Van Jones: These libertarians certainly are extreme

posted at 9:48 pm on April 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, enjoy as an anchor for Russia Today, which is bankrolled by the Kremlin, has to play voice of reason on the set. This is the second time in a week that he’s singled out libertarians for special contempt — the last time was even nastier — and I’m not sure why. Yeah, their economic philosophy is 180 from his, but most leftists seem to prefer libertarians to mainstream conservatives because they’re socially liberal, anti-war, and much less of a threat at the ballot box. When the left’s rhetorical gloves come off, it’s usually for the Romney/Santorum/Gingrich voters, not the Ron Paul crowd. Not Jones, though.

Could be that he really is so focused on redistributive “economic justice” that he sees libertarians as his archenemy notwithstanding their common ground in other areas of policy. Or, per his comments here about MLK, could be that the one-two punch of Ron Paul’s old newsletters and Rand Paul’s rhetorical tapdancing about the Civil Rights Act during the 2010 Senate campaign have left him suspicious about libertarian views on civil rights. That’s understandable given their stature as the two most prominent libertarians in the country, but (a) however naive Rand might have been about ending discrimination through private boycotts instead of federal action, I don’t think he’s ever suggested that it shouldn’t have ended, and (b) the Reason gang, who as far as I know are fairly representative of libertarian thought, are usually robust when it comes to defending civil rights. In fact, here’s what an indignant Mike Riggs threw at Jones last week when he first attacked:

I’m going to have to mic check you there, Mr. Jones. You’re not talking about so-called libertarians, but your former boss and current president. See, it’s Barack Obama who supports “traditional marriage”; Barack Obama who supports a drug war that sends an alarming number of black men to prison and destroys their employment prospects; Barack Obama who supports a foreign policy that kills children; Barack Obama who supports regulatory barriers that require the poorest of the poor to borrow their way into the workforce; Barack Obama who supports an immigration strategy that rips apart families and sees the children of undocumented workers put up for adoption.

Even weirder: Since when, as he suggests here, do most libertarians claim some sort of monopoly on patriotism? He’s alluding, I take it, to the feeling among Ron Paul’s fans that he’s the only man who can save America, the only candidate who cares about the Constitution, etc, but I think as often as not libertarians are demagogued as being unpatriotic for their agenda. They get it from the left for wanting to roll back entitlements, which of course are the glory of post-solvent modern America, and they get it from the right for opposing foreign interventions. And incidentally, why is a guy who recently dismissed tea partiers as “cheap” patriots compared to the “deep” patriots in Guy Fawkes masks at Zuccotti Park complaining about anyone claiming a monopoly on patriotism?

Two clips here, both from Mediaite: One of Jones and the other of “Red Eye” having fun with him for his anti-libertarian comments last week.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I think that in the long run young Americans are more American than they are European, and socialism can’t compete with libertarianism if there is somebody like Ron Paul on the scene, not when socialism is the worst thing for today’s young people due to the boomer demographic bubble. The Americans who have the most to gain from socialism are all the old hippies from the 60′s and their useful idiots like Van Jones.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2012 at 10:36 PM

but most leftists seem to prefer libertarians to mainstream conservatives because they’re socially liberal, anti-war, and much less of a threat at the ballot box

Social liberals tend to use the government to enforce their liberal policies in the same way social conservatives do. They are pushing back against each other. Now if you meant classically liberal, live and let live, then most of the libertarians that I know fit in that belief.

chemman on April 9, 2012 at 10:37 PM

I knew I could count on you. Van Jones doesn’t have a clue. Couldn’t buy one if I lent him the $.

Bmore on April 9, 2012 at 10:26 PM

I didn’t say a word about Van Jones. So what were you counting on?

Dante on April 9, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Dante on April 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Funny how so many of those “Nutty” concepts ended up being enshrined in the US Constitution.

SWalker on April 9, 2012 at 10:38 PM

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 10:27 PM

I may not have been what you meant, or what was in your mind when you posted, but it is what you posted. Sometimes a hasty reply doesn’t come out as intended.

SWalker on April 9, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Well given that I do consider myself a conservative and do NOT consider conservatism a monolithic and ideologically unified voting bloc, it would be foolish of me to characterize libertarianism that way. I think now would be a good time for me to apologize if I contributed in any way to a misunderstanding, as that was not my intent at all.

