Some of you wonder why, when I rant and rave about how pissed off at some Republicans I am, I don’t leave the Republican party. There are several reasons, one of which is that I think I am a Republican- at least I used to be before we became overwhelmed with the need to rell everyone how to run their damned personal lives. This, via Wizbangblog, is the second reason why I have not made the Libertarian party my home:
A Keene Libertarian who tried to board a flight carrying nothing but a Bible and a copy of the Declaration of Independence was arrested yesterday at Manchester Airport.
Russell Kanning, 35, was arrested after refusing to comply with security screening procedures and refusing to leave the screening area, according to the Rockingham County sheriff’s department. He was charged with criminal trespassing and was being held at the Rockingham County jail.
Kanning’s wife, Kat Dillon, said her husband has refused to have his bail posted and will remain in jail until his arraignment tomorrow. She said sheriff’s deputies were very kind in handling the incident.
“He went in with his Bible and his declaration, and when he refused to be patted down and all that, the sheriffs led him off and arrested him,” she said in a phone interview yesterday afternoon.
Kanning, an accountant and staunch Libertarian, said last week he hoped his actions would highlight what he considers overly burdensome state intrusion.
“What he was trying to get across is that people need to be able to travel with dignity,” said his wife. “They’ve just gotten to a point where security is ridiculous.”
I bet he looks like this guy:

So, for those reasons, and the fact that I am not certifiably insane, I remain a Republican.
Brad R.
John- I’m not a libertarian by any means, but there *are* different stripes of libertarian out there. Matt Welch and Jullian Sanchez are libertarians, and they’re not humorless paranoid freaks (they’re actually quite funny).
SomeCallMeTim
You know, there’s a third choice.
John Cole
That is why I talked about Big “L” libertarians, which Sanchez and Welch most certainly are not.
Brad R.
That is why I talked about Big “L” libertarians, which Sanchez and Welch most certainly are not.
I see. Feel free to brand me “Reading-Comprehension-Skills-Impaired-Fucktard-o’-the-Day.” ;-)
Kathy K
Well, there were the neo-conservatives, and now we’ve got the neo-liberals. And a few of us have decided that there’s also a group who could be called neo-liberarians. (Matt Welch would fit in that group – don’t know Julian Sanchez well enough to say.)
Most people refer to them as “small l libertarians”.
I have a sneaking suspicion you’d fit right in too, John.
ppgaz
Wait, isn’t that Jeffrey Dahmer?
Brad R.
Kathy-
Those are the type of libertarians I generally get along with (don’t agree with them on everything, but they’re a lot of fun to hang out with).
It’s the Black Helicopter Libertarians- the kind John is making fun of- that you gotta watch out for ;-)
The Disenfrachised Voter
I am not a fan of Big “L” libertarians either, though I consider myself a small “l” libertarian. I am a registered independent, and I don’t see why you don’t become an independent yourself John.
The Lonewacko Blog
There’s a reason why Libertarians hold their conventions at Motel 6s and libertarians have little impact on people’s opinions. Perhaps, oh I dunno, it has something to do with the unlimited drugs and open borders stances (aka massive subsidies for corrupt corporations).
Jon H
That’s not Dahmer, that’s the gullibletard politician who used silver-based quack medicine, and wound up with permanently grey skin.
The Disenfrachised Voter
Oh god. Someone defending the war on drug users. You really don’t want to tread there Lonewacko. I am fairly certain John is against the war on drug users, as am I. If you’d like to debate it, please go right ahead. There will be two possible outcomes. One, I change your mind about the war on drug users, or two I tear your argument to shreads but you stay in your delusional world where the war on drug users is a good thing.
Doug
It always struck me that a political party for fiscally conservative, social libertarians would be a no brainer. Stay out of my pocket book, balance the budget and, so long as I don’t pick anyone’s pocket or break their leg, leave me the hell alone.
But, the Republicans won’t tax you, but they won’t cut spending either. They’re awash in red-ink, and the Bible-thumping contingent wants to legislate morality.
