"If any of you homos call me Francis, I'll kill you."
"Lighten up, Francis."
--Francis 'Psycho' Soyer, Sergeant Hulka, "Stripes", 1981

Deluxe Extra Bonus Cool Points to Trip!

However, the best line in the movie is, "Ooh, I wish I were a loofah."

Too bad Bill Murray went completely downhill in the past few years. I liked many of his early movies. Sadly, however, he seemed to have jumped the shark after Groundhog Day.

"All I know is I finally get to....."

I always liked: "I like fast cars and fast women, and that's why my friends call me the Cruiser - and I joined the Army to avoid the draft." "Aaah, there ain't no draft no more, son." "There was one?" God bless Warren Oates.

Yeah, but has anyone caught "The Sweet Spot" on Comedy Central? All four of the Murray brothers engaged in golf-course hi-jinks. Funnier than I would have thought it would be.

Nice, Stephen-- overlaps with and complements my analysis of Fukuyama's barely-coherent wishful thinking.

I liked Bill Murray in Rushmore!

I always preferred his rabble rousing speech: "We're Americans. That means we've been kicked out of every decent country in Europe. We're mutts!"

Great movie. Whatever became of PJ Soles?

While I don't think Fukuyama's piece is terribly strong once he gets into cloning, he does have a point that 9/11 kind of nailed the coffin shut on isolationist libertarianism.

Stephen, I gotta take issue with the line Thinking libertarians feature the likes of Hayek and Rand, Friedman and Postrel. Not one is an isolationist.

Yeah but that qualifier 'thinking' is the sticking point, ain't it? For every Postrel and Hayek, et al., you've got a Harry Browne and the Antiwar.com goobers, the 'official' representatives of libertarianism.

Limiting it only to those 'thinking' libertarians wasn't FF's point. Rather, he was arguing that as an overarching political movement, 9/11 showed some of the glaring flaws in libertarianism.

But hey, ya wanna say you're a libertarian except when it comes to foreign policy, fine. Welcome to the Republican Party. ;-)

Chris --

Fukuyama claimed that ALL libertarians are Harry Brown. All I did was correct him. Don't paint me with the flipside of the same idiot broad brush that he uses.

Read Samizdata. They're hardcore over there -- make me look all squishy and centrist. Yet they're pro-war. Harry Brown is a small minority.

I'll feel welcome in the Republican Party as soon as they're pro-choice, pro-free trade, pro-gay marriage, anti-drug war, and pro-free markets. (As opposed to pro-business, which is entirely different.)

Don't put words in my mouth again, thank you.

Best line out of Stripes:

"That's the fact, Jack!"

"Girls dig me because I rarely wear underwear, and when I do, it's usually something interesting."

"Chicks in New York are paying top dollar for this crap."

"Sarge, does this mean we get the rest of the day off?"

"He said I was swallowing a lot of anger. Along with a lot of pizza."

"You're weird, you're a mutant, you're a lean, mean, fighting machine."

"Hold this."

"Have that moved, corporal."

"Somebody stole my truck!"

Please, stop me.

Fukuyama claimed that ALL libertarians are Harry Brown...Don't paint me with the flipside of the same idiot broad brush that he uses.

Kinda like you just painted all Republicans as being pro-business? ;-)

Stephen, I quoted you and pointed out, what I perceived to be, a flawed line of reasoning via your use of 'thinking libertarians'. Nothing more.

And re: Samizdata, I think the issue is AMERICAN libertarianism. I like Samizdata, but they are primarily across the pond, so arguing about their type of libertarianism isn't terribly helpful, at least in my mind.

Fact remains Browne was the LP candidate, so for all intents and purposes, he's the face of the movement/party at the moment.

9/11 showed how his type of For. Pol. is terribly unpopular and not real practical. If you want to say that he doesn't represent "real" Libertarianism, fine. But as long as his ilk continue fly the official flag of the LP, he's the go-to guy, as it were.

If you want to argue that libertarian party is separate from the ideology, that's fine too, but that's also a separate issue.

To sum up: I merely took issue with your critique of FF via that line you used. I didn't think it was a strong argument, and tried to explain why. That's all.

One more time, this time with feeling: Only a small number of libertarians are in the Libertarian Party.

Furthermore, Harry Brown has been kicked out of the party. He isn't popular there, either. One who walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Now, other than libertarian Ron Paul (R-TX), find me 15 pro-free market Republican. Hell, find me just TWO at the national level.

You still conflate all people with libertarian beliefs with the tiny isolationist minority.

Using Pat Buchanan, I can claim that all Repblicans are immigrant bashing, anti-Semites with TV shows. I can, but I won't.

Don't be such a Fukuyama, Chris.

One last thing, Chris, then I'll drop it. Maybe.

