tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post3037241579407057040..comments2024-02-16T11:41:37.696-05:00Comments on Todd Seavey: Burning Man, Pumping Oil, Spotting Libertarians (Updated)Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-60817131427062555022007-08-01T08:03:00.000-04:002007-08-01T08:03:00.000-04:00[...] 2. Speaking of radicals, I fully realize tha...[...] 2. Speaking of radicals, I fully realize that most of the anarchists I mentioned in my Ron Paul article are not interested in downsizing government for the same reason I am — basically, to let the free market function unfettered — but rather than explain my similarities to and differences with anarchists-in-general, I’ll just refer you to this earlier blog entry that explains the frame of mind in which I came to attend that anarchist rally. [...]Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-62952657629970808032007-04-24T23:23:00.000-04:002007-04-24T23:23:00.000-04:00[...] But what is more important is that the burri...[...] But what is more important is that the burrito in Captain America’s pants is a reminder that responses to my most recent post, criticizing feminism, boil down in the end to the complaint that women get a lot of nasty comments from anonymous online commentators or encounter lewd behavior by men and thus feel intimidated a lot (this strikes me as either a pre-feminist or post-feminist complaint — at least in so far as feminism proper was an apparently temporary pretense of equality, versus the current frank recognition that women scare more easily or are intimidated by different things than men are). And I am not defending Captain America (or any of those louts) now, merely noting that I am unaware of any pre-feminist philosophy that committed one to supporting his behavior. People have been saying we must protect the womenfolk against boorish men since the Victorian era or perhaps the dawn of time, so it’s not clear to me how one needs feminism for that — and despite several people accusing me of having an unrealistic view of feminism, no one really did (as of this writing) spell out what we do need it for — but let’s leave the rest of the feminism discussion for bar conversation on May 2, at Lolita Bar (when one of our debaters will herself be someone known to have a thing for superhero costumes but perhaps not burrito-crimes). In the meantime, I find that the Captain America incident also turns my mind to national electoral politics, since America, mostly for ill, increasingly defines itself through elections. I recently concluded that in the next year’s primaries it would be foolish of me not to seize a rare opportunity to vote for a full-fledged libertarian who is also a major party candidate — Republican Ron Paul — thus sending a clearer signal than ever to the GOP that it should be moving in a libertarian, fusionist direction. In the general election, by which time Paul will probably have been defeated, I can always do the sensible thing and vote for Giuliani or McCain or whoever survives the whole ugly process — unless McCain gets still more “maverick†left-leaning ideas instead of sticking to budget cuts, or Giuliani loses his newfound interest in federalism and just starts acting upon his authoritarian impulses, in which case I may end up voting for a libertarian in the GOP primary and then a Libertarian in the general election, which will really mean losing with my purity intact, by my political standards. [...]Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-45183158889043433352007-04-20T12:01:00.000-04:002007-04-20T12:01:00.000-04:00There are nigh-infinite issues to pick from — and ...There are nigh-infinite issues to pick from — and I’ve encouraged free-marketeers in the past to avoid focusing on the most divisive ones when we could be encouraging a broader coalition of budget-cutters, waste-cutters, pork-busters, and deregulators, helping to make virtually the entire population (not only here but in places overseas dependent on commerce with us) better off in very palpable ways, by very non-ideological metrics. <br><br>I can see arguing that immigration is an important issue, but to dismiss Paul’s unquestionable libertarian credentials on every other issue under the sun over this one issue is a perfect example of the kind of monomanical, one-issue myopia that prevents libertarians ever forming part of a broader consensus. <br><br>You now have me thinking for the first time that I ought to vote for him. He is something of a libertarian-conservative fusionist figure after all, and thus in his tiny, ineffectual way a model of where the GOP needs to go. <br><br>The decision is made. Let the word go out: Paul in the primaries, with the general election to be decided later, most likely without Paul.Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-8102995598709466902007-04-20T11:53:00.000-04:002007-04-20T11:53:00.000-04:00As a libertarian, I can’t see myself voting for Ro...As a libertarian, I can’t see myself voting for Ron Paul, given his hardline stance on illegal immigration. <br><br>Putting aside all questions of political feasibility, social justice and amnesty for the millions of hardworking nonviolent illegal immigrants would seem to me to be a top priority for libertarians, right behind pardons for all the nonviolent drug offenders languishing in prison.<br><br>I don’t thing someone needs to be 100% ideologically pure to merit a protest vote, but Paul’s get-tough stand on this key issue means he’s no friend of liberty in my book…bleahnoreply@blogger.com