Democrats have historically been too eager to create government programs to solve our problems.
And both parties have been ardent supporters of the War on Some Drugs.
The Lonewacko Blog
OK, voter, let’s look at the LP position on drugs:
“Today’s illegal drugs were legal before 1914. Cocaine was even found in the original Coca-Cola recipe. Americans had few problems with cocaine, opium, heroin or marijuana… Drugs should be legal…”
Please, feel free to argue in favor of that, argue against it, or put on a funny party hat and sing The Dark Side of the Moon. It won’t make a bit of difference.
The idea that crack, heroin, PCP, and cocaine would be available in vending machines – or even just at pharmacies – is abhorrent to about 99% of Americans. Leaving the LP and the small-l variety about 1% of the electorate to share with the Peace & Freedom and the Natural Law parties.
metalgrid
I don’t doubt the humor value of some of the extremists or loonies in the LP. My only contention has been the lack of candidates to vote for in the RP and the DP who actually plan to shrink government, make it fiscally responsible, and not be in the business of making extreme social policy and either borrowing or taxing excessively to enforce said policies.
The DP and the RP are heading towards social extremes while they both spend like drunken sailors. What’s a guy to do? The DP has been completely lost to socialists. The RP is steadily heading towards socialist religious fundamentalism. Do we have any options in the form of a viable 3rd party? The LP is the only other party which can get candidates into elections in all 50 states. They’ve been running non-loonies in local government, and are being slowly transformed into a more respectable party. The thing is, we can’t do this without more help from small “l” libertarians – especially the pragmatic kind. We’re outnumbered by the socialists and fundamentalists in the 2 major parties, the only way I see us getting anywhere is by hijacking the LP and making it a more of a pragmatic libertarian party that can appeal to a wider audiance.
p.lukasiak
Somehow or other, the fact that there are wackjob libertarians prevents you from bolting the GOP… but the presence of far more wackjob Republicans — who have considerable influence in the party, and aren’t just nutjobs— doesn’t make you want to abandon the GOP?
I’d say that is a perfect example of hypocrisy….
Rick
p.luk,
Can’t you take John’s hint? The Democrats have a major whacko constituency that seems to repel the host, as well. So it the lesser of two evils. Or the evil of two lessers.
Cordially…
The Disenfrachised Voter
First fo all this is a bullshit statement:
“Leaving the LP and the small-l variety about 1% of the electorate to share with the Peace & Freedom and the Natural Law parties.”
How lovely of you to pull statistics out of your ass. Furthermore, the popularity or unpopularity of an issue does NOT mean shit. If that were the case Britney Spears would be considered a great recording artist.
With that said, did you even read the arguments for ending the war on drug users and ending drug prohibition? Obviously not since the exerpt you posted wasn’t really even an argument for ending drugs.
The best of the arguments, in my opinion is this one.
“The Lessons of Prohibition
In the 1920’s, alcohol was made illegal by Prohibition. The result: Organized Crime. Criminals jumped at the chance to supply the demand for liquor. The streets became battlegrounds. The criminals bought off law enforcement and judges. Adulterated booze blinded and killed people. Civil rights were trampled in the hopeless attempt to keep people from drinking.
When the American people saw what Prohibition was doing to them, they supported its repeal. When they succeeded, most states legalized liquor and the criminal gangs were out of the liquor business.
Today’s war on drugs is a re-run of Prohibition. Approximately 40 million Americans are occasional, peaceful users of some illegal drug who are no threat to anyone. They are not going to stop. The laws don’t, and can’t, stop drug use.”
Now, how about trying to debunk that for starters…
metalgrid
Don’t mean to hijack the discussion, but FYI, Reason had a pretty good article on the ‘drug war’ in Columbia too: http://www.reason.com/0506/fe.tm.legalize.shtml
The Lonewacko Blog
I don’t think Voter understood what I was getting at. No one really cares what L’s or l’s think. They’re occasionally annoying, but they’re mostly just a joke. In any case, here’s the 2004 prez results from CA. It says Badnarik got 1%, but they rounded upwards a bit: it’s actually 0.4%. Just above the Greens, and almost twice as many as Leonard Peltier.