Samizdata is mostly European. Sure, I'll concede that.

But let's look at the biggest libertarian publication here -- Reason. Hardly isolationist. Far from it. Smaller, and more radical, Liberty magazine has a larger share of wackos, but even it tilts pro-war.

Now stop shouting "Harry Brown" all the time and clean up the mess in your own goddamn party.

And I notice you ignored the hell out of abortion, gay marriage, and the idiotic drug war.

Ok, fine, most libertarians aren't memebers of the LP. Most self-described libertarians also are rejecting isolationism as a viable FP. Wasn't the latter a large chunk of FF's argument?

And given the criteria you likely use to define 'free-market' I probably couldn't find ANYONE in the Rep Party that'd satisfy your definition. But that's a whole other issue (ideological purity vs. political viability).

And no, I didn't conflate all libs to the status of HB. Didn't come close. I merely said that, for good or bad, he was the face of the party. The fact that he was kicked out was a positive sign, but he still was the LP's guy for a time. The fact that he was kicked out is further support of FF's point re: Lib. Foreign Policy as having failed.

And Buchanan isn't a good example as he has been more or less excommunicated from the Republican Party and hasn't represented remotely mainstream Rep views for a while.

I ignored the bits about abortion, etc because they are tangential to the point at hand (but to make ya happy: I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and against the drug war as it is currently fought)

But I think we're debating two different things, you're talking about libertarian ideals as a whole. Hell, I LIKE Reason. I'm talking about the failure of one aspect of libertarian thought (FP), and through that, the failure of the Libertarian Party as a viable alternative.

But fine, if you want to say that most self-described libertarians aren't isolationist, then IN THAT RESPECT, they aren't traditional 'libertarians.'

If ya wanna argue that they ARE staying true to the libertarian ideal, ya gotta show how one can incorporate a robust and sometimes interventionist foreign policy into the libertarian ideology.

Ok, fine, most libertarians aren't memebers of the LP. Most self-described libertarians also are rejecting isolationism as a viable FP. Wasn't the latter a large chunk of FF's argument?

No, FF's argument was that LIBERTARIANISM is over. He's wrong.

And given the criteria you likely use to define 'free-market' I probably couldn't find ANYONE in the Rep Party that'd satisfy your definition. But that's a whole other issue (ideological purity vs. political viability).

I mean free-market in the way the Republicans used to mean it. A certain Goldwater comes to mind. The party, however, is owned by the Rockefeller wing.

And no, I didn't conflate all libs to the status of HB. Didn't come close. I merely said that, for good or bad, he was the face of the party. The fact that he was kicked out was a positive sign, but he still was the LP's guy for a time. The fact that he was kicked out is further support of FF's point re: Lib. Foreign Policy as having failed.

Listen to what you just said -- the man is kicked out in disgrace, yet is the face of the party? Keep in mind, I AM NOT a member of the party, but your logic here is truly Fukuyama in its silliness.

And Buchanan isn't a good example as he has been more or less excommunicated from the Republican Party and hasn't represented remotely mainstream Rep views for a while.

I picked Buchanan exactly because he has as much standing with runofthemill Reps as Brown does with runofthemill Libs. Get it?

I ignored the bits about abortion, etc because they are tangential to the point at hand (but to make ya happy: I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and against the drug war as it is currently fought)

But I think we're debating two different things, you're talking about libertarian ideals as a whole. Hell, I LIKE Reason. I'm talking about the failure of one aspect of libertarian thought (FP), and through that, the failure of the Libertarian Party as a viable alternative.

I never argued -- hell, not even Fukuyama argued -- that the LP is a viable alternative. Argue the points I made, please.

But fine, if you want to say that most self-described libertarians aren't isolationist, then IN THAT RESPECT, they aren't traditional 'libertarians.'

My point was that libertarians are the descendents of classical liberals (Jefferson, Paine, etc), not one of whom was isolationist. Did you not read the first half of my post? "Liberal" came to mean "statist," so we had to coin a new word.

If ya wanna argue that they ARE staying true to the libertarian ideal, ya gotta show how one can incorporate a robust and sometimes interventionist foreign policy into the libertarian ideology.

You obviously didn't read the first half of my post. Try again.

No, FF's argument was that LIBERTARIANISM is over. He's wrong.

Not if one key feature of libertarianism is an isolationist foreign policy, which COULD be argued. You presented your case for why it isn't, FF presented his. Personally, I think the fact that one such as HB was the official LP candidate lends strength to FF's position, insofar as LFP is concerned. However, since HB has since been booted, libertarianism is coming around.

But maybe you'd like it better if he said "libertarianism, of the type espoused by the Harry Brownes of the movement" is dead. Better? That's how I read it, you, obviously, read it differently. A fair, and debatable, point.

