Alphecca

This also gives the Libertarian Party a coherent, articulate spokesman, something I've often criticized them as lacking.

It's really too bad he won't have a coherent, rational political philosophy to articulate. Bluntly put, the Libertarian Party is a bunch of nuts who honestly believe you can run a 300-million-person nation, in a world of limited resources and unlimited ability for destruction, the same way you could run a tribe of 500 people in a world of unlimited resources and limited ability for destruction. Their philosophy simply will not work in the modern world. It's possible to use small-l libertarianism as a basis for one's politics, or as a strong filter or test for proposed ideas -- but the platform of the large-L Libertarian Party is untenable. Having Barr as a spokesman/regional leader isn't going to change that.

Wolfwalker, you'd really hate one of us principled anarchists then wouldn't you?

WW, I suppose you think taxing the bejesus out of personal income is A-OK too? I'm certain there was a point in our history where people thought that would never, ever work.

Except for national defense and a few other things, I'm not certain I need "running."

WW's comments are indiciative of one thing I have noticed on the Left (and less so on the Right) that seemingly motivates their dislike of the political potential of the Libertarian Party: fear.

Fear that we individuals can't be trusted run our own affairs, fear that they'd have to take responsibility for their own political decisions, and, really, when it comes down to it, fear of growing up.

We ran our country quite well for 150 years on limited government. It was only when the idiots championing big goverment first befouled the country in the '30s under the false rubric of "complexity" that things began to go downhill.

Why we just don't simply identify most of those against freedom as having infantile psychoses, I just don't know...fear of labels, I guess.

What is libertarian about failing to protect life?

[chuckle.wav] Amusing to see how rapidly some people jump to conclusions....

I voted for Bush. Twice. I'm against high taxes, and always look with interest at tax-simplification proposals. I'm against government over-regulation, against judicial activism, against most limits on our constitutional rights, in favor of capitalism (with certain limited controls), against gun control and most other forms of legislating morality. I'd like to see US law and case-law reset to 1925, just before Gitlow v. New York was decided, then rebuilt based on a proper reading of the Constitution and particularly the 14th Amendment (and if I was a betting man, I'd bet that half the readers of this blog have never heard of Gitlow and have no idea of its significance).

But because I say Libertarianism is unworkable, y'all automatically assume I'm the worst kind of liberal.

It's work on those unwarranted assumptions you need to be doing, folks, and right soon too, I reckon.

WW, if you are for resetting US case law to 1925, than you are my favorite kind of liberal. And since psychological diagnoses done via email are rightfully suspect, than it would be not unwarranted to discount my earlier observations as applying to you.

Whatever beef you have against libertarianism, I can live with it if you are in favor of turning the legal clock back in a major way to pre-New Deal America. We libertarians can work with that one quite fine.

I see you consider yourself liberal, but on what issue, I don't know. You seem to be on the right track on most issues, as far as modern political libertarianism goes.