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM

What I don’t understand (well, actually I think I do, but humor me) about the commies is that a libertarian government wouldn’t prevent them from finding a cohort of like-minded people and arranging to redistribute their own wealth among themselves. In fact, neither would a traditional conservative government. So what’s the problem? Why don’t they just arrange their affairs that way, and leave the rest of us alone?

I guess they’re worried that if communism or socialism were voluntary they wouldn’t find enough takers. But they’re wrong: surely Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren and Jimmy Buffet, Mike Bloomberg et al would be the first to join that little utopia and put their fortunes up for grabs among their comrades.

mr.blacksheep on April 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM

The two ideologies are diametrically opposed at their core.

Dante on April 9, 2012 at 10:27 PM

That’s a load of crap. The libertarian movement can be split right down the center as to the justification of liberating oppressed nations or whether it falls under national security. Clearly you are in the self-righteous non-intervention-under-any-circumstance camp, which means you believe in the freedom of the individual just as long as said person is blessed enough to live in the U.S.

John the Libertarian on April 9, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Do you really think I did, alc?

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 10:24 PM

I think you painted with a bit too broad a brush a ways upthread; I read what you wrote as making it seem like Rockwell was speaking for all libertarians. For certain there is a highly-active anarcho-capitalist element out there (which is what I think you meant when you referred to “movement libertarians”) but that’s not everyone who counts themselves as part of the libertarian movement and you didn’t draw the clear distinction until later.

alchemist19 on April 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM

That’s a load of crap. The libertarian movement can be split right down the center as to the justification of liberating oppressed nations or whether it falls under national security. Clearly you are in the self-righteous non-intervention-under-any-circumstance camp, which means you believe in the freedom of the individual just as long as said person is blessed enough to live in the U.S.

John the Libertarian on April 9, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Read my quoted summary of libertarianism from David Boaz on the first page. Neoconservatism is all about the initiation of force, and “spreading democracy” via force. That is the exact opposite of libertarianism. Read about the ideologies. It’s not difficult to grasp.

Dante on April 9, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Well given that I do consider myself a conservative and do NOT consider conservatism a monolithic and ideologically unified voting bloc, it would be foolish of me to characterize libertarianism that way. I think now would be a good time for me to apologize if I contributed in any way to a misunderstanding, as that was not my intent at all.

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM

I didn’t think it was your intent, just that you needed to clarify your position. I consider myself to be a Constitutional Conservative. I lean towards libertarian, but find a number of their ideological positions a bit to far to the right for my tastes. But I have learned that libertarians can’t be put in a safe little box and filed away as a specific category.

I have a number of friends who are libertarians, and find them for the most part to be good and decent people, who just have a few idea’s that are a little to liberal for me to embrace. But we definitely agree far more than we disagree.

SWalker on April 9, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Van Jones is attacking libertarians because Ron Paul is filling stadiums!

http://www.dailypaul.com/225458/video-where-is-ron-paul

FloatingRock on April 9, 2012 at 10:46 PM

I think you painted with a bit too broad a brush a ways upthread; I read what you wrote as making it seem like Rockwell was speaking for all libertarians. For certain there is a highly-active anarcho-capitalist element out there (which is what I think you meant when you referred to “movement libertarians”) but that’s not everyone who counts themselves as part of the libertarian movement and you didn’t draw the clear distinction until later.

alchemist19 on April 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I re-read my first post in this thread, and it’s a reasonable assumption to make though it was not my intention.

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 10:47 PM

I have a number of friends who are libertarians, and find them for the most part to be good and decent people, who just have a few idea’s that are a little to liberal for me to embrace. But we definitely agree far more than we disagree.

SWalker on April 9, 2012 at 10:46 PM

To all my libertarian associates, co-commenters, and friends: If Van Jones despises you, there almost has to be some sort of common ground you and I can find. ;-)

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 10:49 PM

What I don’t understand (well, actually I think I do, but humor me) about the commies is that a libertarian government wouldn’t prevent them from finding a cohort of like-minded people and arranging to redistribute their own wealth among themselves. In fact, neither would a traditional conservative government. So what’s the problem? Why don’t they just arrange their affairs that way, and leave the rest of us alone?

mr.blacksheep on April 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM

The problem is, that they tried that during the 60′s and it was an absolute and abject failure. It was called the Commune Movement.

