Liberty Maven

I’ve been reading a lot of griping lately about how the Libertiarian “purists” are preventing the party from ever gaining traction, and the self-described pragmatists are compromising important principles in order to get the drooling masses to join ranks.  So it was quite fitting that Mary Ruwart (who would have been the Libertarian Party’s nominee if not for Bob Barr) has written on the subject in the latest issue of the Advocates for Self-Government’s Liberator Online:

Ask Dr. Ruwart

Dr. Mary Ruwart is a leading expert in libertarian communication. In this column she offers short answers to real questions about libertarianism. To submit questions to Dr. Ruwart, see end of column.

* * *

Is compromising libertarian principles necessary to spread libertarian ideas?

QUESTION: I’ve been frustrated by some libertarians who think that “compromising” libertarian principles is the best way to get the libertarian message accepted by the public, on issues including mandatory health insurance and campaign finance restrictions. When I disagree with them, I am derided as a “purist.” How do I answer them?

Read More »

Over at the Advocates For Self-Government, James W. Harris reviews a surprisingly positive article on the Libertarian movement in the July 21 Issue of Time Magazine:

“Maybe you haven’t heard, but this is the year of freedom.”

So says no less than TIME magazine, in an excellent article on the libertarian movement in their July 21 issue.

The remarkably positive article is yet more proof that libertarian ideas are catching on and spreading fast.

The article describes how libertarians have grabbed the public’s attention this year:

“First there was the Ron Paul revolution, in which an avuncular 10-term Representative from Brazoria County, Texas, raised more than $34 million as a pseudo-Republican candidate, garnered more than a million primary votes and outperformed Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, all on the back of a get-government-off-my-back platform.

Read the rest of the article here.

In the most recent issue of Liberator Online (published by The Advocates for Self-Government), James W. Harris writes:

President John McCain: A Military “Near-Dictator”?

John McCain proudly announced the newest member of his staff this week. Michael Goldfarb, online editor for the neocon magazine The Weekly Standard, is his new Deputy Communications Director.

Last April, Goldfarb wrote the following about the powers he thinks the U.S. president possesses:

“The framers… sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war.”

Oh, really? The Founders wanted a president with “near dictatorial” power? Responds liberal journalist Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com:

“Until the Bill Kristols and John Yoos and other authoritarians of that strainentered the political mainstream, I never heard of prominent Americans who describe the power that they want to vest in our political leaders as ‘near dictatorial.’ Anyone with an even passing belief in American political values would consider the word ‘dictatorial’ — at least rhetorically, if not substantively — to define that which we avoid at all costs, not something which we seek, embrace and celebrate.

“And the very idea that the Founders — whose principal concern was how to avoid consolidated power in any one person — sought to vest ‘near dictatorial power’ in the president is too perverse for words. But that’s been the core ‘principle’ driving the destructive radicalism of the last seven years, and it’s an extremist view that is obviously welcomed at the highest levels of the McCain campaign.”

Goldfarb has also endorsed torture techniques such as beatings and waterboarding, and has called for amnesty for corporations which assist the government in knowingly and illegally spying upon Americans without warrants.

But of course, that’s what you’d expect from the spokesman for a “near dictator,” right?

(Source: Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/02/goldfarb/index.html )