Update:

The right decision – Libertarians: No Ballot Switch. (This was a unanimous decision.)

In Alaska, there’s a United States Senate primary, with a close vote yet to be decided between incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski and challenger Jeff Miller. If Murkowski should lose the primary, there’s speculation that she might run on the Libertarian ticket in the fall. The Independent Political Report cites polling that shows Murkowski would do fairly well. (I’ve quoted the IPR story below.)

Murkowski’s not a Libertarian (or libertarian), has not espoused libertarian views, and would only be running on the LP line to have a chance at staying in office. On principle — and the LP refers to itself as the ‘party of principle’ — it’s a cynical idea.

If big-government, status quo incumbent Murkowski gets on the LP ticket, she’s likely to lose. Even now, Republican Jeff Miller polls ahead of her in a three-way race with Murkowski, Miller, and Democrat Scott McAdams. I’d guess (like Charlie Crist in Florida) that Murkowski would only fall father behind the Republican, after people considered her switch, and concluded she was just another incumbent eager to stay in office forever. (Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is another variation on this doomed, party-switching scheme.)

Murkowski may win her primary, and run as a Republican. If not, the LP should avoid her, and reject any overtures she might make.

The Libertarian Party is better off without an needy incumbent who considers herself deserving of a Senate seat, perpetually, policy and philosophy notwithstanding.

Here’s an excerpt from that Independent Political Report story –

This poll does not mean that Murkowski will run as a Libertarian. Wes Benedict, the national party?s Executive Director, has come out against such a move. However, Alaska LP State Chair Scott Kohlhaas is at least open to the idea for the press it could give the party. (This may not be surprising; Kohlhaas is running a serious campaign for the state legislature and is likely hoping for a down-ballot effect).

See, Murkowski As Libertarian Polls 34% | Independent Political Report.

In a central Ohio county, a libertarian candidate complained about the presence of an elephant and donkey figurine on the counter of the elections board office.

County officials removed the major political parties’ figurines from the counter.

Although I understand that bias in favor of major parties, against alternatives, is objectionable, libertarians should focus on bigger issues of substance and policy.

Fussing over figurines takes attention away from our message of hope and opportunity through individual liberty, limited government, and peaceful relations with other countries through commerce and joint scientific inquiry.

I am convinced that there are surely many in that county – and every county in America – whose lives would be better for the solutions libertarians advocate.

We shouldn’t be distracted by a few figurines.

See, Ohio Elections Office Hides Elephant, Donkey After Compliant.

Kevin Libin, of the Canadian National Post has a story about how Canadian officials are bullying a libertarian family of immigrants to Canada from what was Soviet-occupied Poland. They left a dictatorship, but they’ve run into the soft, oppressively bureaucratic culture of modern-day Canada. (Sadly, something like his story might easily happen in countless places in America.)

Peter Jaworski wasn’t born in the cradle of freedom, but his mother says she hid illegal, anti-Soviet pamphlets in his baby carriage, covertly passing them out to fellow dissidents on the streets of Wroclaw, Poland. When local police sent an order to his father to report to them for unspecified reasons, the family used a permit to travel to Germany and fled, eventually settling in Orono, Ont[ario].

Since coming to Canada, Peter has celebrated freedom with more enthusiasm than most. He helped found the Institute for Liberal Studies, a libertarian advocacy group; he’s writing his PhD thesis about concepts of ownership rights; and every summer for the past 10 years he’s hosted the two-day Liberty Summer Seminar on his parents’ acreage. There, a few dozen libertarians – past attendees have included Conservative Cabinet minister Jason Kenney and Ontario Cabinet minister Randy Hillier – camp out on the idyllic grounds, hear a handful of pro-liberty speakers, tap their feet along with some freedom-minded musical acts, and enjoy Mother Jaworski’s cooking.

At least, they used to. This past July may have been the last, as the libertarians met their nemeses in the flesh: bureaucrats armed with a red tape roll full of regulations that may not only shut down the seminar for good, but threaten to hit the Jaworskis with as much as $50,000 in fines for using their property for reasons unapproved by government.