SWalker on April 9, 2012 at 10:50 PM

mr.blacksheep on April 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM

The problem is, that they tried that during the 60′s and it was an absolute and abject failure. It was called the Commune Movement.

SWalker on April 9, 2012 at 10:50 PM

O/T side note:

Steve Jobs had dabbled somewhat in the commune movement before Apple Computers incorporated. It was during his communal experiences that he found the inspiration to name Woz’s computer the “Apple” in the first place, though he ended up becoming an uber-capitalist by the time the Mac was released in 1984. Irony, no?

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Van Jones is attacking libertarians because Ron Paul is filling stadiums!

http://www.dailypaul.com/225458/video-where-is-ron-paul

FloatingRock on April 9, 2012 at 10:46 PM

ROTFLMAO… For someone who can be so bright and intelligent at time, you can also be incredibly goofy. If Van Jones despises libertarians for any reason other than their proclivity to prefer the US constitution over Marxism, it is perhaps because so many libertarians are young and cannot be manipulated through community organizing methods. The greatest strength and weakness of the libertarian movement is that it is comprised of individuals who think for themselves.

SWalker on April 9, 2012 at 10:56 PM

ROTFLMAO… For someone who can be so bright and intelligent at time, you can also be incredibly goofy. If Van Jones despises libertarians for any reason other than their proclivity to prefer the US constitution over Marxism, it is perhaps because so many libertarians are young and cannot be manipulated through community organizing methods. The greatest strength and weakness of the libertarian movement is that it is comprised of individuals who think for themselves.

SWalker on April 9, 2012 at 10:56 PM

BINGO. I think that whether one’s brand of libertarianism tends more towards the anarcho-capitalist model, or more towards doctrinaire conservatism, libertarians aren’t going to foment a Marxist revolution on Van Jones’ say-so. And for that, I say good on ‘em.

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Steve Jobs had dabbled somewhat in the commune movement before Apple Computers incorporated. It was during his communal experiences that he found the inspiration to name Woz’s computer the “Apple” in the first place, though he ended up becoming an uber-capitalist by the time the Mac was released in 1984. Irony, no?

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Apparently that happened to quite a few of the people who were part of the Commune Movement. One day as it were, they “woke up” and recognized how insane the ideology of communism was and they then proceeded to embrace capitalism. It is perhaps what made the ones who never did wake up so angry.

SWalker on April 9, 2012 at 11:00 PM

BINGO. I think that whether one’s brand of libertarianism tends more towards the anarcho-capitalist model, or more towards doctrinaire conservatism, libertarians aren’t going to foment a Marxist revolution on Van Jones’ say-so. And for that, I say good on ‘em.

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Yea, their is a joke about libertarians, “What happens when you get two libertarians in the same room??? You get 6 opinions on every subject discussed”

SWalker on April 9, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Apparently that happened to quite a few of the people who were part of the Commune Movement. One day as it were, they “woke up” and recognized how insane the ideology of communism was and they then proceeded to embrace capitalism. It is perhaps what made the ones who never did wake up so angry.

SWalker on April 9, 2012 at 11:00 PM

The problem with communal living is that it’s supposed to be insular. It never works out like that. I think the Amish probably come the closest, but even they can’t completely avoid doing business with the “English.”

As for Jobs, I don’t think he ever really gave up his admiration for communal living. God knows there are still enough unwashed hippies that worship at his altar.

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 11:02 PM

SWalker on April 9, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Goofy? No. Van Jones and Ron Paul are both competing for the hearts and minds of young people and Ron Paul is winning. Van Jones is trying to do the same thing a lot of Republicans have tried to do with Ron Paul, poison the well against him. Van Jones and bog-gov Republicans alike want people to dismiss Ron Paul out of hand because they can’t compete in the arena of ideas.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2012 at 11:06 PM

He’s alluding, I take it, to the feeling among Ron Paul’s fans that he’s the only man who can save America, the only candidate who cares about the Constitution, etc

AP, which other candidates provide specifics about how they would limit the Federal government’s power to the power’s enumerated in the Constitution?

antifederalist on April 9, 2012 at 11:06 PM

.

