Anthony Gregory wrote a really outstanding article reminiscent of Rothbard’s old “Left and Right”, which consequently is referenced in the piece.  I really like how he makes the case for reaching out the the lefties and then breaks down all the issues.  Here are some highlights:

While modern left-liberals favor state-socialist means, which are immoral and socially destructive, they often do have laudable goals, mostly concerning the elevation of the common man. Yet it is a mistake to go too far with that and assume left-liberals are superior to conservatives across the board. Just as there were “two different strands within Socialism,” so too does today’s left-liberal movement have both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian strains. One key to reaching out to the Left is identifying how libertarian or statist a given leftist is.

We can appeal to the anti-violence tendency among the pacifist Left and explain how the state’s actions are intrinsically violent or at least predicated on violence.

First off, it’s important not to come off as insulting. Don’t disgustedly call the left-liberal a “commie” — unless, of course, you want all the leftists to keep believing in the socialism that is so destructive to our economy. If anything, encourage some cognitive dissonance by asking why your liberal friend is such a conservative, defending big government, which is as old and reactionary a political idea as any.

So I was quite pleased with this article and I recommend you give it a read.  Any time Bakunin gets referenced (even as a secondary reference) it makes my day a little brighter.  Mr. Gregory does a great job.  I feel the only appropriate way to end this post is with an FDR quote for old time’s sake:

If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Anthony Gregory over at LRC writes:

This wonderful town in which I’ve lived [Berkley] since 1999 has taken a turn for the worse. Always seen by the angry right as “unAmerican,” the town is now all too patriotic. Here the once radical spot, a rare escape from the imperial atmosphere of much of the country, has descended into singing the national song of state worship and war glorification:

I miss the black flags. And see how Old Glory isn’t being burned or desecrated, but instead waved in celebration of the presidential state. I still love this town, but if this continues, I might have to get our before it turns me into a conservative.

Update: Take a look at this to get a sense of the racket that plagued the whole town on election night and made it impossible for me to fall asleep at a reasonable hour. Marching in the streets, cheering “Yes We Can.” The establishment has just co-opted the counterculture. This is not good.

Check out the related videos for more. Laur brought up a good point… did they get a permit? Or do pro-state rallies get a pass?

The Wanna-Be Vice Dictators
Posted by Anthony Gregory at 08:12 PM

They both want more regulation, more totalitarian “oversight,” more national socialism. So far, the only debate is centered around a lie perpetuated by both sides: That the Republicans are for smaller government.

McCain Is a Socialist, Too!
Posted by Anthony Gregory at 08:15 PM

Palin argues that McCain is anything but laissez-faire. After all, he’s for campaign finance censorship and tobacco nanny statism.

She’s Getting Away With It
Posted by Anthony Gregory at 08:19 PM

The key for McCain is to somehow run against the status quo, to run against his own party’s recent legacy. Palin says that we shouldn’t trust national health care, unless we have been happy with the way the feds have been handling things lately. Of course, she is right. Those who hate the Bush legacy — meaning, total statism — should logically oppose socialism too. But the McCain/Palin administration would be more of the same, more Bushism, more socialism. This severe ideological confusion helps both parties, and creates the illusion that there is a difference between the two.

Biden is getting away with it too, blaming the Republicans for shrinking the state. I can’t stand either one.

The Elephant in the Room
Posted by Anthony Gregory at 08:23 PM

They both support the fascist bailout. They both support a trillion-dollar foreign policy and a multi-trillion dollar corporate/entitlement state. They are debating over millions when the state they wish to run spends trillions. Even assuming the greatness of mass democracy, this is a grave injustice. They should be debating big, real issues. Not this trivia.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign continues to campaign on the fact that for a few days they nominally stopped campaiging.

