Hear, hear!!

I’ve grown accustomed to an underdog, what-the-hell-did-he-just-say status, and even kind of like it.

I’d have to say that recent experience on this site is leading me to believe that for at least some liberals, they care more about the means than the ends. If there is a possible conflict, they will reflexively support the means (enlarging and centralizing coercive state powers) and sacrifice the ends (social safety nets, civil liberties, an end to the imperial military industrial complex). I have repeatedly made arguments that the problems bemoaned by liberals have, as their cause, government interventions from a generation or more ago. But instead of entertaining the idea that ending that intervention might help solve the problem, the common response is “better to give the institution that created this problem more power and hope it will do what I want it to do!”

I had a similar hope as you - but so far, such suggestions have at best been misconstrued into strawman arguments, and at worst, have been rejected as “utopian” out of hand. I’m sure that there are a few liberals out there who approach this project with an open mind - but don’t expect it to be the dominant response.

If most libertarians are anarchist, the direction of talks about libertarianism and liberalism together should focus on direct action ways in which liberals can accomplish liberal goals through libertarian (in this case specifically anarchist) means. I remember a while back I looked at the campaign waged by Ben and Jerry to encourage people to write their Congressman to support an effort to cut military spending a small percent and use that money for education, health care, etc. I worked it out that if liberals gave the same amount to charity that conservatives did, they’d be able to pay directly for all of those improvements they wanted to pay with the military spending.

This is not a defense of the military budget, just pointing out that maybe instead of a political discussion about libertarians voting for liberals, we may need a discussion about how liberals can accomplish their goals through libertarian means.

I don’t know how much of the libertarian blogosphere is anarchist. Certainly not the majority of Ron Paul supporters? I also sometimes wonder if my perception is bias because I have been so heavily influenced by left-libertarians and agorists, to I just seem to know more anarchist libertarians online than the population as a whole.

http://www.numbersusa.com/index

http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/04/ron-pauls-immigration-pledge/

If illegal immigrants pay into Social Security, I don’t see any justice in not letting them then collect. But if they do not pay in, is Paul’s point an example of “disgraceful xenophobia”?

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/25/is-this-libertarianism.aspx

What “disgraceful xenophobic tactics of his campaign” are you referring to?

Here’s an example…

No politician — or pundit, blogger or movement — is going to change the fundamentals of politics, which is about power. But in my view, Obama holds the best prospects for doing some of the more important things right, while being less likely to do significant, off-setting bad ones.

But I could be wrong.

What “disgraceful xenophobic tactics of his campaign” are you referring to?

Lately, he’s claimed to be reexamining drug policy. But fuck that — I’m voting Obama.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/05/12/who-is-bob-barr.aspx

I was willing to give Barr a chance when he first became a Libertarian, but since he’s entered the race he’s stuck to standard politician doublespeak. I’m not impressed. He’s just a johnny-come-lately to libertarianism who only joined the LP after they helped run him out of his House seat. A classic case of “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”

I liked Ron Paul just fine. No, he’s not the ideal revolutionary leader, but he was sincere in his opposition to the US Empire and the federal police state. He had the track record to back it up.