AP, which other candidates provide specifics about how they would limit the Federal government’s power to the power’s enumerated in the Constitution?

antifederalist on April 9, 2012 at 11:06 PM

I don’t know that Ron Paul has done that, at least to my satisfaction. I figure that 95+% of everything the government has done going back to 1913 has been blatantly unconstitutional. I could be missing something, but most of Ron Paul’s constitutional underpinings seem to revolve around foreign policy — and the constitution actually has relatively little to say about that.

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Yeah, their economic philosophy is 180 from his, but most leftists seem to prefer libertarians to mainstream conservatives because they’re socially liberal, anti-war, and much less of a threat at the ballot box.

Not if you’ve been paying attention these last few years. I used to call myself a libertarian for exactly this reason. The minute economic policy came to the forefront of the national debate, we became public enemy number one for the liberals. Every one of my liberal friends started focusing their ire and ridicule on free marketeers like myself and I suddenly realized that we were never anything but tools and useful idiots to them.

I call myself a conservative nowadays. Sometimes I say I’m a libertarian-minded conservative. But I’m done trying to ingratiate myself with liberal friends who won’t reciprocate when it comes to the issues that are important to me.

Caiwyn on April 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM

I don’t know that Ron Paul has done that, at least to my satisfaction. I figure that 95+% of everything the government has done going back to 1913 has been blatantly unconstitutional. I could be missing something, but most of Ron Paul’s constitutional underpinings seem to revolve around foreign policy — and the constitution actually has relatively little to say about that.

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM

That’s probably his point. The Federal government does not authorize the Federal government execute undeclared wars (congressional authorization for military action is not a declared war), station troops overseas, or to spend money to defend other countries. I think he has focused on the US’s unconstitutional foreign commitments because this is where we can begin to cut the budget the most in the short term. Entitlement spending will have to be handled more delicately because of the current level of dependency.

Also, since you mentioned the year 1913, note that’s the year the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law, which resulted the unconstitutional delegation of regulating money to the Federal reserve. Notice that Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to coin (not print) money. It does not give the privately owned Federal reserve a monopoly on printing money.

antifederalist on April 9, 2012 at 11:20 PM

^^^^

Ooops. The Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to execute undeclared wars.

antifederalist on April 9, 2012 at 11:21 PM

That’s probably his point. The Federal government does not authorize the Federal government execute undeclared wars (congressional authorization for military action is not a declared war), station troops overseas, or to spend money to defend other countries. I think he has focused on the US’s unconstitutional foreign commitments because this is where we can begin to cut the budget the most in the short term. Entitlement spending will have to be handled more delicately because of the current level of dependency.

Also, since you mentioned the year 1913, note that’s the year the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law, which resulted the unconstitutional delegation of regulating money to the Federal reserve. Notice that Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to coin (not print) money. It does not give the privately owned Federal reserve a monopoly on printing money.

antifederalist on April 9, 2012 at 11:20 PM

That’s not refuting what I’ve said, Anti. I dunno if it’s because of the way the media’s handling it, if I’m not paying attention, or if Ron Paul really isn’t — but I’m not hearing a lot from him about what he’d do to scale back government. Just a lot of chest thumping on foreign policy and banking issues. Good issues to be sure, and I think there’s some truth in his policy positions, but he’ll never be a serious contender for the presidency as long as it comes across as empty bluster.

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 11:22 PM

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who has a detailed plan to balance the budget in 3 years, cutting a trillion dollars in the first year, and released the plan at the beginning of the primary in a format that I believe is scorable by the CBO.

He’s still the only one with a real plan to this day. The rest only make vague promises but obviously don’t mean it.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2012 at 11:27 PM

I dunno if it’s because of the way the media’s handling it, if I’m not paying attention, or if Ron Paul really isn’t — but I’m not hearing a lot from him about what he’d do to scale back government.

Well, you could start here if you were interested to learn:

ronpaul2012.com

Economy

National Defense

Energy

Health Care

Dante on April 9, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Van Jones is a lying, conniving snake. He makes Aqualung lurking outside the playground seem innocuous.

