Saturday, May 24, 2008

Libertarian Party Debate changed my mind - Barr/Gravel 2008

Barr-Gravel is the way forward, for American voters to rally around in sufficient numbers to protect our liberties and ensure that our office-holders feel accountable. At the beginning of the debate, I was thinking Barr-Root. We have to win in 2008. We are in crisis, as Barr says. How do we move America forward? ...as we must for our natural liberties, our civil liberties, due process. Where will we be otherwise in 2012?

Twitter witnessed my change of heart -
Mike Gravel is doing well so far, though I don't support him, though I did momentarily reconsider when he mentioned Solon.

I'm starting to think Barr-Gravel, instead of Barr-Root.

Root wants to privatize war on terror. Exactly the wrong answer. He's out. This is the exact problem with anarchist thought.

Barr makes key point on health care. 50% of his doctor's bill due to law not health.

laughing at Kubby's answer [on trousers and skirts]. Glad to hear Barr take a stand against his own "Defense of Marriage Act". Gravel- love, love, love.

"We are on the cusp of a libertarian era." - Bob Barr

Update (May 24, 2008): One more twitter to close the loop -
Libertarian Party debate changed my mind - Barr/Gravel 2008


Update (May 26, 2008, 1:00 am Central): Well, it's Barr/Root 2008. Barr wished to team up with Root, and Gravel wouldn't run for VP. I'm going to have to trust Barr on this one.

2 comments:

Eric Blankenburg said...

Gravel said that people can’t be free if they are uneducated, poor, and don’t have healthcare. This is exactly the argument that the socialists have made for 100 years. Maybe Gravel should move to Europe and run for President of France.

I thought Kubby was surprisingly impressive. He was poised and funny. Given that the LP is split, Barr/Kubby would be a good ticket.

Casey Bowman said...

Yes, I'm surprised at my preference. I wish there were better choices, or that Gravel were further advanced in his thinking. I think he has the spirit of the liberty thing. There are those who talk liberty, but in their adoption of anarchism they build the case for feudalism, and private armies unaccountable to due process, which is an uncorrectable mistake. To my mind, it's a brand of old-world conservatism. On the other hand, there are witting and unwitting socialists. Some don't realize the ill effects of what they advocate. I believe that at the root of the 100-year "American detour" are the thought, the writing, and the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. I highly recommend Pestritto's book, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism. I think Wilson was quite witting, as Hillary is (and maybe Obama). The trick is how to turn around the many modern liberals who are not witting. How do we get them to read Hayek's Road to Serfdom?