rivka | (no subject)

I have a positive inclination toward anyone who manifests something sorely lacking in modern political discourse - a sense of humor!

Dean is too much of a mixed bag for me to support (deficit "hawks" who want to raise my taxes, and further socialize medicine, leave me cold), but if I had to pick any of the Democrats (and I don't), he might well be the one.

He doesn't want to raise your taxes, he just wants to cancel the projected tax cuts - cuts that the country couldn't afford in the first place, and which we can afford even less after Bush's deficit spending. But I don't expect that you and I will agree about taxes, so I won't even try to pursue that argument. :-)

I'm curious about whether you intend to vote for Bush, or don't intend to vote at all. This administration has arrogated sweeping new powers to the federal government and has rolled back civil liberties at unprecedented levels, yet there does seem to be a general assumption that libertarians vote Republican.

There's a blog post here (http://thatother.blogspot.com/2003_05_01_thatother_archive.html#200320107) from a libertarian who supports Dean. You (and others) might find it interesting, even if you don't agree.

The only candidates I've ever really felt good voting for have been libertarians. I do intend to vote (I haven't missed an election in the twenty-five years I've been eligible), and did vote for Bush last time. I don't regret it too much, because Gore made me ill (and still does), and I thought New Jersey would be more competitive than it was.

However, since whichever Democrat is nominated in 2004 will likely win New Jersey no matter what, I will likely vote for the libertarian candidate next November.

And you're right - we probably won't agree on taxes, though I respect you and your reasons for disagreeing. :-)

That said, in what I perceive as a close race between Republicans and Democrats, I vote for the candidate I believe is most likely to do the least harm to my take-home pay. In my fight against Leviathan, I aim at the purse. Most of the time, that has meant voting for Republicans.

One other minor note about Dean, though. I did see him with Tim Russert (I think it was "Meet the Press"), and I thought he waffled a bit on gay marriage. I, of course, good libertarian that I am, want no official recognition of marriage by the state. Let consenting adults (whatever sex, and however many) make any interpersonal contracts they wish. Still, I'm left wondering how Dean really feels, and why he wouldn't come out and say that he either supported or opposed gay marriage, period.

did vote for Bush last time. I don't regret it too much [...]

That said, in what I perceive as a close race between Republicans and Democrats, I vote for the candidate I believe is most likely to do the least harm to my take-home pay. In my fight against Leviathan, I aim at the purse. Most of the time, that has meant voting for Republicans.

I must not be understanding you properly, because this makes it sound like

(a) you don't object to deficit spending (a la Bush) as long as your taxes don't go up, and

(b) you think that expansion of Medicare poses a greater threat to individual liberty than secret prosecutions and the Total Information Awareness program.

If those things are, in fact, the case, then I don't understand your brand of libertarianism at all.

(a) I do object to deficit spending - dramatically so. But deficits don't exist because of tax cuts. They exist because spending exceeds tax receipts. I want taxes down, and spending down far more. Much, much more.

(b) I do think that the expansion of Medicare poses a greater threat to my rights (property rights, in particular, with which I am extremely concerned) than closed military tribunals for people caught on an Afghan battlefield (US citizens or not), or the offensive TIA.

There's an old saying that when you're buttocks-deep in gators, it's hard to remember that your first job was to clear the swamp. I value my civil liberties quite highly, but I also prioritize them. This is hardly unusual; I know many Democrats who admire Dean as you do, but won't support him because they don't like his positions on gun rights.

You won't hear me supporting many administration policies. But the greatest government impact on my life, right now, is found in the big subtractions on my paystub.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans are even vaguely close to being libertarians. I really don't have any viable candidates to vote for. So, to reiterate, in a close race, I vote for the candidate most likely to do me and my family the least harm, as I see it.

I have one word to say to libertarians who consider voting for Bush:

Ashcroft.

"*shcr*ft?" Such language! I was under the impression that

rivka was running a family journal here. :-)

The incumbent Attorney General of the United States was one of many disappointing cabinet choices made by the President - no argument here. He seems to have a rather proscribed understanding of the Bill of Rights. Though he scares me less than his predecessor, the architect of the Waco barbecue and the Elian betrayal. Pick your poison, I guess.

As I told Rivka, New Jersey is voting Democratic now regardless, so my vote won't matter. Hence, I will likely vote for the Libertarian candidate. If I'm voting for a loser anyway, it may as well be one I respect.