Van Jones, Eric Holder and Obama – three men who are salivating at the prospect of race wars.

disa on April 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM

That’s not refuting what I’ve said, Anti. I dunno if it’s because of the way the media’s handling it, if I’m not paying attention, or if Ron Paul really isn’t — but I’m not hearing a lot from him about what he’d do to scale back government. Just a lot of chest thumping on foreign policy and banking issues. Good issues to be sure, and I think there’s some truth in his policy positions, but he’ll never be a serious contender for the presidency as long as it comes across as empty bluster.

gryphon202 on April 9, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Looks like linking to a candidate’s website gets caught up in moderation. But if you are interested in learning, then visit his website.

Dante on April 9, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Van Jones and Ron Paul are both competing for the hearts and minds of young people and Ron Paul is winning.

That’s probably the closest to accurate.

In the past two weeks, we had an article that showed Barry’s numbers with college kids down over 20%.

I spend a fair amount of time with this group, and they’ve become very Libertarian without knowing the party exists. They like Ron and ignore Barry for the most part, and considering this group has been Van’s bread-n-butter for most of his adult career, I think he’s felt a disturbance in the force.

Their has to be an angle with OWS I’m missing; they did have a Libertarian wing. Maybe their Occupy numbers are down because they parted ways, and that’s why Van attacked. If they and the anarchists don’t come back, he’s down to commie’s and progs.

budfox on April 9, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Could be that he really is so focused on redistributive “economic justice” that he sees libertarians as his archenemy notwithstanding their common ground in other areas of policy.

Oh, it’s all about this, and then some. I get more sh*t from my left-leaning friends and family because I’m a libertarian and refuse to buy into their money grabbing philosophies. The fact that we agree, in principal, on many other issues is besides the point. My core libertarian attitude of “get the hell out of my life in all ways” is a surefire way to get them to boil over.

Van Jones is simply giving voice to the underlying contempt that Libs have pretty much always felt for libertarians. This is nothing new.

nukemhill on April 9, 2012 at 11:57 PM

The Americans who have the most to gain from socialism are all the old hippies from the 60′s and their useful idiots like Van Jones.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2012 at 10:36 PM

I don’t think that any Americans have anything to gain from socialism.
I don’t think Van Jones knows what went on in the 60′s and the “old hippies” as you call them are now people like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohern (sp?) who don’t realize how stupid they appear to most Americans.

Vince on April 10, 2012 at 12:16 AM

Mr. Self-projection, making it up as he goes along. So tired of this garbage talk.

fullogas on April 10, 2012 at 12:17 AM

Van Jones: These libertarians certainly are extreme

Well sure, because neo communism has become main stream, ask Van.

Speakup on April 10, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Goofy? No. Van Jones and Ron Paul are both competing for the hearts and minds of young people and Ron Paul is winning. Van Jones is trying to do the same thing a lot of Republicans have tried to do with Ron Paul, poison the well against him. Van Jones and bog-gov Republicans alike want people to dismiss Ron Paul out of hand because they can’t compete in the arena of ideas.

FloatingRock on April 9, 2012 at 11:06 PM

See, this is what I mean by goofy. A) Van Jones never went after Ron Paul or his followers, and B) Ron Paul poisoned his own well.

SWalker on April 10, 2012 at 12:22 AM

I didn’t say a word about Van Jones. So what were you counting on?

Dante on April 9, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Sorry Dante, didn’t mean to leave the thread for quite this long. No I merely meant I could depend on you to come to this thread and speak to the Libertarian aspect of things. Not to the commi Van Jones mistaking it for,……… well whatever the heII he was going on about.

Bmore on April 10, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Then you’re not a libertarian. Libertarianism and neoconservatism are irreconcilable.

Dante on April 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Yeah, I have trouble identifying with any of the more popular labels. I would say that I am a pretty extreme federalist and constitutionalists and believe federal government should keep its nose (and fingers) out of a lot of things domestically and let the states decide the best way to do those things for the states.

For example, I believe in questions such as abortion, gay marriage, and other reproductive issues the federal government should stay out of the conversation and let the various states decide those matters as they see fit. I believe in a strong defense and intervening when one must to defend their interests. I guess I am a fan of Madison and Jefferson and of the modern Presidents, Coolidge and Reagan.

I am not at all a fan of FDR or Obama who believe the federal government should be some sort of omnipotent parent. Santorum falls into that category, too, as he views the federal government as omnipotent over the states and the individual.

