Well, it's what one might expect from an Alaskan. It also explains why the press and the left are so completely wrecking themselves in attempting to derail her. They don't understand libertarians, only able to think in simple minded terms of "liberal" and "conservative." And I have to say that if this is what John McCain means by "maverick" I'm all for it.
This is a re-post as this thread is more on topic with what I had to say:
What a lot of people just don't see is that there has been a libertarian streak in the Republican party.
Having someone view the federal government as oppressive and overreaching enough to consider independence is a HUGE plus! Its a feature not a bug!
Over and Over about 5 to 10% of the electorate identify their views as libertarian. In the past these votes have largely gone to the republicans in voting for the "lesser evil" The overreaching executive and things like the patriot act have really poisoned this.
Before Palin I doubt any of the libertarian leaning would vote for McCain, now there are some significant libertarian streaks in Palin and that might just be enough to change some minds.
For now I live in the people republic of California,
this state is so blue my vote does not matter. I'll vote for the libertarian ticket. If I still lived in NH where my vote actually could effect the outcome I'd vote for McCain. You can see this rationalization in the voting results, the libertarian candidate does a lot better in states that are not really contested.
In states where the contest is close the libertarians have usually held their nose and sided with the republicans.
I fully admit that Alaskan libertarianism is a confusing topic. For instance, if Sarah Palin promises to give every resident of Alaska $1,200, is that a libertarian rebate, or is it a socialist handout?
http://aprn.org/2008/06/20/1200-each-governor-palin-unveils-her-new-energy-assistance-plan/
I fully admit that Alaskan libertarianism is a confusing topic.
You should just go all the way, and fully admit that you are easily confused.
Rand, you're so sure of yourself on this topic that you freely toss insults, but you didn't answer the question.
The answer to the question is that no one is ideologically perfect (other than perhaps Jim Harris). Which Jim Harris might understand if he weren't so easily confused.
You take what you can get. She comes a lot closer to a libertarian in philosophy than any major party candidate since Barry Goldwater.
The answer to the question is that no one is ideologically perfect
She's libertarian despite promising $1,200 for every man, woman, and child in Alaska because no one is perfect? With that logic, Eliot Spitzer is chaste except for that little incident with Kristen. Hey, no one is perfect.
If she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it, does that also go in the "no one is perfect" category?
I repeat.
The Republicans are ImPalin themselves.
Couldn't happen to a nicer lot.
In spite of the huge libertarian pool of voters who have now swung decisively towards the McCain-Palin ticket, Obama crack 50% on both Rasmussen and Gallup polling as of last night.
Yes, Palin is an excellent choice. Personally, I could not be happier.
The next two months are going to remind McCain of his time in Vietnam. Once again, I would have to say, operator error.
Personally, I could not be happier.
Good. Just don't expect me to pick up the therapy bill when your candidate loses. I can't wait to see the debates now.
Enjoy your high water mark anonymous retard. I sure enjoyed mine.
...Obama crack 50% on both Rasmussen and Gallup polling as of last night.
That's registered voters (at least for Gallup), which always overpoll Democrats, not likely voters. In addition, it was over a holiday weekend, which also overpolls Dems. I'll start taking polls seriously next week, after both conventions.
Things are looking up when the Obamunists are bragging about him cracking 50% right after his coronation, er convention.
With a historical convention bounce and the help of his adoring fans in the media he should have expected to crack 60%!
Obama up six points?!? He may almost be outsied the Bradley/Wilder effect and actually be tied!
This from McCain's webpage. Palin was NEVER a member of AIP.
The minor leaguers at the NYT gets it wrong again. Grey Lady down.
"And Bumiller writes that Governor Palin "was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party." Not true, and unsourced. Governor Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!
Not arguing, but why would a holiday weekend overpoll Dems? Don't Democrats go to wild parties while Republicans stay home and play cards? (My very liberal wife and I went to the Michigan shore, which I hope people will continue to believe is inferior to California or Florida, lest it get crowded.)
Not arguing, but why would a holiday weekend overpoll Dems?
