So Bob Barr announced his formal candidacy for this year's presidential race. He showed up on my radar last fall when I was conducting research for my informative speech on secondary candidates, and he caught my eye not just because of our common name, but because at the time I was intrigued with the concept of libertarianism and he was listed as a possible contender for the party.
The idea that if people are left alone, they will take care of themselves is appealing and seductive, but ultimately as unrealistic as believing that a government will always act in the best interest of its citizens. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing or capable of acting in their own best interest without impinging on the rights of others (and such impingement would not essentially be in their best interest anyway). My line of reasoning in this area originally issued from a conviction that all people strive to achieve what is best for themselves and their families, which reasoning, incidentally, led to my heavily reactionary Point Weekly article regarding the homeschooling case a few weeks ago.
Initially my reaction to that issue ran along the lines of, "If I want to homeschool my kids off the grid, the state shouldn't be able to stop me." The state just wants productive citizens, I reasoned. Parents, however, act primarily with their children's best interests in mind, so even a sub-par homeschooling experience would be as good or better than compulsory enrollment for a child whose educational needs cannot or are not being met by the local public school. But then, my professor kindly pointed out to me, all parents do not actually act in their children's best interest, as evidenced by the child abuse central to the case in point. Not everyone thinks the same way I do, or acts from the same motives, I realized then.
So the Libertarian Party must be put in the category of things that look great on paper, but just don't work in the real world, along with Communism and Point Loma's dancing policy. What I don't understand is why Mr. Barr believes he has any chance, or why he would want detract from McCain. Surely he must find his political views more closely aligned with the Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I wondered if he was a relation. This run is all about publicity for B-Barr, who finds himself free, Libertarian-style, to chastise McCain as a profligate spender when it was he (not McCain) who (for instance) voted for the giant prescription drug entitlement in 2003. Oh, and his current anti-war stance? Nowhere to be found when he was voting yes to authorize force in Iraq.
In Bob Barr, the Libertarians have chosen a mildly well-known name over doctrinal purity -- and if you're the Libertarians, what do you have, save doctrinal purity?
I was going to craft a carefully worded comment, but I knew there was someone who said roughly the same thing. So I refer to Madison.
The original paper is defending an increase in governmental powers, but the underlying argument that Madison makes is applicable here as a defense of a more libertarian view. (So, yes, I am aware of the full paragraph this comes from, and am not attempting to cut it out of context.)
"They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. … cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused."
-James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 41.
That quotation seems a truism to me.
I return to add a single word to my earlier comment -- in Bob Barr, the Libertarians 'will have chosen' a mildly well-known name. It's not a done deal, and they may well choose an actual libertarian to collect their 400,000 votes this year.
Barr, should he be a candidate, would only make a notable difference in states where McCain won't register anyway - like Vermont for instance - and in the key states like Ohio (Barr loyalists aside) the nader vote will work to equalize the the race. Let him run. It might force McCain to go on the record concerning some of the more conservative concerns of the election.
All that being said. Obama is looking more and more Junior Varisty. He's going to get absolutely pulverized.
Post a Comment