“I thought government would help me to do business, to be independent, not to be on welfare, but it’s the opposite. It’s like “you own this property? Now we own you,” Marta Jaworski says. “Government is just like Big Brother. Without government we would [apparently] be all dead. They think we need them so much in every aspect of our lives.”

The way they’ve come under officials’ scrutiny is so very typical of how bureaucrats operate in towns across this country:

The Jaworskis aren’t sure why inspectors, after years of summer seminars, suddenly showed up on the property to itemize violations. There was a “complaint,” they were told, though they insist neighbours always seemed fine with the event, which drew 72 people this year, each paying $125 each ($75 for students). They recently turned their home into a bed and breakfast to make ends meet, marketing their pastoral property as a perfect spot for wedding planners. They suspect another hospitality business in the municipality of Clarington turned them in. They have no proof, but they have grown suspicious others are exploiting government to hurt them.

Ever wonder if this happens in your own towns, where a businessman will use regulations — and cozy connections to local officials — to harass his competitors? Often, when bureaucrats say they re pro-business, it turns out to mean only the business owners they like, their friends’ businesses. For their friends’ competitors, there’s not so much liking, and a lot of regulating.

It’s a middling official’s way of feeling important, of misusing the public trust to be a ‘person of influence.’

See, Bureaucratic Bullies Foil Annual Libertarian Retreat.

No time like the present….

See, Perform a local act of libertarianism – Dallas Libertarian | Examiner.com.

Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz discusses the drive and passion for limited government in the Bush/Obama years.

Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics asks, Will Feingold Get Swept Away by GOP Wave? I don’t know if Senator Feingold will be re-elected; I do know that his possible defeat should leave libertarians with mixed feelings. For although we oppose campaign finance restrictions and a big (spending) government, in many other ways Senator Feingold has been a strong advocate of civil liberties.

Feingold’s defeat would leave civil libertarians with one voice fewer on many rights issues. (Most Wisconsinites know little about Feingold’s likely Republican opponent, Ron Johnson. They do know that Feingold has supported individual privacy rights against state overreach time and again. It hasn’t always made him popular; it’s made him right.)

In a way, this is a risk that President Obama’s sagging popularity presents for libertarians: we oppose his economic policies, but we see his administration offers good policies in other areas. In any event, movement libertarians have no personal dislike toward him. (I don’t understand why some dislike Pres. Obama so personally; he seems generally likable to me, and surely no less so than Sen. McCain. Quick disclaimer: I voted for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr in 2008, and Barr’s a curmudgeon if ever there were one.)

This is a conservative year; some liberal politicians will feel its sting. After November, however, many libertarians may find that they’ll have a harder road ahead, with fewer officeholders in support of their commitment to individual privacy rights. Having no alternative, we’ll push on. We’ve never been the big-crowd type, in any event.

It’s impossible to watch the Star Wars saga and not like Jedi Master Yoda. He’s one of the great science fiction characters of all time.

He’s not the only Jedi, however, and over at the Atlantic, Max Fisher asks of those guardians of the Old Republic: “Are Jedi Knights Libertarian or Socialist?”

Fisher notes that Canadian blogger P.M. Jaworski thinks that Jedi are libertarians, Jesse Kline thinks that they’re big government liberals, and Daniel Drezner thinks that they’re centrists. Here’s part of what Drezner has to say:

Are the Jedi big government advocates? That’s unclear. I think it would be more accurate to describe them as cartelistic — they refuse to permit a free market in learning the ways of the Force. After all, the Jedi Council’s initial inclination is not to train Anakin Skywalker despite his obvious talents, using some BS about fear as a cover.

Only when Qui-Gon threatens to go rogue do they relent. The Council does not inform the Senate that their ability to detect the force has been compromised.

They’re reluctant to expand their assigned tasks — they’re keepers of the peace, not soldiers. Just as clearly, their anti-competitive policies weakened their own productivity, given the fact that they were unable to detect a Sith Lord walking around right under their noses for over a decade.

I think Drezner’s right — not libertarians, and not socialists, either. I also think what he says about moderates would apply more nicely to so-called big government conservatives: they’re anti-market. The operate as a guild, and see the world that way. It’s a mostly closed order, no matter how cool it seems. (It does seem cool after all.)

