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:22:36 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4809#comment-162802 FFF and LRC kept Ron Paul from getting out his antiwar message? You got to be kidding me! LRC has prominently run Ron Paul's antiwar columns for years, and at the peak of the campaign was certainly emphasizing Ron's broad-based appeal, including on the left, especially for his antiwar position. FFF hosted Ron Paul two years in a row, from the beginning to the end of his campaign, to discuss his noninterventionist foreign policy. Wow, I've heard some strange accusations, but this one is very bizarre. This article http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow5.html says, "In contrast, too many right-wing populists, such as the Lewciferians, pretend that opposition to the drug war is the concern of cosmopolitan, self-indulgent wastrels who celebrate depravity." It then links to this -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/2008_04.html -- which is filled with hardcore critiques of the drug war. LRC is for total drug freedom and legalization. I don't know what Ludlow is getting at here. FFF and LRC kept Ron Paul from getting out his antiwar message? You got to be kidding me! LRC has prominently run Ron Paul’s antiwar columns for years, and at the peak of the campaign was certainly emphasizing Ron’s broad-based appeal, including on the left, especially for his antiwar position. FFF hosted Ron Paul two years in a row, from the beginning to the end of his campaign, to discuss his noninterventionist foreign policy.

Wow, I’ve heard some strange accusations, but this one is very bizarre. This article

http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow5.html

says,

“In contrast, too many right-wing populists, such as the Lewciferians, pretend that opposition to the drug war is the concern of cosmopolitan, self-indulgent wastrels who celebrate depravity.”

It then links to this — http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/2008_04.html — which is filled with hardcore critiques of the drug war. LRC is for total drug freedom and legalization. I don’t know what Ludlow is getting at here.

]]> By: Anthony Gregory http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/10/22/libertarians-and-the-old-right/comment-page-1/#comment-162801 Anthony Gregory Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:15:33 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4809#comment-162801 "'Thrift, hard work, family, faith'–as bourgeois values? As far as the US is concerned, that sounds more like the Mexican and Latin American immigrants." Sure, and so what? Immigrants to America are usually among the most dedicated to bourgeois values. “‘Thrift, hard work, family, faith’–as bourgeois values? As far as the US is concerned, that sounds more like the Mexican and Latin American immigrants.”

Sure, and so what? Immigrants to America are usually among the most dedicated to bourgeois values.

]]> By: Brad Smith http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/10/22/libertarians-and-the-old-right/comment-page-1/#comment-162798 Brad Smith Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:07:35 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4809#comment-162798 It's a major glitch in the system. I have done it myself a few times. As for Ron Paul being a major failure, I don't see it that way. I think he did much better than expected. Peace! It’s a major glitch in the system. I have done it myself a few times. As for Ron Paul being a major failure, I don’t see it that way. I think he did much better than expected.

Peace!

]]> By: Lawrence http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/10/22/libertarians-and-the-old-right/comment-page-1/#comment-162797 Lawrence Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:54:31 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4809#comment-162797 Sorry about the duplication. The system was balking at posts, and I even had a friend try to post. Sorry about the duplication. The system was balking at posts, and I even had a friend try to post.

]]> By: Mimi http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/10/22/libertarians-and-the-old-right/comment-page-1/#comment-162795 Mimi Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:44:26 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4809#comment-162795 Even worse than the other points raised by Lawrence is the following point. Assisting the central campaign in keeping the antiwar message of RP from getting out were the Lew Rockwell crowd and fff.org. Both of these organizations enforced censorship of criticisms about the conduct of the RP campaign -- and that's wrong. So instead of getting the much-needed feedback required to re-shape the RP message, Ron was isolated from any critique from his most astute supporters. It was like the silly old “Get Smart” series, where the “cone of silence” descended and forbid any discussion. It would have been funny if it had not been so important. As a result, RP’s central campaign made RP look like McCain, and the vote totals for RP were cut down to at least half of their potential. As a result, RP’s influence on both the war policy and today’s debate about monetary policy were minimized. With friends like the Lew Rockwell and fff.org, Ron Paul doesn’t need any enemies among the beltway bunch. In essence, he was excluded from reaching his most fertile audience – the antiwar left – by his own people and their enforcers among the Rockwell bunch. Censorship worked – but this time on behalf of RP’s enemies. This horribly flawed policy has been detailed extensively both here (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow4.html) and here (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow5.html). The Rockwell bunch needs to ‘fess up to their role in undermining RP’s campaign and his ability to reach those who do not read (and are entirely unaware of) their web sites. Even worse than the other points raised by Lawrence is the following point. Assisting the central campaign in keeping the antiwar message of RP from getting out were the Lew Rockwell crowd and fff.org. Both of these organizations enforced censorship of criticisms about the conduct of the RP campaign — and that’s wrong. So instead of getting the much-needed feedback required to re-shape the RP message, Ron was isolated from any critique from his most astute supporters. It was like the silly old “Get Smart” series, where the “cone of silence” descended and forbid any discussion. It would have been funny if it had not been so important. As a result, RP’s central campaign made RP look like McCain, and the vote totals for RP were cut down to at least half of their potential. As a result, RP’s influence on both the war policy and today’s debate about monetary policy were minimized. With friends like the Lew Rockwell and fff.org, Ron Paul doesn’t need any enemies among the beltway bunch. In essence, he was excluded from reaching his most fertile audience – the antiwar left – by his own people and their enforcers among the Rockwell bunch. Censorship worked – but this time on behalf of RP’s enemies. This horribly flawed policy has been detailed extensively both here (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow4.html) and here (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow5.html). The Rockwell bunch needs to ‘fess up to their role in undermining RP’s campaign and his ability to reach those who do not read (and are entirely unaware of) their web sites.

]]>