Skip to main content

One of the main reasons I read Australian Libertarian blogs....

... is that they usually make a lot of sense.

Real World Libertarian has two recent posts that are a case in point.

Jim first points out that all the arch-conservative anti-McCain hoopla doesn't make much sense from where he sits, even if (or especially if) the subject is immigration:

Well I am going to disappoint and upset most of my US friends on the net and support McCain, a difficult decision, but one, which had to be made in the face of the ANCIR and other racist groups attack on him.

Sure immigration is a difficult issue to deal with and some hard decisions have to be made, especially in view of the sheer numbers of illegals in the US. However when I see calls for all of them to be booted out immediately, it becomes obvious that many of the proponents come from La La Land or somewhere close to it.

The sheer impractability of it is breathtaking in its stupidity. Just how the hell do you take 12 million people out of a country in a period as short as six months as some advocate and toss them into another, with out causing disastrous consequences both economically and socially is beyond me.


Next, in A Call for a Positive Campaign, Jim gets frustrated over the amount of negative campaigning that takes place even before we get to the general election:

One of the problems I see with the campaign on our side of politics is the extreme amount of negativity I am seeing, especially with such things as the ‘Dump McCain Now’ symbol on blogs. I am not being one eyed here as I felt that the Rudy one which is disappearing now was also a bad idea.

If I were a Democrat, (give me a minute to wash my mouth out) I would collect all of these for use later on.


He draws on an Australian example to cite where this leads [as you read, remember that Down Under the Liberal candidate equates with our Conservatives]:

I am reminded by all of this of an election in Australia around the late 70s where the Liberal Party with Malcolm Frazer as PM was up against Labor with Gough Whitlam as opposition leader. Both sides stank in the eyes of all but their most sycophantic followers, to the point where about the only thing they could do to look good was to talk about the other side.

This lead to the bizarre phenomenon where all Liberal Party advertising was headed with a photograph of Gough, while all Labor adds were headed by a photo of Frazer. To avoid keeping you in suspense, the Liberal party had deeper pockets and was able to print more photos of Gough than Labor could of Frazer, and so won the election.

I hope we can do better.


Me, too.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...