I mean free-market in the way the Republicans used to mean it. A certain Goldwater comes to mind. The party, however, is owned by the Rockefeller wing.

Find me traditionally conservative publications (NRO, OJ, etc) that have taken a real shine to the steel tariffs. But once again you're confusing 'true libertarianism' as it appears in Reason et al. with how it is practiced (or at the least, nominated).

Listen to what you just said -- the man is kicked out in disgrace, yet is the face of the party? Keep in mind, I AM NOT a member of the party, but your logic here is truly Fukuyama in its silliness.

I said WAS. I misspoke in one post, in one sentence where I mixed tenses. But other than that, I've used the past tense. He WAS the face of the party (the fact he was kicked out supports FF's argument).

I picked Buchanan exactly because he has as much standing with runofthemill Reps as Brown does with runofthemill Libs. Get it?

Sure do, but Pat wasn't the Republican nominee. Harry was the LP's.

I never argued -- hell, not even Fukuyama argued -- that the LP is a viable alternative. Argue the points I made, please.

Heehee...kinda like bringing up abortion, the drug war, and the mess in your own goddamn party?...THOSE points? If you can diverge, so can I. ;-)

My point was that libertarians are the descendents of classical liberals (Jefferson, Paine, etc), not one of whom was isolationist. Did you not read the first half of my post? "Liberal" came to mean "statist," so we had to coin a new word.

Nah, I read it, but I could have as easily substituted 'conservative' for libertarian and made just as valid a point. But if we do that, then we're into the whole "No, *I'm* more Jeffersonian than you!" clusterf---." In other words, I read it, disagreed, but didn't think it was important enough a point to raise.

You obviously didn't read the first half of my post. Try again.

Once again, I read it. But once again, you're gettin' mixed up between what you consider to be true libertarianism and how it is actually practiced. The fact that isolationist libertarianism has fallen out of favor post 9-11 supports FF's argument (least until the cloning mumbo-jumbo).

Barneky! He owes me money!

The "classic liberals" seem to have split about 40 years ago over sex and drugs. Protoliberatarian Goldwater was the "father of modern Conservitism" in the 60s; it wasn't until the 80s when his sexual liberty streak became an issue. Conservatives and Libertarians agree on most other issues.

Mr. Green and I will agree on foreign policy and economics, but part company on sexual issues. I'm open to constructive sugestions on the Drug War.

I hate to sound like an egomaniac, but I would be surprised if Frank Fukuyama has spent two minutes in his life thinking about Harry Browne or the Libertarian Party. They simply have no presence in the intellectual discussion he's part of. He's referring to the Cato Institute on foreign policy, and most of his article is an argument with Ron Bailey and me about biotech. (Don't think he left out the citations accidentally, btw.)

My rather lengthy response, mostly on a single point, is now posted at http://www.dynamist.com/scene.html

"So let's all say thank you to our newest, bestest buddy and Big Toe, Stephen Green."

I just wish I didn't drink all that cough syrup this morning.

If Americans understood the benefits of less government - and 'less' does mean exactly that, not 'no government at all' - they probably would support libertarian politicians. (Hell, they would even vote for Libertarian canditates).

OSHA mandates, sugar price supports, milk price supports, federal subsidies for ADM to produce ethanol, Title I educational money, concressional pork - a libertarian would say "no, no. no!" even if he were a Republican.

But GOP "leaders" refuse to make the case. Newt Gingrich? He talked the talk of small government, but didn't walk the walk. In the end, before resigning, he urged his friends to take tax cuts off the agenda! Can you say retreat?

It's always surprising to me to how often I see libertarians viscously attacking each other over individual policy points when they are in agreement on the majority of issues. We're a relatively small band, so I don't understand the vitriol.

Right now, it's anti-war libs vs. pro-war libs. Just because HB has come out strongly ant-war doesn't mean he's a crank. I have followed his work since the presidential campaign, and it seems respectable to me - he's actually gotten pro-gun-freedom ads aired on Fox News Channel and CNN. I am not aware of him being "kicked out [of the Libertarian Party] in disgrace".

Why can't we respectfully disagree on who holds the mantel of Jeffersonian FP? I happen to believe that Jefferson would have been fairly anti-war in the present situation. Sure - aggressive and merciless defense of the USA, but an undefined and open-ended "war" with targets picked at the whim of a President? Trade with everyone, fight with no one unless they attack you, that's Jefferson, in my opinion.

Respectfully,

Thanks for your thoughts on the distinction between the eugenics movement and what the upshot of current genetic research -- if not strangled by the Luddites -- will likely be: the availability of genetic enhancement as an individual choice.

I've written some similar pieces in my blog:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/quickly/stubbornfacts.html


particularly the February 8 and March 2 entries.


Keep up the good work.