Romney is a pretty strong federalist and so far has impressed me with his choice of Bolton as senior foreign policy adviser.

crosspatch on April 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM

I don’t think that any Americans have anything to gain from socialism.

Vince on April 10, 2012 at 12:16 AM

I don’t disagree, but they think they have something to gain or else they wouldn’t be voting for people like Obama and Romney.

FloatingRock on April 10, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Santorum Van Jones 2012

lexhamfox on April 10, 2012 at 2:51 AM

Every person should be able to keep 100% of what he or she earns.

Van Jones thinks that’s an “extreme” philosophy.

And, has Van Jones ever been to a Ron Paul rally? lol

More diverse than the Democrats if you ask me.

And yes, Van, a private individual has every right to be racist.

Just as we have a right to not support that racist.

But people like Van Jones will always look to further the welfare state.

The entitlement and theft state is how they maintaign their power.

I don’t think I’m going to buy Van Jones’ book.

fatlibertarianinokc on April 10, 2012 at 3:53 AM

Freedom and liberty are extreme ideals to a communist. America was founded on libertarian ideas. Why doesn’t this guy just move to North Korea?

steve123 on April 10, 2012 at 4:38 AM

I don’t disagree, but they think they have something to gain or else they wouldn’t be voting for people like Obama and Romney.

FloatingRock on April 10, 2012 at 1:54 AM

What the Socialists don’t understand is that Capitalism is the ultimate socialism. When I produce something by my talents and sell it to someone who wants that thing, have we not both met each others’ needs? And when an entire community does that, with the person who can cut hair cutting hair and the person who can bake bread baking the bread and the person who can fix cars fixing the cars … and it all just works without the need for government intervention and we produce according to our talents. The community decides on its own how much the fruits of our labors are worth to them. If we charge too much, they stop buying it. If we charge too little, we suffer ourselves. The market finds exactly the right balance between what we need and what we have. Nobody needs to manage a thing, the entire system, if left alone will completely manage itself.

crosspatch on April 10, 2012 at 4:54 AM

Lisp.

albill on April 10, 2012 at 6:11 AM

So who wrote Jones’ book for him?

ctmom on April 10, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Van Jones needs to get some tips from Obama’s mentor and white guy, Bill Ayers, plus re-read “Rules for Radicals” again.

Jones is desperately jockeying to be the new leader of/speaker for the blacks after the One descends from his throne and the Jesse Jackson generation black leaders retire…

albill on April 10, 2012 at 7:29 AM

It could be that this particular Poli Sci retard (all of this type of stupid seem to be Political Science graduates and Van is no exception) just isn’t bright enough to know what a Libertarian is.

MNHawk on April 10, 2012 at 7:33 AM

There is no such ideology as “libertarian”.

Libertarianism, if followed completely, is anarchy.

In today’s parlance, a libertarian is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, but when push comes to shove, 90% of them put their social liberalism over their fiscal conservatism every time. That is why they routinely support dems like Obama.

they complain and complain and complain about alleged conservative efforts to create a theocracy, yet there is little evidence of that ever really happening. Yet, the left does things like Obamacare – attempting to have gov’t control over 1/6 of the economy, and Libertarians still will back Obama in the end.

I don’t take anyone professing to be a Libertarian very seriously. It is not a serious political movement. They espouse less gov’t, but almost always back the party of big gov’t because of “abortion” or something.

they are silly. they are either college kids who want to seem “edgy” or aging “hipsters” who wear leather coats and smoke pot.

Please. Grow up. Libertarianism as an alleged political philosophy is non-existent aside from silly platitudes.

Monkeytoe on April 10, 2012 at 7:44 AM

a libertarian is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, but when push comes to shove, 90% of them put their social liberalism over their fiscal conservatism every time

That’s insane. What evidence have you got to back that up? Why would any Libertarian support the Dems? Most of us support the GOP, specifically Ron Paul or the libertarian party. I don’t know any libertarian that would support the dems tax and spend agenda.

a libertarian is a social liberal and fiscal conservative

i.e. we’re all about freedom and individual rights 100% of the time, not just when it’s stuff we agree with like social conservatives.

steve123 on April 10, 2012 at 7:49 AM

“RT News” is essentially a reincarnated version of Pravda.

