Headlines

Randy Barnett

The Libertarian Party is a mistake

Are Democrats better than Republicans on personal liberty? Neither has been great on that score, but Democrats have been the bigger disappointment. When I took the medical-marijuana case to the Supreme Court in 2004, I got zero votes from the left side of the court while garnering the votes of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor. And President Obama’s Justice Department has reneged on his campaign promise to refrain from going after medical-marijuana dispensaries.

Neither party wants to question the futile and destructive “war on drugs.” But Republicans have been much better on free speech in recent years. With respect to economic liberty, the Environmental Protection Agency has restricted land use throughout the nation and would do more if not stopped. Dodd-Frank has amped up restrictions on financial services.

Libertarians need to adjust their tactics to the current context. This year, their highest priority should be saving the country from fiscal ruin, arresting and reversing the enormous growth in federal power—beginning with repealing ObamaCare—and pursuing a judiciary who will actually enforce the Constitution. Which party is most likely to do these things in 2013?

Read the Article

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: « Previous 1 2

I was up front with you in saying that I didn’t understand your reasoning, and asked you for more clarification. Why can’t you explain it more?

cptacek on November 6, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Again, go back and read the thread from the beginning.

Dante on November 6, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Uh, I read it while it was happening and I read it again when I pulled it all together into one post.

You said

It is immoral to seize my wealth and redistribute it to a foreign government and its people or to use it on the defense of a foreign nation and its people (granted, taxation is immoral anyway, but that’s another discussion). Additionally, it is immoral to involve ourselves in affairs that our none of our business, which is exactly what our foreign policy is all about. … We don’t own the hemisphere; the hemisphere does not belong to us.

Dante on November 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Is defending Canada because the invaders want to then invade us a defense of a foreign government and it’s people, or a defense of our government and our people?

cptacek on November 6, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Is defending Canada because the invaders want to then invade us a defense of a foreign government and it’s people, or a defense of our government and our people?

cptacek on November 6, 2012 at 4:26 PM

That’s an entirely different scenario than the one given by the other guy, and entirely different from my post you just quoted. Again, if you read the thread you originally quoted from, you will find your question answered. I don’t know why you insist on ignoring the words in front of your face.

Dante on November 6, 2012 at 4:41 PM

That is exactly his question.

So, for instance, if during the Cold War the Soviets had invaded and conquered Canada, installed nuclear weapons there, and stationed a hundred Red Army divisions on the international boundary, that would have been fine with you, until such time as they rolled across the border?

Athanasius on October 24, 2012 at 3:04 PM

cptacek on November 6, 2012 at 4:53 PM

That is exactly his question.

So, for instance, if during the Cold War the Soviets had invaded and conquered Canada, installed nuclear weapons there, and stationed a hundred Red Army divisions on the international boundary, that would have been fine with you, until such time as they rolled across the border?

Athanasius on October 24, 2012 at 3:04 PM

cptacek on November 6, 2012 at 4:53 PM

It was not his scenario at all. His scenario made no mention “[wanting] to then invade us”. His scenario was nothing but a neighboring country being invaded and the conquering nation stationing military units along the border.

Dante on November 6, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Well then. There is our disconnect. I took “until such time as they rolled across the border?” to mean they were coming for us, in his hypothetical.

cptacek on November 6, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Comment pages: « Previous 1 2