I don't know (and probably no one does for sure), but it's an empirical fact (for weekends in general, not just holiday weekends). You can watch tracking polls historically and see little Dem blips upward early in the week that disappear by the end.
Anyway, as others have pointed out, if a Dem can't crack fifty percent after his convention, he's in big trouble in the fall, historically. Obama even more so, because he's probably also overpolling due to the Bradley effect (he generally underperformed polls in the primaries).
For instance, if Sarah Palin promises to give every resident of Alaska $1,200, is that a libertarian rebate, or is it a socialist handout?
People who've never been to Alaska just don't understand. Alaska gives the money from the oil revenues to the people because they believe the people will use the money more wisely than the government. Socialists believe people are too ignornant to be trusted with money - all decisions should be made by government (especially the unelected and unaccountable "civil servants").
"And Bumiller writes that Governor Palin "was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party." Not true, and unsourced.
Even if true, so what? Has the AIP been declared illegal? Is it now a crime to belong to a party that mainstream media do not agree with?
What's next, political prisoners?
Hmmmmm.
*shrug* there's an oil fund in Alaska to share revenues generated from sale of oil pumped from Alaska. Which is also why Palin was pretty hot on a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48.
Alaska gives the money from the oil revenues to the people because they believe the people will use the money more wisely than the government.
As I said, it's a confusing topic. One Palin supporter says that her plan to give $1,200 to every Alaskan is a libertarian rebate. Another one says that it could be a socialist handout, but hey, nobody's perfect.
When Palin was mayor of Wasilla for six years, she attracted $27 million in federal earmarks for her town. She hired a lobbying firm to represent Wasilla, population 7,000, in Washington DC. Wasillans firmly believe that they spent that money more wisely than the government would have. They're libertarians.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26504638/
Has the AIP been declared illegal? Is it now a crime to belong to a party that mainstream media do not agree with?
You're right, Ed. Since secessionism not a crime, she's a great choice.
While I have to admit that Sarah Palin is probably the least odious of the two major party Pres/VP picks, calling her a libertarian is a bit of a laugh. If Sarah's a libertarian, I'm a latte sipping liberal.
~Jon
Jon, ignoring Jim Harris's vapors about "oil socialism," on what issue has she behaved in a less than libertarian manner? I'm not talking about her social beliefs--I'm talking about how she's actually governed.
"1,200 for every man, woman, and child in Alaska
Wow! You know how many credits that will buy you at the nickel arcade? I bet you could just move right in and play Galaga for, like, EVHAR! You'd be set man.
"Jim Harris wrote:
Has the AIP been declared illegal? Is it now a crime to belong to a party that mainstream media do not agree with?
You're right, Ed. Since secessionism not a crime, she's a great choice."
Se wasn't EVER a member of the AIP so what exactly does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Again for the developmentally challenged:
This from McCain's webpage. Palin was NEVER a member of AIP.
The minor leaguers at the NYT gets it wrong again. Grey Lady down.
"And Bumiller writes that Governor Palin "was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party." Not true, and unsourced. Governor Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982."
Holy Warrior:
Palin on Iraq: '... our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God...'
Lovely.
Jim, when the government gives tax collections back to the taxpayers, it's not a hand out. It's just giving them their money back. Taking money from Peter to pay Paul is fundamentally different from cutting a check to every damn person in the State. The terms "Tax Refund" and "Welfare" were invented so we can avoid this confusion.
The Alaskan law recognizes that all Alaskans have a property right in the oil wealth of the State. The State merely collects their share of the revenue for them, invests a chunk in long term securities (on the public's behalf) and then disburses the rest to the public. It's really no different then if I set up a trust to support my kids and funded it with dividend-paying stock.
A "socialist" program would tax the oil simply because it can, spend on the money at the government level and probably run a deficit to boot.
