Posted by Darien on 03/19/09
Last updated 03/19/09

My friend Dave, during the 2008 Republican primary season, found himself talking with a group of people about the crowd of potential Republican nominees. They were all discussing who they supported. The majority of the group was Huckabee supporters, with a few Romneyites (who clearly haven't been to my beautiful home state -- but I digress), and then there's Dave coming out with "I like Ron Paul." Immediately the crowd turned on him and had pretty much exactly one thing to say.

"Who," they demanded, "will maintain the roads??"

It is my firm belief that if you intend to dismiss the entire body of libertarian thought, everything libertarians stand for and hold dear, with one snippy question about roads, that's a pretty good sign that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Which isn't to say that the issue of roads isn't a sticky one -- it is, a bit. I'll freely admit that, even as a bona fide dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, I'm still a bit uncertain on the subject of roads. But I don't really see that as a big issue. What is the current government failing at right now? It's failing at managing foreign policy, it's failing at managing the domestic economy, it's failing at managing national security, it's failing at managing civil unrest, it's failing at managing even so much as its own budget -- and you're worried about roads? I mean, the current government can't even figure out a way to deliver mail without taking losses, and you're seriously calling libertarianism nonviable because you're concerned about roads?

Let's try a little thought experiment. Imagine with me for a minute that the libertarian revolution comes to pass, and America becomes the perfect libertarian society that we all advocate. Now imagine that every libertarian ideal turns out to work perfectly and flawlessly -- the people are happy, free, and wealthy; there is ample supply of goods, low crime, we're not entangled in embarassing nation-building wars. It's all totally perfect and pristine and happy. Except for one little defect: the roads are falling into disrepair. Which sounds better to you? A society of freedom, prosperity, progress, and happiness that happens to have crummy roads, or an impoverished police state where people wait in lines to buy bread, but at least get to line up on well-maintained asphalt?

Seriously, guys. Get a grip. Even if you're right about the roads thing -- and it's pretty far from clear that you are -- is that really a sufficient reason to discredit the whole libertarian ideal?

Posted 03/19/09 Ryan Sheets Louisville, KY

Man... it's weird to see all this talk about roads lately. I just coincidentally wrote about it the other day and I've seen like 5 blogs about it since. I never saw any before that. I guarantee the oil industry, if not the auto industry or someone else, would pick up road maintenance and construction as they will make very little profit without roads to drive their vehicles on. It is indeed a silly argument. Truthfully the only things I think the government needs to be involved in is national defense and emergency services, and even these can be cut dramatically if the citizens take up arms and learn to defend themselves as it should be.

Posted 03/19/09 Daniel Gerke clinton, MO

Maybe this will clarify it for them. The Autobahn was a great highway.

Posted by Darien on 03/18/09
Last updated 03/18/09

Via the Liberty Wire, I found this story about former president George W. Bush's first public speech since leaving office. Unsurprisingly, he's still the same old Bush, still urging people to support the executive no matter what, and still convinced that only through a strong executive can anything good ever actually happen. Perhaps it's a little unexpected that he's come out so vocally in support of Barack Obama, but then again perhaps it isn't; their agendas are really quite similar, but, more importantly, one gets the impression that Bush would support any president due to his belief that the president is de facto deserving of that support.

I said at the time, and I'll say it again now: I don't believe that George W. Bush is a bad man. I don't fall into the trap that a lot of pundits do, and assume that he woke up in the morning thinking "okay, let's see what I can destroy and pillage today!" I think that Bush was a fundamentally good person who really, honestly believed he was doing the right thing, but suffered the misfortune of being completely, catastrophically wrong.

You know. Kind of like Barack Obama.

Posted 03/18/09 jsigman Flemington, MO

That man is responsible for the deaths of a lot of innocent people around the world. That qualifies as evil in my book. Sorry, I'm not trying to troll. I agree in the sense that we need to take a look at these issues(and people) realistically and avoid the black white paradigm. Bush like the rest of us has the capacity to do both good and evil. Looking back at the last 8 years it seems pretty obvious to me which option Bush used his considerable power and influence to accomplish. Good Post. It really makes you wonder whether he really believes the bull coming out of his mouth. I guess if you say it often enough then you begin to believe it.

Posted 03/19/09 Darien Greenfield, MA

You're absolutely correct -- Bush *did* commit a lot of evil. What I meant, and perhaps I wasn't as clear, is that I don't think he went into it with evil intentions, deliberately trying to cause death and destruction and destabilisation. I'm not saying that excuses the things he did. It doesn't. The road to hell, as has been said, is paved with good intentions, and I think that president Bush (like president Obama) was full of good intentions, but headed straight down that road.