Van Jones should fit in there. Whatever claims he may make to the contrary he is still a commie at heart.

farsighted on April 10, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Monkeytoe on April 10, 2012 at 7:44 AM

Are you sure you just aren’t confusing libertarians with leftists who are ashamed of referring to themselves as leftists?

There is nothing Libertarian about Bill Maher but I believe he refers to himself as a Libertarian. He is obviously an ashamed leftists.

MNHawk on April 10, 2012 at 7:56 AM

That’s a load of crap. The libertarian movement can be split right down the center as to the justification of liberating oppressed nations or whether it falls under national security. Clearly you are in the self-righteous non-intervention-under-any-circumstance camp, which means you believe in the freedom of the individual just as long as said person is blessed enough to live in the U.S.

John the Libertarian on April 9, 2012 at 10:41 PM

So it’s the Constitution of the United Nations of the World and not the Constitution of the United States of America?

When did they change it?

Spliff Menendez on April 10, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Social liberals tend to use the government to enforce their liberal policies in the same way social conservatives do. They are pushing back against each other. Now if you meant classically liberal, live and let live, then most of the libertarians that I know fit in that belief.

chemman on April 9, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Bingo. Many libertarians do not truly hold to “limited government” when it comes to social policy. Part of the concept of “limited government” is self-rule. Many libertarians do not truly support the right of a state to have its own social policy, they’d prefer to homogenize policy by federal fiat.

mankai on April 10, 2012 at 8:11 AM

…but when push comes to shove, 90% of them put their social liberalism over their fiscal conservatism every time.

Monkeytoe on April 10, 2012 at 7:44 AM

That’s been my experience, if not at the ballot box certainly in discussion. They also align with the Sheehan/Kucinich/Code Pink wing of the Dem party on much of foreign policy.

While they claim fiscal conservatism, in my experience on most right-of-center sites the self-described “libertarians” do about 90% of their posting on threads about social issues and US foreign policy, using the same arguments and engaging in the same name calling, labeling, and stereotyping as the Left.

Libertarianism seems to have moved left over the last two decades. For many of them Civil Liberaltarian is a better moniker — that is, for the ones who are not actually liberals posing as libertarians for the purpose of posting on right-of-center sites.

I say this as someone who leans libertarian and as a former Libertarian Party contributor.

farsighted on April 10, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Bingo. Many libertarians do not truly hold to “limited government” when it comes to social policy. Part of the concept of “limited government” is self-rule. Many libertarians do not truly support the right of a state to have its own social policy, they’d prefer to homogenize policy by federal fiat.

mankai on April 10, 2012 at 8:11 AM

You are wrong, as is Monkeytoe. Completely wrong.

Dante on April 10, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Dante on April 10, 2012 at 8:18 AM

How so? Have you read the Libertarian Party platform? It essentially demands that local governments assent to a common social policy. It has one line about representative government, but places it in the context of how parties and public financing should function.

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.

This is convoluted statement. A state defining its own marriage and contract law is hardly the same as forbidding consensual sexual acts.

mankai on April 10, 2012 at 8:32 AM

How so? Have you read the Libertarian Party platform? It essentially demands that local governments assent to a common social policy. It has one line about representative government, but places it in the context of how parties and public financing should function.

First Libertarian is a party, libertarian is a philosophy and an adherent to the philosophy. Secondly, the platform of that party does not demand local government assent to a common social policy. At least, no social policy other than people being free to live their lives.

This is convoluted statement. A state defining its own marriage and contract law is hardly the same as forbidding consensual sexual acts.

mankai on April 10, 2012 at 8:32 AM

There’s nothing convoluted about it. And in the context of personal liberty and freedom, they are the same: government interfering where it has no right to do so. it’s a series of statements based on the essential core libertarian value. I’ll quote it again for you:

“Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others … Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property – rights that people possess naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force – actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.”

– David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer

Dante on April 10, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Dante on April 10, 2012 at 9:06 AM

That’s all well and good, but it is inconsistent with Libertarian foreign policy. Libertarians believe in the right of self-determination for other nations, but not for US states and locales.