I would direct readers to the following analysis of the oil revenue givebacks Palin champions:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/008448.asp
I would not characterize someone as a libertarian just because they support the 2nd amendment and secession. Those are her only bona fides, otherwise she is a typical freespending, western, Republican. She wants to keep the government off of peoples' backs only so long as it doesn't interfere with earmarks or the ability of her constituents to get the best lease deal on federal property.
"I would not characterize someone as a libertarian just because they support the 2nd amendment and secession. "
For the 87th time,
SHE DOES NOT AND HAS NOT EVER SUPPORTED SUCESSION OR BEEN A MEMBER OF THE AIP!
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!!!!!!!
While it's obvious that Jim's question was meant maliciously (push trolling?), it's still an interesting question. So let's give the original:
Now let's rewrite it a little, keeping the essential question (in fact, expanding it) while depersonalizing the question and replacing meaningless politicized terms with more meaningful philosophically meaningful terms:
Now, assuming no one thinks that I've misrepresented Jim's question, inserted a false statement (and assuming that it is in fact couched as a tax rebate and that the amount is correct), let's answer the question.
I should state at that outset that as a classical liberal and libertarian, my view of the essence of libertarianism is that individuals should have as many rights, powers and responsibilities as possible, and government should have the power to protect its citizens from force and fraud and to set certain (limited) standards and regulations absolutely necessary to the effective and efficient functioning of a free society. (For example, I have no problem with the government setting standards of currency, and printing currency; I have a huge problem with the government banning the use of money (such as gold), since that is not absolutely necessary to ensure an effectively and efficiently functioning society.) The ideal libertarian society uses the State as a tool to ensure individual freedom of action, and the law as a tool to prevent a person (or another country) from depriving its citizens of any part of that freedom (including the property or wealth necessary to enable its maximization) without their willing consent.
Socialism, by contrast, seeks not an individually empowered society, but a just society with outcomes as nearly equal as possible. Indeed, to the Socialist, equality and justice (with either capitalized or small initial letters) are largely equivalent. The ideal socialist society uses communalism as a tool to enforce equality, and the law as a tool to ensure satisfying outcomes. In a sense, in a true socialist society, there is no real individual property or money; all of that is collectively managed by the State to the (theoretical) betterment of all. (Socialism's problems come about when the theory meets reality, as some animals are more equal than others, even in the most pure attempts at socialism.) There are in fact working models of socialism, including most nuclear families, but not above a very small scale of related or like-minded people. It is, in fact, the attempt to enforce like-mindedness that tends to lead socialist societies off the cliff into outright evil.
Is having the government give money directly to its citizens (or subjects, depending on the form of government), a violation of libertarian principles? Not necessarily; it largely depends on the purpose for which it is given.) The government could legitimately give money in exchange for goods or services, for example, without violating any libertarian principles. The government could also give money directly to its citizens as compensation for expropriated (or, via use regulations, effectively expropriated) property, providing the legal and moral conditions for expropriation are met. The government could give money to its citizens in settlement of judicial rulings.
The source of the money is also important, because the government could not legitimately give away money that it had not legitimately gotten. If the State had the power to print money, it could freely give away any that it printed; of course, that power is reserved in the US to the Federal government. Absent that power, the State can legally obtain money from the sale of goods and services that it owns or can generate, just as it can exchange money it has for goods and services. There is no libertarian prohibition of taxation per se, though direct taxation is frowned upon as leading to governmental abuse (as we have repeatedly seen since enacting an income tax). That is, the State may rightfully obtain money by taxing behavior or property that crosses the boundary of the State, such as with tariffs, or requires the use of the State's property to occur (such as charging postage). Essentially, in an ideal libertarian State, all taxes would be avoidable in some manner, by simply behaving in a way that avoids those taxes. (A plantation, originally, was explicitly designed as a self-sufficient entity to avoid taxation, IIRC.)
Alaska, as it turns out, is special in a few ways. One way is that a large amount of the land is actually owned by the Federal government. There is some sort of agreement that provides for payments from the Federal government to the State government, based on the idea that the resources extracted from Alaska by the leases granted by the Federal government are thus no longer useable by the citizens of the State. In other words, as I understand it, the money in question comes, more or less, from the sale of the States resources by the Federal government, a portion of which is given in compensation to the State. (I believe that this applies to mining and logging leases as well, though the overwhelming amount of money is from the oil.) The money is thus legitimately obtained by the State, and can be legitimately given by the State without violating libertarian principles.