One can see a version of this — although definitely not a cool version, in small-town government. A few people try to keep knowledge to themselves, for whatever reason (in town politics, these reasons are likely to be self-flattering and illegitimate).

As with other closed systems, the town grows unproductive over time, as uncompetitive systems always degenerate. Politicians’ husbanding of information and attempts to pick winners in the marketplace prove to be losing strategies when compared with system of free, private choices.

As for Yoda himself, however, I am quite certain of his views: deep down, he’s libertarian.

I’m just sure of it.

John Stossel tackles immigration tonight on his television program.

For part of the program “Reason‘s Nick Gillespie will debate the author of Arizona’s controversial new law requiring law enforcement to check for citizenship status, state Sen. Russell Pearce.”

At Fox Business, the topic’s “Libertarian Influence,” as Judge Andrew Napolitano talks with Nick Gillespie, Virginia Postrel, and John Stossel about the increasingly libertarian direction of American politics.

Link: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4285389/libertarian-influence/

The inability of Libertarians and Greens to field more candidates affects ballot access in the future. They will have to wait until 2012 to regain qualified status.

In the meantime, thousands of green or libertarian-leaning voters will influence races within major party contests.

It’s really the difference between being libertarian and Libertarian.

See, Libertarian and Green Parties Will Both Cease to be Qualified Parties in November 2010 Due to a Dearth of Statewide Candidates.

There’s a story from Indiana about how libertarians are fairing in that traditionally Republican state. Entitled, Libertarians Like Their Message, it describes a libertarian candidate as knowing that “your chances of winning are remote, but your goal is to finish as strong as possible and keep building for the future.”

That’s true for those libertarians who run as Libertarians; there are far more libertarians who are independents and swing voters.

There’s a good feeling about advocating something because one believes it and not simply running for personal ambition, hoping to work out a plan only after getting through the door. My preceding post, about how Wisconsin‘s major-party gubernatorial candidates have offered flimsy and incredible solutions, sometimes leads people to a libertarian alternative.

That’s why Chris Spangle, a libertarian from Indiana, can forthrightly say that “[t]here’s no party that represents true fiscal responsibility as much as Libertarians,” he said. “Republicans and sometimes even Democrats talk about libertarian values of fiscal responsibility, but once they get into power, they don’t follow though on all the promises they made.”

Politicians are wrong to blame voters for being apathetic, skeptical, or cynical. People aren’t born that way; if anything, people are too trusting. It’s the emptiness of political promises that leaves people justifiably weary and jaded. A more informed and energetic electorate would develop in a more honest, less selfish political culture. A smaller government would produce a better politics, less attractive to gluttonous politicians.

Years of the major parties pretending that sows’ ears are really silk purses, all the while living as pigs, has taken its toll.

Smaller and limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and commerce with friendly countries.

So, do libertarians like their message? Oh yes, very much indeed.

I’ve posted before about libertarian Drew Carey’s series for Reason.tv on ways to revitalize Cleveland (“the mistake on the lake.”) Those ways did not, and never will, include demonizing LeBron James for taking a job in Miami.

Here’s a follow-up to the Reason Saves Saves Cleveland with Drew Carey series, entitled, Lessons From LeBron:

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP7HCKweZiY.

Here’s the description accompanying this latest video:

LeBron James has decided to move to Florida and play for the Miami Heat rather than bear another season with the Cavaliers.

“Lessons from LeBron” was produced by Dan Hayes and Nick Gillespie. Production Assistant Joshua Swain.

There’s been a controversy over remarks that Rand Paul, a Republican candidate for U.S. senate made, about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While on an MSNBC program, Paul (the son of libertarian-leaning Republican Ron Paul) implied that he supported the right of private private businesses to decide whom to serve. (The 1964 Act prohibits the kind of discrimination Paul was discussing).

The next day, Paul announced that he was not advocating a repeal of any of the Civil Rights Act’s provisions, including those that ban private discrimination.