My argument is that Libertarians want social policy to be homogenized and declared by fiat. That is exactly what you are arguing. You agree that states should abandon their right to define contract law and locales should abandon their right to define marriage… while simultaneously arguing that Uzbekistan should rule itself as it sees fit.

– David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer

Show me in there the right to self-determination?

He argues exactly what I am saying libertarians argue, social policy should be homogeneous, damn self-rule (except for butcherous Muslim nations, I suppose).

mankai on April 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Additionally, how is that an example of libertarians not truly holding to “limited government” when it comes to social policy? It is an affirmation of limited government.

Dante on April 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

That’s all well and good, but it is inconsistent with Libertarian foreign policy. Libertarians believe in the right of self-determination for other nations, but not for US states and locales.

That’s also 100% false. It is clear you don’t understand libertarianism.

My argument is that Libertarians want social policy to be homogenized and declared by fiat. That is exactly what you are arguing. You agree that states should abandon their right to define contract law and locales should abandon their right to define marriage… while simultaneously arguing that Uzbekistan should rule itself as it sees fit.

mankai on April 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Your argument is wrong and based on ignorance. Libertarianism states the opposite of everything you have claimed.

Dante on April 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM

I don’t know. I can’t really take a communist calling anybody else an extremist seriously. But Van Jones on Russia Today attacking libertarians for thinking they are more patriotic than he is…of course they are more patriotic than you are Van. They aren’t on Russia Today for one thing. Maybe its the fact that my formative years were under Reagan and we had TV like Scarecrow and Mrs. King and movies like Red Dawn but once you say your a communist and you want to transform our government, you can’t be a patriot. You just can’t.

magicbeans on April 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM

While they claim fiscal conservatism, in my experience on most right-of-center sites the self-described “libertarians” do about 90% of their posting on threads about social issues and US foreign policy, using the same arguments and engaging in the same name calling, labeling, and stereotyping as the Left.

Libertarianism seems to have moved left over the last two decades. For many of them Civil Liberaltarian is a better moniker — that is, for the ones who are not actually liberals posing as libertarians for the purpose of posting on right-of-center sites.

I say this as someone who leans libertarian and as a former Libertarian Party contributor.

farsighted on April 10, 2012 at 8:15 AM

What’s amusing to me about libertarians is that if they took their own views seriously, they would support conservative candidates. Reducing the size and scope of government in terms of spending, entitlements and taxation will do more to further their ultimate cause of social liberalism than their support of democrats does.

But they are so worried about the alleged theocracy that republicans/conservatives are going to bring, that they support any and all big statism by the left. It’s a joke.

Nobody will ever accuse republicans of being top-of-the-line when talking about reducing the size and scope of gov’t. Let’s face it, they are bad. But they are so much better than democrats in this regard that it seems a no-brainer if one truly believes what Libertarians claim to believe. Yet they always back the big-government party and therefore support the expansion of gov’t over the literally insane belief that republicans are going to start a new theocracy because they are against gay marriage.

Please. Libertarians are not serious or honest about their alleged ideology. All they care about is social liberalism and legalizing marijuana. I’m not adverse to legalizing marijuana, but when that is the central element of your entire ideology, you are an idiot.

If you read any libertarian, 95% of it will be railing against social conservatives. That’s all they care about. Abortion, gay marriage, and worry about whether “God” is uttered in a public space. So childish.

There are a few (very, very few) self-proclaimed libertarians who are serious. But they are, again, extremely rare.

Monkeytoe on April 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

and I’m not sure why

How about the simplest and most likely reason? Van Jones, although he’s memorized alot of socialist cliches and talking points, is really not very smart.

Socialism doesn’t work, never has, there is lots of historical proof, and anyone who espouses it is either stupid or crazy.

Why attribute qualities to them they don’t exhibit?

peacenprosperity on April 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I love the second clip… They poke him with the silly stick about his bs positions… and the ‘buy my book’ line nails it.
-

RalphyBoy on April 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM

How about the simplest and most likely reason? Van JonesObama, although he’s memorized alot of socialist cliches and talking points, is really not very smart.

Socialism doesn’t work, never has, there is lots of historical proof, and anyone who espouses it is either stupid or crazy.

Why attribute qualities to them they don’t exhibit?

peacenprosperity on April 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM

-
That works too…
-

RalphyBoy on April 10, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2