In this case, the government of Alaska (and it should be noted that this practice far predates Sarah Palin's governorship) is giving money to its citizens as compensation for the resources that they would otherwise be able to obtain and exploit directly, by buying the land. As noted above, this is a legitimate (in the eyes of libertarian principle) use of State money. The mechanism (the tax rebate) is irrelevant, and the distribution (equally to each legal resident of the State, or to the citizens of the State and their children, whichever is the case) of the money seems valid as well.
So to answer the first part of the question, this is consistent with libertarianism.
The second part would be whether it's consistent with socialist principles. Clearly, since socialism places no inherent limit on the methods of the State to obtain funds, there is no issue with where the money comes from. But socialism also places no inherent limit on the State in how it distributes funds, and the distribution being done equally to each person in the State, it would seem to be an exemplar of socialist principles.
So the answer to the second part of the question would seem to be that this is consistent with socialism, and the answer to the question overall is that it is compatible with both.
I suspect that there aren't too many questions of principle where that would be the case.
Jardinero1, within the libertarian community there are reasonable disagreements among its members.
Few libertarians who deserve the name dispute total ownership over the fruits of a person's labor, but many do reasonably discuss to what extent a person can claim ownership over the fruits of a natural process. Although the oil companies certainly drilled for oil and brought it to market, they didn't make the oil - the Earth did that. We do not apportion ownership of rain clouds and windy days, so why is oil treated differently?
Note also that the above philosophical point is quite different from the economic arguments over efficiency, capture and incentive.
Taxing natural bounty differently than labor and man-made capital doesn't disqualify one from being called a libertarian. I don't fault Mises.org for their position (they are transparent in their partisanship), but this is no litmus test for whether Sarah Palin is a libertarian.
And here's Todd Palin:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/todd_palin_was_registered_memb.php
Hey but that's OK. Different standards for white folks, I know, I know.
I mean, Michelle Obama wasn't really, really proud of her country until a few months ago.
So it's a wash.
You can find Palin opposition research here,
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_palin.html
I've read about half of it and other than possible budget issues in wassila I think her approach has been libertarian.
Its hard to know about the budget issues if the budget expanded to improve the capital infrastructure of the city or if it was used to by new Late machines for city hall. The actual nature of the spending matters a lot.
You're right, Ed. Since secessionism not a crime, she's a great choice.
Do you have a rational argument against the seccessionist position -- or do you simply believe anyone should be strung up if they disagree with your position on any issue?
What is the penalty for dissent in the Totalitarian States of Jim Harris? :-)
Except that if Michelle Obama had been a member of a secessionist group right up to 2002 (when let's say Barack Obama decided to run for office, as Sarah Palin did) you folks would be screaming at the top of your lungs, and your talk radio asinine bloviators would be farting a semi-solid spew at their devoted fans.
What help do you need to recognize Hypocrisy? We are talking secession here. It's not a simple matter of it being legal. One stated strategy of the AIK was to infiltrate the two party system .
Hmmm. A secessionist Dude in the White House nursing little Trigg. Just super. By the way, why doesn't Sarah Plain simply release the surgoen's report of the delivery of Trigg and put that nasty rumor to rest? Why? Just wondering you know...
Alaska has a unique strain of Libertarianism.
In that Alaskan's don't want anyone in the lower 48
telling them what to do with any federal land,
but they do want taxpayers in the lower 48 to
pay for Alaska.
Ted Stevens is intensely popular not for his Libertarian
principles but for his checkbook.
Clueless And Pathetically Desperate wrote:
Except that if Michelle Obama had been a member of a secessionist group right up to 2002 (when let's say Barack Obama decided to run for office, as Sarah Palin did) you folks would be screaming at the top of your lungs,
Dear Clueless:
You and Jim are the ones who are screaming at the top of your lungs -- and you seem unable to explain why.
