> Funny, Ted's description certainly matches the description of a lot of
> Libertarians I have met.
Maybe Ted and |>oug live in neighborhoods, or travel in circles with
different demographics than Don's. If MOST of the people they meet are
white male ex right wing republicans with guns, then chances are MOST of
the Libertarians they meet will fall into that category as well. But
seriously, at least we went from "all libertarians" to "my observation
that GENERALLY Libertarians are..." [emphasis added] to "a lot of
Libertarians." I can deal with "a lot." But it starts to sound rather
pointless, so that the question becomes: Why say it at all? I could say
that "a lot" of the African Americans and Hispanics I've met have been
on welfare. Should I make something of that? No. I could say that "a
lot" of the feminists I've met have been white middle-class surburban
erotophobics who went to private universities and don't have a thing to
say to African American or Hispanic women. Should I make something of
Many people don't know what Libertarians are, so it is easier just to
stick them into a category they are comfortable with, sorta like
branding cattle so those with a need to sort cattle can tell easily tell
So I guess I'll have to sneak into the pen and fudge some brands. I
guess I'm one of those obnoxious Objectivists |>oug referred to. I
haven't become a liberal, nor a right wing Republican to my knowledge.
I freely admit there are some similarities between Objectivists and
Libertarians. I keep my copy of *The Fountainhead* in the same place I
keep all my other books -- in a pile on the floor. I even referred to
myself as an Objectivist once upon a time. I usually don't do it
anymore, but not because I grew up and abandoned my youthful naivte.
Partially, I don't refer to myself as an Objectivist because I don't
know who they are and what they stand for anymore. But mostly, I don't
use the label because IF anybody has heard the term, all they have heard
are things like, oh, they are more obnoxious than the typical
Libertarian, and they don't know much about Libertarians because all
they have heard are things like, oh, they are generally white male ex
right wing liberals with guns, and that they have some sort of vested
interest in Microsoft. Or maybe they saw the movie.
Objectivists predate Libertarians. Ayn Rand was already fading in
popularity on East Coast campuses when I was in college and I didn't
hear anything about Libertarians until several years after I graduated.
I lived in Lansing, MI at the time, and the first Libertarian I ever met
was a student who stopped me after class and told me he was running for
Sheriff and would like to talk to me. He told me he was a Libertarian
and explained what that meant. It sounded interesting. I thought it
was also extremely interesting that he had solid support from the
Hispanic community, as well as the police-harassed streetwalkers and
police-harassed student pot smokers, and denizens of the small but
lively "alternative life style" district. (Oddly enough, Sheriff was an
easier office than most for a Libertarian to make headway in those days
because they attracted liberal voters due to their liberal personal
freedom stance, while at the same time not alienating the liberals on
economic issues because a Sheriff has no economic powers.) After all
this political talk, he also told me he was gay and asked me if I
thought he should tell the party organizers. I told him I thought he
should. It was a few weeks later, and only two weeks before the
election, when his party found out about his sexual preference. Well,
they all sort of went underground for a few days. They had no idea what
to do at first. But to their credit, (and what other party would have
even considered this in those days?) they decided to continue to support
their candidate. Interesingly enough, the right wing Sherrif knew
Martis was gay and for some reason never once used the information
against him in the campaign. Perhaps the old Nazi was convinced he
couldn't lose. As far as I remember, there was never any mention of it
in the press. Well, Martis lost. But at the time, he had racked up the
largest percentage of the vote of any Libertarian in any election in the
country -- 34%
But that was a long time ago, and on the liberal East Coast, maybe many
Libertarians ARE too much like the nutty right wing Republicans that Ted
and |>oug describe. That would be unfortunate.
|>oug made one comment to Don that I just have to respond to.
> Don wrote:
> > With the exception of people who want freebies from the Mommy State
> > and religious nuts that want the government to tell everyone how to
> > act, I don't understand why the Libertarian Party isn't the majority
> > party in the country.
> Because most people are smart enough to realize that without
> government regulations we would soon live in the United States of
> Microsoft General Electric.