The GOP’s Embrace of Autarky
Posted by Anthony Gregory at 08:30 PM

When, by the way, did the Republicans and almost all conservatives come to champion the frightening and economically ludicrous concept of “energy independence”? What they mean, of course, is autarky and socialism: All energy produced within America, and every single form of energy — solar, coal, oil, nuclear, wind, etc. — subsidized massively by the federal government. Even the Alaska drilling issue isn’t conceived of with anything approaching market reasoning. “We,” as in the federal government, should drill.

(Although the Republicans are more skeptical of the global warming zeitgist, they seem willing to champion big government programs such as carbon emissions limits to address climate change. Hey, environmentalists, with all the Republican leaders and corporate state adopting this line, you know it’s wrong.)

Biden Just Admitted It
Posted by Anthony Gregory at 08:39 PM

Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan is the same as Bush’s. Biden does say, however, that the Dems will end the war, eventually. Palin doesn’t even make this much of a promise. On foreign policy, the Dems still seem slightly better than the Repubs.

On the other hand, “Pakistan already has nuclear weapons,” Biden points out, and so, I guess, we should be at war with them.

A Relief
Posted by Anthony Gregory at 08:54 PM

Well, at least both say Israel must be protected at all costs, that nothing is more important, and that Iran is the greatest threat ever. Indeed, they both accuse the other of being insufficiently determined to keep the Persians in line.

They also agreed on gay marriage, just as Bush and Kerry did: More equality under the law but no marriage for homosexuals. Same exact position. Different emphasis.

As Anthony Gregory posted over at LewRockwell.com/blog yesterday:

Now the pundits and historians are beginning to compare Bush to Hoover, for supposedly not doing enough and thus letting the collapse happen. LRC readers know the truth about Hoover, that it was his big-government response to the market crash that began prolonging and deepening the depression before FDR ever got to office.

If the hyper statist Bush regime is remembered for being too inactive, both in domestic and foreign policy, it portends bad things for the future of America and the way Americans perceive our nation’s history. As I mused on LRC back in 2004, “The worst likely outcome would have Bush going down in history the way Herbert Hoover has: a clueless, “laissez faire conservative” who refused to increase government activity sufficiently in the face of a national crisis.”

Also in one of my first articles, I wondered if any pro-war libertarians would have supported the New Deal. We might just find out.

The far left is truly deluded but truly believe Bush and company are capitalists and what they propose is free market capitalism. That what we have now is free market. That he wasn’t energetic enough. If that belief catches on with the general public we are in for far more hurt than this liquidation alone would inflict.

Is it over yet?!

H/T to Anthony Gregory over at LewRockwell.com/blog

To restore the people’s faith in government? You’re are on the LP ticket right? hmmm…

The national LP may be in dire straits but Kentucky seems to me at least putting on a show. Sonny Landham has been unanumously removed from the Kentucky LP US Senate race ticket.

Anthony Gregory over at LewRockwell.com/blog reports:

The latest scoop on Sonny Landham, belligerent warmonger and protectionist LP US Senate candidate: The Bluegrass State’s Libertarian Party voted 9 to 0 to take him off the ballot.

Since then, the Kentucky Secretary of State has reversed his decision to let the LP withdraw the “Libertarian” endorsement on the ballot. Richard Winger says that under the circumstances, the LP can either let him stay on the ballot as a Libertarian, or “the party can submit its petition in the middle of August, which will mean that the petition will only be valid for president and vice-president, but not U.S. Senator (the deadline for the presidential and vice-presidential candidate is in early September, but the deadline for all other office is in early August). In that case Landham won’t be on the ballot at all.” A commenter argues that stripping all these signatures from him might be unfair to Landham.

I spoke with the Chair of the KY LP, Ken Moellman, who confirmed that this about sums up their circumstances right now. Under today’s ballot access laws and in this post-McCain/Feingold world, the party faces three currently undisclosed options of what to do, which they will consider at a special executive meeting the chair called for this evening, Moellman told me. Landham will get to give his case. I will give an update when they decide which course to take.