Paul was right to support all of the Act’s provisions. Although libertarians, as I am, favor as few government restrictions as possible, the federal 1964 Civil Rights Act was necessary to remove entrenched, discriminatory legal and social discrimination at the state and local level. Cathy Young, writing in Reason, takes a similar position:

As some strong champions of free markets, such as legal scholar Richard Epstein, have pointed out, racial segregation and discrimination by private businesses in the South was not simply the result of owners’ personal choices but of powerful societal pressure as well as coercion by state governments. Businesses that refused to discriminate were targeted for officially sanctioned or condoned harassment and intimidation.

Would “whites only” business practices have crumbled fast, as some libertarians believe, if the federal government had limited itself to dismantling the public foundations of segregation? Or was bigotry too pervasive, too deeply entrenched in minds and morals? The latter seems more likely. Moreover, for generations this private bigotry had been not only enabled but fostered by public policy, from slavery onward. Writing in The New Republic, John McWhorter, an insightful, iconoclastic black commentator, defends Paul’s and Stossel’s right to express their unorthodox views but also asserts that “the social rejection of racism was driven in large part by the head start, authority, finality, and even the drama of the legal banning of segregation.”

I am sure Epstein and McWhorter are right, and that the 1964 Act was necessary to overcome entrenched, enabled, immoral discrimination. To argue for limited government is to argue against the kind of locally-sanctioned bigotry that millions of Americans faced. Some laws are necessary to overcome far worse ones. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was necessary to overcome entrenched, active bigotry.

It’s simply unrealistic to argue against the Act, although there were a few men who were truly opposed to discrimination who did so at the time. (Young acknowledges this, too.)

Threats to liberty sometimes come not from a distant federal government, but for states and local governments that disregard fundamental principles of liberty, and act contrary to a centuries-long tradition of expanding freedom and consequent prosperity.

See, Racism, Civil Rights, and Libertarianism: Lessons from the Rand Paul Controversy.

For more on the Paul family, see Life with the Pauls, a Libertarian Family.

Fox Business Channel, a newer cable channel, is taking a libertarian tack, as the liberal Huffington Post notes in a story entitled, Are Libertarians a Political Force?.

Fox is no small enterprise, and committing one of its channels to a libertarian-leaning message shows how influential libertarian ideas are. The ideals of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peaceful relations abroad have had their ups and downs. They are, however, ideals that offer people better lives at a better standard of living than any political alternatives.

One will still meet people here or there who find some of these ideals strange, or which to ridicule those who hold them. No matter — the best of America’s past has rested, and her bright future will rest, on these beliefs.

For more on Fox programs like Stossel and Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show, see http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/ and http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/.

John Whitehead, who founded the Rutherford Institute, a right-leaning civil liberties organization, has an essay at the RI website about civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, formerly of the Village Voice, among other publications. See, Nat Hentoff: A Civil Libertarian Takes on Obama and the World.

Hentoff, a contrarian, and a bit of a cranky one, is also one of America’s great civil libertarians. Now eighty-five, he’s been advocating for civil liberties his entire life, tirelessly and effectively. He’s very much a model of a dedicated American. I’d disagree with Hentoff on any number of points (he describes himself contrarily, for example, as a Jewish atheist), but I can think of no one who’d do a better job advocating on behalf of someone’s rights and liberty. Truly, I can think of no one from our time who would be a better advocate.

Hentoff also appreciates and knows jazz well, and that’s admirable. I grew up in a jazz-loving household, favoring that music over any other all these years, and Hentoff’s reviews and assessments have always seemed insightful.

Here’s part of Whitehead’s description of Hentoff:

At the age of 85, Nat Hentoff is a radical in the best sense of the word- a true freedom fighter and warrior journalist with a deep-seated intolerance of injustice. His integrity and willingness to buck the trends have earned him the well-deserved reputation of being one of our nation’s most respected, controversial and uncompromising writers.

Armed with a keen understanding of the law and an enviable way with words, brandishing a rapier wit and teeming with moral outrage, Nat has never been one to back down from a fight, and there have been many over the course of his lifetime – one marked by controversy and fueled by his passion for the protection of civil liberties and human rights. There was the time Nat testified for stand-up comic and political satirist Lenny Bruce during his obscenity trial; stood up for a woman rejected from law school for being white; called into Oliver North’s talk show to voice his agreement about liberal intolerance for free speech; and resigned from the ACLU in protest of their position on assisted suicide, as well as their position against revealing the results of HIV tests on newborn babies.

