Via Brink, an interesting article on Ron Paul mentions a libertarian split from way back.
The division between paleolibertarians, centered around the Mises Institute, and cosmopolitan libertarians, centered around Cato, is also a case of "culture clash," according to Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com and prominent member of the Mises set. "There's the populist wing of the libertarian movement, and then there's the Washington crowd that's still trying to sell libertarianism, or their version of it, to elites. These people want to go along and get along. As long as they can abort their babies and sodomize each other and take as many drugs as they want to, they are happy. They don't care who is being killed in Iraq and how many Iraqis are dying. That's their hierarchy of values."
I feel bad for the people who bought into his campaign and supported him whole-heartedly. Especially since it could have been me -- I had no idea. I mean, I knew there were cranks that called themselves libertarians, but...
Small government, free market principles appeal to me because the moral case for them is so strong -- would appeal to me even if the free market weren't the best way to "organize" everything economic.
The limited government framework ensures the greatest human liberty. It provides the best opportunity for each of us to live the sorts of lives we want and to seek the sorts of experiences we want.
And poor Mises.
Comments