"further" socialize medicine? The degree to which our medicine is socialized at all is nil compared to other developed countries. I assume you aren't speaking relatively, though, but as libertarians do: in the bubble-world of theory.

Sorry to sound cranky, but this issues is particularly personal to me and many people I love, and has wide-ranging negative social effects, and it gets a little tiresome to see reality constantly sacrificed upon the altar of principles. It's one thing to argue against the public good of not allowing large portions of the populace to go without adequate medical coverage -- you've got a hard row to hoe, but go to it. "further socialize medicine," though, is just cant.

It's not nil; it's quite substantial. Unless you consider over $250 billion dollars (in a 2 trillion dollar budget) to be "nil." And that's just for federal outlays for Medicare and Medicaid. That's almost a kilobuck per American, per year. Nil?

It is true that we don't have Canadian-style single-payer. It's true that we don't even have England-style National Health Service (where unlike Canada, private medical care is still more widely available). But saying that we therefore are not at all down the road to socialized medicine is like saying that because the highest marginal rates aren't over 90% any more, our taxes (at a "mere" 37-39%, federal, when including the loss of deductions for high earners) aren't too high.

There's no need to apologize, though - I am a hyper-optimistic libertarian, after all. You don't sound cranky to me. You sound like a concerned person looking to get help for people for whom you care deeply. I can understand that, and admire the sentiment. I just believe, firmly, that socialized medicine has failed, and always will fail - both in principle and in practice. And I will always oppose it, encourage others to do so, put my money where my mouth is, and vote that way.

There are plenty of places in the world with no government. You might consider moving to one. The Congo, Sierra Leone, parts of Columbia. What? You say you object to the violence and anarchy? A lack thereof is one of the glorious things our tax dollars buy us. Having seen countries and cultures that do not pay taxes to a government (because it is vestigial or does not exist) I have come to the conclusion that you either pay a government or a warlord.

"No government?" You certainly made quick work of that straw man. Glad it wasn't mine. :-) Yes, you pay a government or a tyrant. However, few tyrants in history (including King George III) took as much in taxes as our federal government does now from upper income taxpayers.

I'd never consider moving to a place with no government. My life, and those of my wife and children, are much too precious to me. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I want my taxes (and my government) greatly reduced, not eliminated entirely.

Point well taken. I simply have a great appreciation for what the taxes I pay purchase in terms of a civil society.

What services the government currently provides are you hoping to relinquish?

A fair question. I believe that the purpose of government is to prevent the use of force from entering into human affairs. In other words, it exists to protect us from others - not from ourselves, and not from naturally occurring adverse circumstances.

Thus, I would limit government functions to the police, the courts and the military. In addition, I would greatly proscribe the scope of both existing laws (no laws against drugs or prostitution, no blue laws, etc.) and existing military action (no military adventures like Iraq, no standing troops in Europe or Asia, etc.).

No public education? No public support of health care? No social services for the poor and elderly? What about infrastructure? Roads, airports, etc. What about foreign aid? (Food to the starving in Africa.) What about immigration services? While about the social services that protect children from abusive parents? What about the disabled?

Would you still have sent America to foreign soils for WWII? Would you still have NASA and defense research? Would you have the government play a role in certifying drug, consumer good and travel safety?

If this is going to devolve into an extended debate about libertarianism, I'd rather that didn't happen in my LJ.

Out of respect for

rivka's journal, if you're interested in my answer to these, please feel free to email me at noah at singman dot net.

If this is going to devolve into an extended debate about libertarianism, I'd prefer that it not happen in my LJ.

As you wish, of course.

Who is Vermont's poet laureate? Is it Hayden Carruth? Because I love his stuff.

No, it's Grace Paley, who is also apparently a peace activist. She likes Kucinich because he proposes a cabinet-level Department of Peace.

I am enjoying Dean's campaign. I just hope he can find a way to reach out to the midwestern/southern working-class Democrats. There was a good article in Salon recently about this issue; I think the author was trying a bit too hard to be a spoiler, but he made some good points. If Dean can't reach out to voters in Flint MI as well as San Fran, CA then we'll have 4 more years of Bush.

I think one of the best ways for Dean to reach those Democrats is to emphasize his support for gun rights.

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject