Comments on: Tax Day — and Bob Barr’s Year http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/ Conservatism for punks. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:39:23 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Todd Seavey http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/comment-page-1/#comment-13022 Todd Seavey Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:25:26 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/#comment-13022 I don't think Barr wants to legalize drugs, but he's moved toward greater sympathy with that position, and the two major parties show no interest in legalization, so his waffling there doesn't trouble me any more than the stable positions of his opponents do. I'm willing to judge him by other criteria -- though a clear-cut Bushian vs. standard-issue (yet widely known) libertarian, legalization and all, would certainly make this easier. I don’t think Barr wants to legalize drugs, but he’s moved toward greater sympathy with that position, and the two major parties show no interest in legalization, so his waffling there doesn’t trouble me any more than the stable positions of his opponents do. I’m willing to judge him by other criteria — though a clear-cut Bushian vs. standard-issue (yet widely known) libertarian, legalization and all, would certainly make this easier.

]]> By: Ken Silber http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/comment-page-1/#comment-13021 Ken Silber Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:04:10 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/#comment-13021 I'm ready to take the Yes side in a debate on Is McCain Any Good? or even Should Libertarians Support McCain?, etc. Though granted, sometimes McCain doesn't help. I’m ready to take the Yes side in a debate on Is McCain Any Good? or even Should Libertarians Support McCain?, etc. Though granted, sometimes McCain doesn’t help.

]]> By: E5 http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/comment-page-1/#comment-13020 E5 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:48:40 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/#comment-13020 your thoughts on the following: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/articles/48/no-way-to-treat-a-friend/ specifically the following 2 quotes: "As the world's largest producer by far of cocaine, Colombia occupies a pivotal position in the U.S. effort to stem the tide of illicit drug trafficking in our country." "If Congress truly wants the plan work better, the solution would be not to dry up funding but to provide more flexibility for its implementation." I have raised 2 questions that the Barr campaign has been consistently dodging: 1) Does the first quote above mean that Barr is in favor of US efforts to stem the flow of illicit drugs to begin with? 2) Does the second quote mean the justification for giving MY tax dollars to Columbia is somehow related to what Columbia does with the money or how effective it's results are? So we are now okay with gov't taxation for foreign aid, only so long as the foreign aid is going to a "good purpose"? I had a friend at the LP email my questions to the Barr campaign and they dodged them completely... they provided a straw man argument along the lines of "yeah, some anti Barr libertarians alas say he wants to nuke Colombia", then proceeded to refute it. I have no patience to play the "we both know I'm dodging your question but I'm gonna pretend not to understand it" game with his campaign. Do you read those quotes (in full context) any differently than written by someone who is in favor of some form of US drug war (maybe nitpick details here or there), or as someone who at least agrees with Congress' moral and legal authority to take my money and give it to others, and merely want's to defend taht this specific form od aid is okay? E5 your thoughts on the following:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/articles/48/no-way-to-treat-a-friend/

specifically the following 2 quotes:
“As the world’s largest producer by far of cocaine, Colombia occupies a pivotal position in the U.S. effort to stem the tide of illicit drug trafficking in our country.”

“If Congress truly wants the plan work better, the solution would be not to dry up funding but to provide more flexibility for its implementation.”

I have raised 2 questions that the Barr campaign has been consistently dodging:

1) Does the first quote above mean that Barr is in favor of US efforts to stem the flow of illicit drugs to begin with?

2) Does the second quote mean the justification for giving MY tax dollars to Columbia is somehow related to what Columbia does with the money or how effective it’s results are?

So we are now okay with gov’t taxation for foreign aid, only so long as the foreign aid is going to a “good purpose”?

I had a friend at the LP email my questions to the Barr campaign and they dodged them completely… they provided a straw man argument along the lines of “yeah, some anti Barr libertarians alas say he wants to nuke Colombia”, then proceeded to refute it.

I have no patience to play the “we both know I’m dodging your question but I’m gonna pretend not to understand it” game with his campaign.

Do you read those quotes (in full context) any differently than written by someone who is in favor of some form of US drug war (maybe nitpick details here or there), or as someone who at least agrees with Congress’ moral and legal authority to take my money and give it to others, and merely want’s to defend taht this specific form od aid is okay?

E5

]]> By: Todd Seavey http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/comment-page-1/#comment-13007 Todd Seavey Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:42:45 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/#comment-13007 The debate audio, too, might be a threat to democracy and must be suppressed. Actually, I asked NY ICE if they were posting the video they made of the immigration debate they participated in but have heard nothing yet, so to speak -- but here (on our moderator's site) is the audio for an earlier debate, about the value or lack thereof of the Ivy League that spawned those of us in this Response thread: http://michel.evanchik.net/2007/10/05/is-the-ivy-league-superior-a-lolita-bar-debate-recording/ The debate audio, too, might be a threat to democracy and must be suppressed. Actually, I asked NY ICE if they were posting the video they made of the immigration debate they participated in but have heard nothing yet, so to speak — but here (on our moderator’s site) is the audio for an earlier debate, about the value or lack thereof of the Ivy League that spawned those of us in this Response thread:

http://michel.evanchik.net/2007/10/05/is-the-ivy-league-superior-a-lolita-bar-debate-recording/

]]> By: jenny http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/comment-page-1/#comment-12992 jenny Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:03:23 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/#comment-12992 when are you going to get around to podcasting those monthly debates, anyway? when are you going to get around to podcasting those monthly debates, anyway?

]]> By: Jacob T. Levy http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/comment-page-1/#comment-12990 Jacob T. Levy Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:54:42 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/15/tax-day-and-bob-barrs-year/#comment-12990 "like the Founders, I don’t award any points for speechmaking, which simply makes demagoguery, always a danger, that much easier" Not *quite* sure who you have in mind, but this is more wrong than right. Eloquence and mastery of rhetoric were highly valued-- and understood to be properties of the educated. It wasn't until the rise of the plain-spoken demagogue Andrew Jackson that this was fully eclipsed. Hannah Arendt may have misunderstood an awfuul lot about the American Revolution, but her emphasis on the high value the Founders on speaking great words was right. “like the Founders, I don’t award any points for speechmaking, which simply makes demagoguery, always a danger, that much easier”

Not *quite* sure who you have in mind, but this is more wrong than right. Eloquence and mastery of rhetoric were highly valued– and understood to be properties of the educated. It wasn’t until the rise of the plain-spoken demagogue Andrew Jackson that this was fully eclipsed. Hannah Arendt may have misunderstood an awfuul lot about the American Revolution, but her emphasis on the high value the Founders on speaking great words was right.

]]>