This is also a man who has walked among political and cultural giants and lived to tell the tale. He was friends with Malcolm X, was labeled “the Antichrist” by Louis Farrakhan, and came to know some of the most talented jazzmen of all time – Duke Ellington, Thelonious Monk, Charles Mingus, and Dizzy Gillespie, to name a few. He also wrote liner notes for such musical greats as Bob Dylan, Billie Holiday, and Aretha Franklin….

It’s people like Nat Hentoff who keep us honest, inspire us, and push us to think. As he once told me:

“I am optimistic. I have to be optimistic, as I know you are. That is why you keep writing and keep doing what you do. You have to do this because we have been through very dark periods before. There are enough people who are starting to be actively involved that we can turn things around. And we need to encourage others to become involved.”

Nat Hentoff, thanks for being “a general pain in the ass.” We’ve all been the better for it.

It’s easy to be optimistic for an America that produces champions like Hentoff. I’d say it’s impossible, truly, to be anything other than an optimist for so many reasons. Hentoff’s work has its place among those many reasons. The Rutherford Institute’s right to acknowledge and praise that admirable, impressive work.

There’s a story at the New York Times website about the Pauls, a libertarian family that’s typical of many libertarian families except in the political prominence of father and son. See, For Paul Family, Libertarian Ethos Began at Home.

Here are descriptions of family life in the household:

In keeping with their position as the First Family of Libertarianism, the Pauls of Lake Jackson, Tex., did not have many rules around their home.

“Behave yourself and be polite” is how Representative Ron Paul describes his regulatory philosophy about rearing five children. Mr. Paul, a Republican, and his wife of 53 years, Carol, never believed in assigned chores or mandates.

They did not give out allowances, which they viewed as a parental version of a government handout. They did not believe in strict curfews; Mr. Paul says that unintended consequences – like speeding home to beat the clock – can result from excessive meddling from a central authority.

While Mr. Paul’s laissez-faire views produced a family of likeminded thinkers – “We’re all on board,” says the oldest son, Ronnie Paul – they inspired the middle child, Rand, to follow his father’s career path, first into medicine and now politics. If he prevails in November after winning the Republican nomination for a Senate seat in Kentucky last month, he and his father would form a two-man libertarian dynasty.

Father and son are described as each other’s political sounding boards, confidants and support systems. “Dad and Rand spent hours having great philosophical discussions about issues,” said Joy Paul Leblanc, the youngest sibling….

Friends of the family describe a traditional household with early American decor and the frequent aroma of Mrs. Paul’s chocolate chip cookies, if not fish sticks. They have lived since July 4, 1968, in the same middle-class enclave of Lake Jackson, where the streets are named for trees, flowers and fauna (the Pauls live on Blossom). They owned a series of collies (Julie, Kippy and Cricket) and a Maltese (Liberty), and the kids were expected, though not required, to feed the pooches, make their own beds, clear their own dishes from the table and not talk back to their elders.

Much of that description would apply to libertarian families without ambitions for political office. If you’ve grown up in a ‘movement’ family, including families that leaned libertarian before the term ‘libertarian’ was coined, you probably find much of this description familiar. I’ve never, ever met a libertarian family in this country that wasn’t proudly American, and also cosmopolitan in a commitment to peaceful relations and trade with friendly countries.

I note, however, that not everyone is born into a libertarian household. Some, unfortunately, experience mistreatment at the hands of government, and become libertarian after experiencing that mistreatment. (Radley Balko contends that people like that find libertarianism as a consequence of something that “happens to them.”) See, Libertarianism as an Experience. Others were born into a household like the Pauls, drift away for a bit, and return forever committed to libertarian views.

For those who grew up as the Pauls did, though, I think there’s a typical gratitude for an upbringing that’s both happy and principled.

2008 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr spoke to this weekend’s 2010 LP Convention. He posted his address online at his website.

