A libertarian supporting torture? Interesting.

Did you also support the extended incarceration without trial of Jose Padilla, an American citizen?

I was listening to Rush the other day,and he was going off how a third party will fail, and isn't the way to go. That we must regain the GOP,and so forth and so on. Usual being a GOP tool stuff and rhetoric.

However, I didn't see him saying how the Patriot Act was wrong,as I have come to discover. How the GOP is a big tent of Georgetown elites,special interest, and complainant conservatives RINOs.

I am a conservative libertarian, and will vote only for a person that I agree with, not the lesser of two evils.

If the object of this article is to make one think then let’s look at another opinion. Is the answer to a Democratic congress and senate Libertarians, no I’m afraid not. Not when you’re pulling 3% of the vote. The issues are not Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian the issues are conservative vs. liberal. I think we have all seen liberals are in every party. The real question is who, actually running, will represent you closest to your beliefs.

During this last election the backlash against Republicans was frankly childish. People were ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater and now they we must live the reality of what they did. Thankfully senator Chambliss was elected and Jim Martin was not. Do I like Senator Chambliss? No of course not but I liked Martin a lot less. What did I think of President Bush? He’s a Liberal not a conservative just like Senator McCain. Would I vote for Chambliss if a more conservative candidate ran, no of course not but he was the most conservative choice in the general election.

A Marxist was elected president and the independent voters including Libertarians gave him the legislative majority he needed to force his agenda. If Democrats really want to pass something there is little that can be done to stop it. Today the reality is Cap and Trade. Universal Health Care, Cash for Clunkers, and Corporate welfare on a scale never before seen. Let’s not forget Justice Sotomayor, ACORN, and tax cheats. It may take years to undo the damage.

I read this blog regularly and rarely comment but reading this blog during the election left me with the impression that most Libertarians were drunk on the “Change” cocktail but it was a different kind of change. Well you guys who voted change got the change you wanted and the day after the election the hangover started. It will last at least 2 years, maybe more. I guess I can live with it, what choice do I have but I do not feel the least bit sorry for those who complain that voted for revenge. They got just what they deserve and I got a different side of the Libertarians, a side which turned off this voter. This article did not make me mad but I am angry and probably not at whom the author of this article wants me to be.

The issues are not Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian the issues are conservative vs. liberal.

This is the problem with the thinking of most conservatives. The issues are not "conservative vs. liberal," the issues are liberty vs. the State.

Thankfully senator Chambliss was elected and Jim Martin was not. Do I like Senator Chambliss? No of course not but I liked Martin a lot less.

The two are not that far off from each other. Chambliss is a big spender, so is Martin. Chambliss has voted against the Constitution, Martin would have as well (though he is much better on civil liberties).

I skipped this race in the runoff because I didn't want to vote for either one.

A Marxist was elected president and the independent voters including Libertarians gave him the legislative majority he needed to force his agenda.

Calling Obama a Marxist is a stretch. He certainly worships the State, but he isn't nearly as bad from a historical point-of-view than FDR.

Libertarians, in terms of the party, did not help Barack Obama. Bob Barr was the difference in two states, Indiana and North Carolina. Both were statistically insignificant considering the margin of victory that Obama had.

Now, libertarians, in terms of followers of the philosophy, are independent voters and did, according to polls, support Obama over McCain. However, not all or even most libertarians would consider themselves to be Libertarians.

[R]eading this blog during the election left me with the impression that most Libertarians were drunk on the “Change” cocktail but it was a different kind of change.

Dunno how you got that impression, considering I beat up on Obama as much as McCain.

I disagree most of the complaints are spending and taxation, not necessarily a liberty vs. State but to think the Obama administration is better on liberty just read the privacy provisions in the health care bill as a start. I think you’ll find the Obama presidency has little regard for personal liberty. Don’t let the patriot act blind you to the other loses of liberty.

I disagree again Jim Martin’s history has shown there is not a government program he did not like and he stated he would support President Obama’s agenda.
FDR was bad but I think President Obama has far exceeded what FDR accomplished. Maybe if WWII had not happened FDR would have been worse. I believe Obama is a Marxist because of his past statements and writing. I have seen little evidence that he has changed his views.

Maybe a clarification here Libertarians and Independents helped democrats in legislative races across the country. They made little if any difference here in Georgia however that was not the case everywhere.

Jason you are not the only person whose post I read on this blog and yes you did beat up on Obama and McCain. That comment was not about you singularly.

I disagree most of the complaints are spending and taxation, not necessarily a liberty vs. State but to think the Obama administration is better on liberty just read the privacy provisions in the health care bill as a start. I think you’ll find the Obama presidency has little regard for personal liberty. Don’t let the patriot act blind you to the other loses of liberty.

You're confusing what I said. Barack Obama has showed, since September of last year, to be bad on privacy rights. My comments about civil liberties were in context of Jim Martin, not Barack Obama.