Even if what you say is true, you still haven't explained why the secessionist position is illegal, or even wrong.
All you've done is insinuate that you anyone who holds the secessionist position (or held the secessionist position, or was accused of holding the secessionist) is unfit to hold office.
Please explain why that is the case. Is there a Constitutional requirement for Federal officials to agree with you on every issue? Or any issue?
It's not a simple matter of it being legal. One stated strategy of the AIK was to infiltrate the two party system.
So? Since when is "infiltrating the two party system" illegal?
Didn't Obama "infiltrate the two party system"? Didn't every successful American politician since George Washington?
If joining the two party system disqualifies a person from holding public office, isn't every Republican and Democrat unfit to hold public office?
Or is it only wrong for politicians who don't pass your litmus test to do so?
Ed, I explained about what's wrong with a secessionist VP from a practical point of view in a different Palin-related comment thread on this blog, but here's another argument: Sarah Palin spoke in favor of keeping "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. What words come just prior to "under God" in the pledge? What words come just after "under God" in the pledge? If either Palin has secessionist convictions, if they don't believe in one nation which is indivisible, they are lying every time they pledge their allegiance.
It wouldn't be treason, and it wouldn't be against the law, but why would the American people want that kind of unpatriotic disloyalty in the White House?
A question for Jim Harris and "Clueless."
Prior to running for Federal office, one American politician wrote these words:
"Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
There you have it, an avowed secessionist. (Also a closet libertarian, I am sure.)
Should a person who has held such views be allowed to run for public office in the United States? Why or why not?
Essays will be graded, gentlemen.
if they don't believe in one nation which is indivisible, they are lying every time they pledge their allegiance.
By that interpretation, every politician is lying when he says the pledge of allegiance -- unless he believes the Philippines and the Panama Canal Zone should be part of the United States. Not to mention all those embassies in Washington, DC.
Of course, that would be a stupid interpretation.
It wouldn't be treason, and it wouldn't be against the law, but why would the American people want that kind of unpatriotic disloyalty in the White House?
Perhaps you should ask the people who voted for George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson.
Just as a guess, perhaps they believed that liberty (even fighting for liberty) was not a bad thing?
Now, let me turn that question around. Assuming for a moment that Palin does believe in the principles of Jeffferson, et. al., why would Obama supporters want to prevent someone who believed in such things from running for the White House? Are you afraid the American people might prefer the principles of the Founding Fathers to Obama's "new politics"?
I answered your question. I'll bet a sawbuck you won't answer mine. :-)
What? Edward, you're going to have to spell out your thoughts on the Philippines and the Panama Canal zone.
Here are my thoughts:
The Philippines were unincorporated.
The Canal Zone is more complicated. Wikipedia says: "Almost from the inception of the Canal Zone, questions arose as to whether the Zone was considered part of the United States for constitutional purposes, or, in the phrase of the day, whether the Constitution followed the flag. On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated, "While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country."
I agree, it is a stupid interpretation, but thanks for making me review the history of the Canal Zone.
Anyway, I'd be happy to seriously answer your question about Jefferson at length, if you'll agree to make a donation to Rand's "If you really want to encourage me, click here" fund in the amount of at least one sawbuck.
The Philippines were unincorporated.
What? You're dividing the United States into incorporated and unincorporated parts?
Villian! The Pledge of Allegiance says that United States is "indivisible" but you're dividing it? Next thing, you'll be dividing it into states! Does that mean you lied? Do we get to take away your right to vote and hold political office?
Or is it only Democrats who get to interpret words in dopey fashion like that?
By the way, are you really under the impression that qualifications to run for public office are determined by the Pledge of Allegiance, rather than the Constitution?
Desperation wrote: Palin on Iraq: '... our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God...'
You're kidding, right? Right?
Because that "quote" is so ridiculously dishonest that it's impossible for you not to know that you've snipped a quite important part of it off.
Please, post the entire sentence.