Here are excerpts from his address:

Keynote Address Before The National Convention of the Libertarian Party
Delivered By Bob Barr, 2008 Libertarian Party Nominee for President of the United States
At St. Louis, Missouri On Saturday, May 29, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Fellow Libertarians, it is an honor to stand before you today, in 2010, as I did two years ago in accepting the Libertarian Party nomination for President of the United States. In these past two years, many of the consequences which we predicted in 2008 would befall America in the absence of Libertarian Party leadership, have in fact occurred. America’s national debt has ballooned to record and dangerous levels; government spending has risen to levels for which the term “irresponsible” fails to adequately convey the magnitude thereof; our civil liberties, supposed to be guaranteed against government encroachment in our Bill of Rights, continue to be diminished; property rights, understood by us as a fundamental underpinning of a free society, today remain naked in the face of government power; and the sanctity of the right to contract enjoys even less currency today than it did in 2008….

The privileges or immunities clause in the 14th Amendment – intended to protect fundamental rights such as the right to keep and bear arms, belonging to all free men – was artificially and dramatically weakened by an intellectually vapid Supreme Court in 1873’s Slaughterhouse Cases decision. (And there remain to this day justices in that body who pay hollow allegiance to that liberty-debilitating decision.)….

Each time economic rights and powers are taken from the American people, whether by the “Square Deal,” “New Deal,” or the “Great Society,” Atlas’ knees bend a little bit more. Every program that sucks vitality from free enterprise, and which steals from the American people the fruits of their labor, causes the ground to shift beneath Atlas, making it harder still for him to stand and bear the weight of free men on his shoulders….

Relevant Libertarianism means articulating a message using words comprehensible to others who may not be steeped in our movement’s work. What is Relevant Libertarianism?

Relevant Libertarianism tells America’s business – small and large — that their long years of having the regulatory and tax tails of the dog dictate their entire business plan need no longer continue.

Relevant Libertarianism shows American families that control of the education of their children will be once again placed in their hands, not those of government bureaucrats.

Relevant Libertarianism indicates unequivocally that decisions between a patient and a doctor are made between the patient and the doctor, without the intervening and arbitrary filter of so-called “government health care” bureaucrats or, even worse, the IRS.

Relevant Libertarianism promises America’s taxpayers that the country’s oppressive, complex, unfair and unfathomable tax system must and will be dismantled – not all at once or overnight, but that at least the process of dismantling it will begin.

Relevant Libertarianism reminds voters that they can at long last have a real voice for real change in our country’s political present and future.

Relevant Libertarianism clarifies that our system of criminal laws and procedures, which continues to grow and manifest itself far, far beyond those laws that are necessary or even reasonable for a free and ordered society, will be fundamentally reevaluated and reconstituted so as to protect liberty rather than stifling and taking liberty a criminal law “Grace Commission,” so to speak).

Relevant Libertarianism ensures that those laws on the books that are necessary and reasonable to ensure freedom, liberty and a fair and open economic system, are actually enforced consistently and appropriately; and not by creating massive, oppressive, and intrusive regulatory structures every time there is a problem within a particular sector of our economy.

Relevant Libertarianism shouts loud and clear across the land that the days of the Nanny State are over and the re-dawning of the Freedom State are again within the grasp of the American people.

These messages, which already resonate in the hearts of the vast majority of Americans, must be articulated by us through a short, clear and precise platform and agenda that is unequivocal in its enunciation of real-life political freedom. The message must be brought to individuals, businesses and communities across the country by candidates who are articulate and who can and will relate to real-life voters and businesspeople….

Our work will be his hope – America’s hope – for a real rebirth of Liberty in the real world. This is our challenge; this is America’s challenge. If we fail, America fails; and the world will be a far colder, darker place for generations to come. We cannot allow that to happen. Let us commit here, in two thousand and ten — in the year of America’s independence the two-hundred and thirty-fourth – that the Libertarian Party will at long last meet its true potential and destiny in the real world; for real, living Freedom….

2010 LP Convention Remarks of Bob Barr.

Almost everyone in American who is burdened of politics knows what a fuss Rand Paul, a senate candidate from Kentucky, raised through his remarks on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul and his father are libertarians, but also candidates of the Republican party. The left has made great sport of the younger Paul’s remarks, not simply as his remarks, but as an attack on libertarian philosophy itself.