You're also being selective about mentioning privacy issues, as if that's all I write about. It's not. My biggest concern is the loss of economic liberty in this country, which is a failure of both Democrats and Republicans. My posts about taxes and spending far out number any posts on privacy issues.

I disagree again Jim Martin’s history has shown there is not a government program he did not like and he stated he would support President Obama’s agenda.

Martin, from talks I had with people close to his campaign, was adamantly opposed to increasing powers available to the president, regardless of party, and was concerned about harm done to the Fourth Amendment.

FDR was bad but I think President Obama has far exceeded what FDR accomplished. Maybe if WWII had not happened FDR would have been worse. I believe Obama is a Marxist because of his past statements and writing. I have seen little evidence that he has changed his views.

This statement defies reality. You can check out The Roosevelth Myth and FDR's Folly and read for yourself what FDR did. The 30's transformed America in many ways, mostly for the worst.

FDR had a blank check, if you will. No one questioned him. He spent a ton of money, passed regulation after regulation (much more than Obama could ever dream of passing) and created Social Security. FDR also forced private owners of gold to give up what they had and give it to the State.

While Obama is much more radical than he ever let on, he is not a Marxist. A statist? For sure. A socialist? Probably.

Maybe a clarification here Libertarians and Independents helped democrats in legislative races across the country. They made little if any difference here in Georgia however that was not the case everywhere.

I reject the idea that Libertarians steal votes or help Democrats. This is a scapegoat for Republicans that don't want to own up to their own failures. These votes don't belong to either party and if a candidate cannot win them on their own, it is his fault.

Jason, you may reject that idea but many libertarians did just that. When someone cast a vote for someone with whom they have less in common only to teach the other person a lesson I must question their logic. Everyone has failures, even it seams, Ron Paul has a problem with pork. No one is or every will be perfect.

I don't have all that much in common with Republicans. I am a libertarian, not a conservative. The left/right spectrum does not apply to me.

Jason, you may reject that idea but many libertarians did just that.

Please cite me some examples.

I fully understand you are a Libertarian and not a conservative but being a conservative also has nothing to do with right or left wing leanings in spite of Saul Alinski’s followers. The examples you are asking for are in the comments I read made by others on your own blog during the months leading up to the general election. If you want specifics they are there by people professing to be Libertarian. I can’t say they were telling the truth that they indeed were Libertarian I can only accept what they claimed to be.

I went back and read your comments. You didn't cite any examples there either. You basically said the same thing you're saying here.

Yes, I am a philosophical libertarian that happens to be a member of the Libertarian Party. The two aren't mutually exclusive, as there are many libertarians that indentify themselves as Republicans, Democrats or political independents. Most libertarians are politically homeless and do not indentify with any political party, including the LP. There are also many libertarians that refuse to vote.

As I've already said, libertarians cannot be put on the left/right spectrum that conseratives and liberals define themselves by.

No party can claim ownership a single vote. I'll say it again, if a Republican lost an election, he has no one to blame but himself. If independent libertarian or Libertarian Party voters swung an election to his opponent, that's because he didn't do enough to appeal to them.

I cannot avoid tossing in a couple of ideas - for either Jason or Raliegh to reply.

I happen to agree with the assertion that Obama is playing dangerously close to Karl's plan for redistribution of wealth: breaking the backs of producers of wealth so benefits may be provided to "rightful owners" meaning the unnamed wards of the State. Government ownership or control (I know there is both socialism and fascism to consider) of private industry is defined by Obama's actions. Handing over GM to the UAW in defiance of existing contracts and legitimate shareholders is a key example.

Students of history look for patterns and methods. In order to Change America from its traditional capitalist structure, taking steps that increase government's role and control are necessary. He cannot do it all at once. But the pattern is obvious.

Finally, I must add that Obama is just a mouthpiece. His beliefs and ideas make him ideal as frontman for the coup. Alone, he cannot create universal healthcare, huge deficits or any of the liberty-killing atrocities we now face. It is the power-hungry both inside and outside the Beltway that his charisma shields. He takes the heat, for a time, while the remaining vesitges of America's liberties and freedoms become gifts from the State.

In terms of voting for a person rather than a party, I agree fully. But there is a reality check to consider. McCain could never bond with the GOP conservative base; he is simply Democrat Lite. But there are dramatic differences between the electable parties, being Dems and the GOP. A third party option is no different from Ross Perot's candidacy - it will split votes and hand Obama a second term. In state and Congressional races, however, the campaigns must focus on breaking from the socialist-minded machine the Dems will provide. A third party candidate can win locally, but there must be a clearly defined set of principles for voters to be swayed.

The more incumbents or other candidates talk about tapping into "Stimulus Money" the less they can be trusted. There is no free lunch!