Here’s an example of that small-lism at work. Two fundamental l. precepts are no corporate subsidies and national defense. Yet, Reason’s Hit & Run and other libertarian outlets occasionally run open borders pieces that support illegal immigration (they don’t think it should be illegal).
It should be obvious to anyone that illegal immigration constitutes a massive subsidy to their employers.
And, the presence in our country of millions of people who have no allegiance to this country poses an internal security threat. Especially in the case where most of those people think they’re the rightful owners of the land.
Imagine what would happen if we had to deport millions of illegal aliens. How many lives and how many billions would be lost due to the riots that would most likely ensue? Would the Mexican government and far-left U.S. organizations agitate those millions of citizens of another country?
Basically, we can’t deport large numbers of people who don’t have the right to be here because of what might happen.
If we assume they aren’t just corrupt, the fact that small-l l.’s would support open borders illustrates that they live in a fantasy world and they’re unable to think things through.
As the numbers in election after election shows, the American people have decided that people with these ideas have no right to any kind of governmental power.
Feel free to copy and paste another libertarian argument, but the fact remains that your ideas have been rejected by American voters.
The Disenfrachised Voter
“It says Badnarik got 1%”
And your point? Care to explain how that 1% figure is indicative of the amount of American citizens who think drug prohibition should be repealled? Clearly, your reasoning here is flawed. Just because someone voted for someone other than Badnarik, it does not mean that they disagree with Badnarik and the Libertarian Party’s stance on drug prohibiton.
“libertarian outlets occasionally run open borders pieces that support illegal immigration (they don’t think it should be illegal).”
Sooo, you can’t defend the case for drug prohibition so you bring up an issue that I never even mentioned? I do not agree with the Libertarian Party’s stance on immigration. So please, spare me your rant.
“As the numbers in election after election shows, the American people have decided that people with these ideas have no right to any kind of governmental power.”
Really? Care to explain how Bush was reelected than? He seems pretty lentient on illegal immigration if you ask me.
“Feel free to copy and paste another libertarian argument”
If I can take you back about three or four posts ago, it was YOU who first copy and pasted the weakest argument from the Libertarian Party’s site; in order to make their case seem weak. All I was trying to do is show that the LP has rational and sound arguments for why we should end drug prohibition.
“but the fact remains that your ideas have been rejected by American voters.”
Is that suppose to be some sort of insult? Once again, you are committing a logical fallacy here. You are appealling to popularity. Here is an example of this fallacy to help you out: “A vast majority of people believe that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?”
Now, if you wish to defend drug prohibition, make your case for it. You are the one who believes that drug prohibition should exist so please explain why.
Kimmitt
The Natural Law Party is a hoot. If I didn’t care about anything other than making a statement, I’d totally join up.
Slartibartfast
If making a statement is of prime importance, why not go Naked Purple? Added bonus: not only is making sense no longer a burden, but it’s actually strongly discouraged.
If the above confuses, pick up The Ring Of Charon by Roger MacBride Allen; it’s a good read.
The Lonewacko Blog
Buttonholer: I concede all of your points.
Anyway, to see the vile underpinnings of the libertarian movement, check out An Ayn Rand Institute flashback: “U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims”
For something much funnier, see “Why I Am Running For Lieutenant Governor”. Hint: it involves small furry pets. And, can you guess the religion of the gubanatorial candidate?
The Disenfrachised Voter
“Anyway, to see the vile underpinnings of the libertarian movement, check out An Ayn Rand Institute flashback: ‘U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims'”
Yea, I agree with you about this. I don’t care for all of the LP’s positions and this would be one of them. However, there are extremists in ALL of the parties–Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and Green. I think that should be kept in mind.
Also, I can’t stand Rand, or her “Objectivism”. Her philosophy is flawed, as she uses BS examples to back up her positions.