There have been many prominent defenses of this venerable political view, one worthily and easily defended. Terry Michael’s “In Defense of Libertarianism” in Reason is one of them.

I’ve had a commenter write twice to mention Ron Paul. (I assume it’s the same commenter, writing two posts, a week apart.) He’s not shown up this week, but then it’s a holiday.

Michael styles his defense as an open letter to the left, part of which appears below:

To my left-liberal Democrat friends:

As you engage in intellectual dishonesty using Rand Paul’s silly comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act to misrepresent libertarianism, perhaps you might want to consider a little history of the political philosophy of the founder of our party, Thomas Jefferson, the original libertarian. Let me help you escape your ignorance about libertarianism without a capital L, a political philosophy far from conservatism….

Classical liberalism, on the other hand, has lasted centuries. It was a natural fit for an Agrarian Era, with self-sustaining farmers, frontiersmen, and shop keepers. When the Industrial Era arrived, these individualists railed against “wage labor.” They wanted no part of centralized industry and its abuses. Corporate excesses fed Progressive Era reformers, who promoted one-size-fits-all government to address the sins of the Robber Barons.

With adoption of the income tax and world wars, a depression, and a big tax-paying middle class after World War II, Big Government was in full bloom by the 1960s, complete with a tax-hungry Cold War military industrial complex, entitlement programs that devoured revenue, and government dependency by both an impoverished underclass and a corporate welfare class.

Then came the push-back that brought Ronald Reagan to power….

Concurrent with abandonment of the New Deal and Great Society by large blocks of voters, there arrived the third great economic wave, the Information Age, which intellectually empowers individuals, allowing them to enjoy more control over their own economic lives….

Of course, Rand Paul was ridiculous questioning four-decade-old settled law that recognized slavery and segregation as conditions justifying the coercive power of the state to prohibit discrimination. We libertarians could give you a long list of things, like fighting crime and enforcing contracts, we regard as appropriate for state intrusion. We just insist the use of government power be minimal, consistent with individual liberty and responsibility.

I’d agree.

I’ll write more about Rand Paul’s remarks over the weekend.

I posted on May 18th about an Environmental Protection Agency contest, entitled “Rulemaking Matters,” that offers twenty-five hundred deficit-financed dollar ($2,500) prize “for the public to explain federal rulemaking and motivate others to participate in the rulemaking process.” The libertarians of Reason.tv submitted three videos to the EPA, one of which I embedded before. See, Reason.tv: Federal Regulations and You – Partners in Democracy.

Here’s another of those videos, entitled (and subtitled!) Rulemaking Matters! Enjoy.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvXmDaqNueU

There’s a brief article in New York Magazine about libertarian John Stossel. Stossel now has his own show on the Fox Business Network, after almost thirty years at ABC. (Fox Business and Fox News are different channels.)

The article shares a few tidbits that one may not have heard before, including the enmity that the late Peter Jennings held for Stossel, disliking Stossel’s advocacy journalism. (Too funny, really, that Jennings saw advocacy in Stossel, but didn’t seem to notice his own consistent advocacy, including a lamentable bias against Israel, the Middle East’s only democracy. Here, I am quite sure the advantage is Stossel’s.)

What’s on the calendar for Stossel? The article mentions that he’s “editing an upcoming special called What’s Great About America, in which he celebrates, among other things, racial tolerance and the entrepreneurial spirit.” Stossel has critics, too:

A guy came up to me recently and said, “I hope you die soon,” Stossel says. “A lawyer from Legal Aid. He viewed my reporting as an attack on the poor because I said government doesn’t help. I find that interesting. People forget that before we had a welfare system there were these mutual-aid societies that were ethnically exclusionary: Koreans helping Koreans, blacks helping blacks. They knew better who needed help and who needed a kick in the ass.”

Stossel’s show airs Thursdays at 7 p.m. central on the Fox Business Channel.

See, Tea-Vee Time. (The title’s an anachronism: most libertarians easily pre-date the Tea Party movement, a movement that is, in any event, only partly libertarian.)