Who says we DON'T live in the United States of Microsoft General
Electric Time-Warner? (|>oug didn't mention Time-Warner, perhaps
because Time-Warner makes -- tinkle tinkle, angelic music -- *books* and
anyone who makes -- tinkle tinkle, angelic music -- *books* could not
possibly be interested in monopolistic control, right?) My point is
that the government regulations that people ALWAYS refer to with such
reverence when they are attacking Libertarians (and Objectivists) have
done NOTHING to inhibit the growth of monopolies. (And everybody who
refers to goverment regulations with reverence does such just as long as
THEY aren't being regulated.) Microsoft was NOT "brought down" by the
courts. You will not see a downturn in Microsoft (aside from the
downturn that all computer technology is experiencing) for a long time,
unfortunately. And you won't see Bill Gates clipping coupons in the
Stop & Shop either.
So where is all our protection? Funny thing the way the vast majority
of government agencies, federal and state, mandate the use of Microsoft
compatible hardware, despite the continued demonstrations of lower costs
for alternative platforms. Funny, huh? -- your tax dollars going into
Bill's pocket while the courts are supposedly trying to slap him on the
But what about Big Tobacco? Surely the government brought down Big
Tobacco, right? Yeah. Leaving aside the fact that government
regulators DID NOT uncover Big Tobacco's sleazy chemical games (the
press did), and leaving aside the fact that fraud, and reckless
endangerment and extortion and several other offenses committed by Big
Tobacco are criminally and civilly prosecutable without the alleged help
of government regulations, the glorious government regulators, defenders
of the weak, did almost nothing. They forced them to make a few lame
public service ads, added a dollar or so more taxes (which
goes...where?) and sales continue pretty much the same.
See, if the government has the power to regulate business, that power is
invariably abused because businesses influence the regulators. And most
people are smart enough to realize that lobbies are not the only way
that businesses influence the regulators. So, maybe then we need
regulators to regulate the regulators. But of course, then those
meta-regulators can be influenced by businesses. And then you have,
well, you have the government we have today!
The solution, according to the Libertarians anyway, is not to put
regulatory power into the government where it will invariably be
manipulated by people with the power to manipulate -- not the weak, not
the consumer, not the people that the regulations are SUPPOSED to
protect, but precisely those people who the regulators are supposed to
protect us from.
> > > Ted wrote:
> > > > I was simply defending my observation that Libertarians
> > > > are generally white male ex right wing republicans with guns.
> > > Funny. I don't know a single Libertarian that fits that description.
> > Funny, Ted's description certainly matches the description of a lot of
> > Libertarians I have met.
> Maybe Ted and |>oug live in neighborhoods, or travel in circles with
> different demographics than Don's. If MOST of the people they meet are
> white male ex right wing republicans with guns, then chances are MOST of
> the Libertarians they meet will fall into that category as well. But
> seriously, at least we went from "all libertarians" to "my observation
> that GENERALLY Libertarians are..." [emphasis added] to "a lot of
> Libertarians." I can deal with "a lot." But it starts to sound rather
> pointless, so that the question becomes: Why say it at all? I could say
> that "a lot" of the African Americans and Hispanics I've met have been
> on welfare. Should I make something of that? No. I could say that "a
> lot" of the feminists I've met have been white middle-class surburban
> erotophobics who went to private universities and don't have a thing to
> say to African American or Hispanic women. Should I make something of
> that? No.
Speaking of that, d~, you might get a laugh out of the e-mail address
for Priscilla Falconi (doubtlessly one of those evil males with a gun
that frighten Ted so much). She is the Chair of the Placer County
Libertarian County in CA. You can contact Priscilla at
P.S. Other Libertarian Party Chairs in CA include Carole, Jeanne,
Kate(!), Cullene, Yvonne, Rose, Audrey and Tammy. Then there's State
Secretary Sandi Webb and At-Large Rep Elizabeth Brierly.
> Speaking of that, d~, you might get a laugh out of the e-mail address
> for Priscilla Falconi (doubtlessly one of those evil males with a gun
> that frighten Ted so much). She is the Chair of the Placer County
> Libertarian County in CA. You can contact Priscilla at
> - Don
> P.S. Other Libertarian Party Chairs in CA include Carole, Jeanne,
> Kate(!), Cullene, Yvonne, Rose, Audrey and Tammy. Then there's State
> Secretary Sandi Webb and At-Large Rep Elizabeth Brierly.
That's got to be the entire party right there, and they're all women!
You're just trying to draw me back into Trashing the Libertarian party.
I still stand by my original assessment of them, but you Republitarians
for Bush (and I don't mean Kate) are really the scary ones.