My point is this. Do not claim to be a conservative or for conservative causes, and you yourself don’t, when you don’t vote for the most conservative candidate. You’re pigeonholing conservatives as right wingers. Define a right winger. I’m a conservative not a right or left winger.

I don’t believe that libertarians are politically homeless. You have your own party and platform. That’s is your home. Why do you think you are politically homeless?

Lastly what examples do you want, a signed sworn statement that I witnessed a libertarian voting for a liberal democrat. Did they actually do it? I don’t know do you.
Sorry but your archives are full of statements by others claiming to be both conservative and Libertarian wanting the more conservative Republicans or just any Republicans to loose. Those examples are in your own archives.

A man will always fight harder and longer for his intersts than for his rights.

The key is to educate, since persuasion is impossible, people to an understanding of the culture and environment that allows fulfillment of those interests.

Naming your poison as liberal or conservative or whatever is just a diversion. It categorizes people in ways the human psyche will always defy.

Remove all identifiers except those portraying loyalty to the United States of America as a democratic republic founded on principles of personal liberty.

I don’t believe that libertarians are politically homeless. You have your own party and platform. That’s is your home. Why do you think you are politically homeless?

I'm not referring to myself, I'm referring to libertarians in general.

You're completely missing the point. Not all libertarians are Libertarians. In fact, many followers of the philosophy reject the party. The libertarian (also can be called "classical liberalism") philosophy pre-dates the party by centuries.

My point is this. Do not claim to be a conservative or for conservative causes, and you yourself don’t, when you don’t vote for the most conservative candidate. You’re pigeonholing conservatives as right wingers. Define a right winger. I’m a conservative not a right or left winger.

Really? Conservatism, unlike libertarianism, is on the political spectrum, "center-right." Just as liberalism is "center-left."

Sorry but your archives are full of statements by others claiming to be both conservative and Libertarian wanting the more conservative Republicans or just any Republicans to loose. Those examples are in your own archives.

In referring to a specific politician. You cannot take it a broad statement for all Republicans. They're are certainly some exceptions to the rule.

It also is a mistake to base it on statements made by a few people on a blog as the feeling of the entire movement.

First off, I'd like to compliment Stephen on a fine column. He's a good guy and a good Libertarian, and we're proud to have him as the Chair of the East Metro.

Secondly. I would say to Griftdrift's comment--What is the definition of torture? Pulling toenails off, smearing someone w/ honey and then placing fireants on them, or putting someone on a rack...now that's torture. Waterboarding and sleep deprivation...not so much IMHO.

Regarding Raleigh , I've gone over every post you've written twice and I've got to say that you are very articulate but very wrong. It's like you are really intelligent and good at debate but you just keep missing the point!

Like Jason said, you can't use the left-right spectrum w/ Libertarians. I think non-libertarians hear that and it just completely goes in one ear and out the other (or it just goes over your head). You just can't. You can use left vs. right w/ two subsets: social freedom and economic. We're social left/economic right. Then you have to add the other component that Jason also referred to: Individual vs. the State. We are not statists...that much is certain; however, there are a lot of Republicans and a lot more Democrats who are.

And finally, in terms of Libertarians and independents causing our current situation. I'd like to leave you with two questions. First off, are you saying that the GOP of 1994-2008 bears no responsibility for this situation? And would things really but much different (or any better) w/ McCain in the WH and only 58 or 59 folks in the Senate Dem. caucus? I personally don't think so.

"Secondly. I would say to Griftdrift's comment--What is the definition of torture? Pulling toenails off, smearing someone w/ honey and then placing fireants on them, or putting someone on a rack...now that's torture. Waterboarding and sleep deprivation...not so much IMHO."

So only things invented in the Middle Ages count?

So only things invented in the Middle Ages count?

Or before, yes. The best arguments against tortue invoke the damage it does to both the torturer's and torturee's humanity, or "soul". It's a moral argument.

And seeing as how human nature has not changed much since the dawn of time, I think we can assert that "torture" can almost be determined a priori.

The acts or methods of "torture" may change, but the human damage they inflict remains the same, and thus condemnable.

I think the better response to Marshall's point is to argue that waterboarding and other "modern" forms of tortue debase humanity exactly in the same ways the "pre-modern" forms of tortue do. I think this is a better argument than the "evolving standards of tortue" point you originally made.

Because if we go with the latter argument, we're invoking a relevancy standard, rather than an absolute, moral one. And to argue that "tortue" really depends on the time and place that the act occurs really cheapens our argument, not to mention that it invites a counterargument for utilitarianism, which is where the supporters of "enhanced interrogation" ultimately want to end up.

I'd still like to see Grift answer the question. What is the definition of torture? He seems to filled with a lot of empty, smart-ass quips...but no real substantive answers.

Me? Smart ass quips? Noooooo.

Definition of torture? I'll go with the UN Convention Against Torture. You know. The one we agreed to.

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Let the parsing begin