Posted 03/19/09 Ryan Sheets Louisville, KY

Honestly I don't really view Bush as a bad man, I view him as a gullible and foolish man. I think he's uneducated and underqualified for such a leadership position, but not necessarily evil at heart. He has authorized some pretty terrible things, but as far as I can tell he is hopelessly enthralled in the propaganda and lies of his advisors. Cheney on the other hand is, in my estimation, a very bad man. The only piece of evidence I can find of Bush possibly having evil intentions is that he made Cheney his vice president. Who knows, the stupidity could all be an act, but something tells me that the powers that be simply want someone that can be shaped to their will in office. McCain and Obama seem like proof of this argument; neither seems to possess any principal whatsoever.

Posted by Darien on 03/18/09
Last updated 03/18/09

I just watched Peter Schiff's speech at the Mises Institute, and I have to say he was fantastic. Highly personable, and I definitely laughed a fair few times.

That aisde, he was well more than just funny. He was also extremely correct. I have no reason to believe that the fallout from the current and previous ignorant, destructive government policies will be any different from what he says. I hope you're all ready for a long, difficult battle; funding will be difficult, and there will be plenty of morons fighting against us and saying that, hey, if we just spent a little bit more on the government, it would use its magic unicorn harp powers to save us all from the evil market. But I think that if we stay focused, and stay organised, we can really shake things up. I think the American people aren't quite ready for our message yet, but they will be once things really start to fall apart. As soon as the dollar starts its inevitable plunge, people are going to lose what faith remains in the ability of epic central planners like Emperor Stupid to manipulate the entire body of world population in the best possible way. When that happens, we need to make sure we're ready to explain how freedom is the way out.

In the meantime, well, I've made my shopping list. It goes like this: a) guns 2) gold. Just sayin'.

Posted 03/18/09 Elaine Prairie City, OR

Ummmm---Don't forget ammo! ;-) (I'm sure you haven't)

Posted by Darien on 03/01/09
Last updated 03/01/09

According to this opinion in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bob Barr doesn't like that the government is breaking the law in order to police Major League Baseball any more than I do.

I'm a baseball fan, and, to be sure, a baseball fan who isn't overwhelmingly fond of Alex Rodriguez. But whether or not I like the guy does not change my opinion on the government seizing records of testing that was supposedly anonymous and then -- whoops missus! -- accidentally leaking A-rod's name. I'm also not hugely fond of Barry Bonds, but I admit taking a certain amount of joy in the fact that the government's five-year-long harassment campaign is on the brink of complete failure even as I write this. If anybody ever puts Greg Anderson's face on a t-shirt, I'll probably buy it -- Anderson is the man who presumably could put the bite in the government's case, but he's refusing to do so. He is refusing to allow the government to harm Barry Bonds, and for his refusal he has already spent more than a year in jail.

Barry Bonds is a cheater. This much is a fact. We know at the very least he was using the Cream and the Clear, both of which are designer steroids. Quite frankly, I don't believe that was all he was taking, either. Barry Bonds is a cheater, and a fraud, and he unabashedly lied to his fans when he declared that his records were not tainted by the use of performance-enhancing drugs. But Barry Lamar Bonds has never taken my money and used it to harass another human being. Like the government did when it decided to harass Bonds and Rodriguez.

I'm just saying.  When it comes right down to it, I know who I'm sympathetic to.

Posted by Darien on 03/01/09
Last updated 03/01/09

It's probably not a big surprise, but I'm not a giant fan of George W. Bush. But there is one thing about him that I appreciate in kind of a macabre way; when he decided to change a foreign power's regime, he just up and did it. Doesn't like the Taliban? Troops in, Taliban out. Doesn't like the Ba'athists? Troops in, Ba'athists out. It is possible to oppose the action and detest the handling of the aftermath while still appreciating the forthrightness with which the action was conducted.

We're now in the forty-seventh year of President Kennedy's despicable passive-aggressive regime change attempt in Cuba. Has it ever accomplished anything good? Has one single benefit ever accrued to anyone at all as a result? For forty-seven years we've been wasting time, wasting money, inconveniencing American citizens, engendering anti-American sentiment throughout Latin America, and further impoverishing the Cuban people. And for what? Not one single person has ever gained a thing as a result.

Except maybe Fidel Castro. He gained a convenient scapegoat and co-conspirator in the oppression of his people. Thanks to the embargo, he could (and Raul Castro now can) convincingly, and not entirely dishonestly, blame the woes of the Cuban citizenry on the evil empire to the north. It's rather ironic, not to mention staggeringly incompetent, that our method for dealing with this government that we profess not to like (even while we attempt to emulate it in our own country) is to enact policies that benefit nobody except that government.

So Mr. Obama, you want to show me some change I can believe in? You want to prove that you're not actually as imperialist as your predecessor? Take a stand on Cuba. Enough is enough. We've been trying to coerce the regime into changing for forty-seven years, and we're not any closer to success than we were on day one. End the embargo. Normalise relations with Havana. Both America and Cuba will benefit.

Oh, and an apology might be nice too.