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 please 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

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/…

Do you love the smell of libertarianism in the morning? If so, today is a good day for you.

Ron Paul

Last week we solicited your questions for Congressman Ron Paul.

There was such a big response (more than 400 comments) that we have split Paul’s answers into two batches, the first of which is posted below.

Thanks to Paul for his answers and all of you for your good questions.

Q: What was your first thought when you found out McCain chose Palin as his running mate?

A: At first, I thought it was a pretty savvy choice from a political perspective. I also knew that she had said some nice things about me in the past. At the same time, I knew that to be on the ticket, she would have to toe the line on foreign policy and the war, so that tempered a lot of my enthusiasm.

Q: Who in Congress would you consider to be your closest peer(s)?

A: There are a lot of members who I work with on a variety of different issues. Walter Jones is a good friend and works with me on foreign policy. Often on spending, if there is a 432-3 vote, the other two congressmen voting with me are Jeff Flake and Paul Broun. A lot of times, I work with Democrats on civil liberties issues.

I guess my point is that people from all over the political spectrum can side with liberty and the Constitution. The goal is to get a majority to vote that way most of the time.

Read More…

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.