Comments on: Barr Defines Libertarianism

By: Gary Treistman

Gary Treistman — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 06:21:17 +0000

To A deT.:

No doubt the Founders would cringe at such a statement. Their concern was not so much one of individual liberty, but rather one of independent sovereignty from the federal government from things unenumerated in the Constitution and Amendments.
It is a dirty little secret that the Constitution is not a libertarian document, but rather one that largely coincides with many libertarian axioms. This is a dangerous point for Libertarians, because although we generally laud the Constitution, we don’t really agree with it in toto, and that is something we have in common with say the communist party. It doesn’t take much to take that fact and say libertarians reject the Constitution and want to overthroh (<– for the internet spiders) it.
In short, some goals we have as libertarians simply do not comport with the mandates of the Constitution – and that includes limiting states’ rights via federal law that is closer to a libertarian ideal.

By: A deT.

A deT. — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:06:06 +0000

“If a libertarian candidate could strengthen the federal governmentâ€™s ability to limit the statesâ€™ rights to impose liberty restricting laws, then he should do it, statesâ€™ rights be damned.”

The Founders would cringe at that one.

By: Waldo

Waldo — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:13:08 +0000

Y’all protestin’ too much, Mande! WTF does FITS News care about DOMA? Gay people are just a punch line on here.

By: Gary Treistman

Gary Treistman — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:20:25 +0000

When Bob Barr is asked a direct question of libertarianism, like “Why do you support the Defense of Marriage Act, when it limits the choices of people to marry as they see fit?” and then answers “I just want to limit the federal government’s ability to limit states ability to make laws as they see fit”, all he is advocating is a states rights issue.
That answer is NOT a libertarian fundamental.
If a libertarian candidate could strengthen the federal government’s ability to limit the states’ rights to impose liberty restricting laws, then he should do it, states’ rights be damned.
States’ rights are generally a good thing because it empowers the local populace and decentralizes government. But it is not fundamentally a good thing from a libertarian stance. What is good from a libertarian stance is the succession of laws that limit liberty and choices.

By: Jim Peterson

Jim Peterson — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:07:07 +0000

In order to get rid of the idea that he might still be a socon, Barr is going to have to state something along the lines of “porn falls under the 1st Amendment” or whatever. So far, he has only stated that he doesn’t think there is anything “immoral” about homosexuality. Fine Sir. You seem to have no problem giving a nod to gay sexuality…but I want to see you do a convincing job of defending the private sex lives of heterosexuals who are in no hurry to get married.

By: D in NH

D in NH — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:36:58 +0000

People can change positions. I grew up in a Massachuseetts liberal family. High Taxes, no guns, no fireworks, no pot and putting so much confidence in Government that when they ignored the popular vote and did the opposite people still bowed to them.

That is why I moved North of the Border to NH and if you want to label me a looney or a Marxist or any other ignorant phrase to justify bashing freedom go for it. I need to go with an open carry pistol (No Permit Required) to drive a car without a Seat Belt and go to a friends house to light fireworks. Go back to a dictator state if you want to control your neighbors and leave me alone.

Barr is saying the right things even if his voting record is different. How is that any different from all the other politicians including Obama and Mccain? At least Bob’s message matches my own believe in following the Constituition. There should only be like 550 employees in Washington and a Military sufficient to protect us from Dangers. Not over 1 million on Federal that do not represent my beliefs and force me to pay taxes to support it……

By: more parties for more liberty

more parties for more liberty — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:10:23 +0000

The notion of not voting for Barr because Obama might then win is warped thinking from a participant in a flawed two party system .

Neither McCain nor Obama is a fiscal conservative. Each want to dramatically increase federal spending – Obamam with socialized medicine, tMcCain with more war- all financed with more debt.Neither candidate wants to shut down or dramatically reduce any federal program or agency.

The question for any intelligent voter is , Why vote for either one of them ?

By: John

John — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:43:59 +0000

Shrinking the size of government is the same thing as expanding liberty.

That’s liberarianism.

By: George Whitfield

George Whitfield — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:19:33 +0000

I like Bob Barr. He is not ideal, But he is a whole lot better than Obama, McCain, and Nader. I will be voting for the Libertarian Bob Barr for President. Peace, prosperity and liberty are too important for America for us just to sit back and criticize.

By: Malesapphist

Malesapphist — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:31:39 +0000

Look at his former district; He was representin not thinking.