Philadelphia Inquirer: John McCain’s worst nightmare?
May 2nd, 2008 by Stephen Gordon“I want to move the agenda of smaller government and increased individual liberty forward; help the Libertarian party to become a major, consistent player on the national political scene; raise the level of debate; bring the issues of smaller government back to the table, and cut government spending - that’s at the root of all the issues facing the American people,” said Bob Barr in a recent interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer. “I want to end the artificial control of the economy and end burdensome taxation; take a hard look at cutting cabinet positions; reduce the cost of the occupation of Iraq by beginning the process of removing the security blanket from the Iraqi regime . . . return respect for habeas corpus; reinstate the rule of law; stop the warrantless surveillance of American citizens; and remedy the abuses of the Patriot Act. . . .”
It’s an interesting interview which covers issues from why Barr left the Republican Party to Barr’s suggestion that John McCain may act as a spoiler for his potential campaign.
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
AOL has a blog titled Bob Barr for President. Fair piece.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/05/03/bob-barr-for-president/
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Go Bob Go! The two party system is broken, rigged and undemocratic. Other countries have more than two parties–why can’t we!
May 6th, 2008 at 11:04 am
If your comments are moderated, you are not a Libertarian. I’ll find out when I hit ’submit comment’. Bob, I agree with you to a certain extent. That is, the power needs to be returned to the people. But, to have unregulated capitalism is not synonymous with freedom. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of production. There is nothing free market about American or global economics. Free markets would keep corporate or financial hegemony from forming by not allowing monopolistic organizations any more than monopolistic government. Free market responses to corporate hegemony are checks against that power in the form of laws that allow collective bargaining. Which our laws as of 1947 do not support. The list goes on and on. This laissez faire belief of libertarians that privatization of everything is absurd. If our founding fathers wanted anarchy, they would have devised it. What we need to do is bust up concentrated power so that markets work. And, that means the government must play the role of rule maker or referee to markets to allow that to happen. Views of Libertarians are very misguided and that laissez faire view of economics is what is destroying our country.
If we truly had free markets and people rely on them, we wouldn’t need a nanny state to take care of us. But our ability to fend for ourselves in this type of economic environment are being destroyed. Thus, you and others like you miss the point. The ability to downsize goverment is dependent upon freedom in our markets and our economy. Not the other way around. People may not be able to verbalize it as I have but they clearly understand what has happened to them economically over the last few decades. And, that is why you and others like you have a message that will never be elected. Your views on freedoms are admirable and noble but your philosophy is completely erroneous.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:40 am
It’s too bad that this person’s ideas aren’t more clearly written. Some of their points are interesting but I got lost in the lack of clarity. Too bad. As
As I understand, the ability to control gov’t is dependant upon the ” freedom” of the markets and economy, but gov’t regulation is necessary to control the direction of the freedom????? I may not agree as I understand the message; however, the voicing of the idea is what’s important and missing in todays dialogue.
Thanks
May 12th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
WeShallSee, I respect your opinion and the view you take, however I disagree in some regards. I do agree that the government does have an obligation to protect its citizens from abuses by monopolistic corporations. Providing this protection is a job that is too large for anyone to cary out other than the federal government, however, you must use this tool sparringly and only in the most serious circumstances. The reason for this is two-fold. First, as a corporation’s market share grows larger, it’s ability to react quickly to changes in consumer demand deminishes, creating oportunities for new companies to form and exploit the larger firms weakness. This process encourages innovation and ultimately benfits the consumer who receives better services at falling prices. This process is currently not functioning as it should in our country do to the tax-breaks and corruption of our elected officials and the unbridled lobbying going on in Washington. Blame our failing political system for this, not free market economics. This highlights my second point, which is that we cannot trust elected officials to determine with any fairness which corporations are to be penalized and which should be allowed to flourish. This would amount to the same tax-breaks and handouts, just alloted in a different way. Rather than Exxon lobbying for energy subsidies and special tax-breaks, they would lobby for BP (their competition) to be penalized as a monopoly. Central planning can NEVER provide as many benefits to the consumer as responsible capitalism. But remember that I said capitalism and not consumerism which I think is more in line with where your grievances lie. What we have in America today is “state funded consumerism” not “responibly regulated free market capitalism.” In a true free-market you have the ability to choose if and when you will participate, unlike in state funded consumerism where you will be (over)taxed and your money will be redistributed as the government sees fit whether you like it or not.