Despite what most of the big media types seem to think, Bob Barr doesn’t have the LP nomination wrapped up. From what I can tell (mostly by reading the opinions of those who actually cover/participate in LP politics) Barr’s chances are around 50 percent, with four or five other candidates also having a plausible chance of grabbing the nomination.
One candidate on that list is the former-Democratic Senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel. Gravel’s recent defection to the LP always struck me as odd, as from what I can tell his political philosophy can be summed up as: anti-establishment, anti-war, socialist and oddly infatuated with a national initiative process.
A recent article in the American Spectator (complete with snide libertarian kiddie porn remark) shows just how un-libertarian gravel is:
AFTERWARDS, I ASKED Gravel to discuss his views on health care. He said I could find his proposal in his book, before cautioning, “But my health-care plan isn’t going to pass Congress. Nor is any other. There’s no money.”
He said he would “empower the American people so they could make a decision” about what health-care system they want.
“Do you think it’s the government’s role to give people health care?” I asked.
“Well, I don’t know who else could give people health care,” Gravel said. “Government is like a tool, a tool for our collective activity.” He described government as being like a hammer, which could be used when we need it, put aside, but also has the power to kill if not reined in.
“Do you think people have a right to health care?” I followed up.
“Yes, I think people have a right to a sound economy, to health care, and to education,” he insisted. “Yes they do, because they have a right to freedom. You can’t have freedom unless you have the other three. How are you going to be free if you have no money? You’re not free — you’re just a drunk in the street. How are you going to be free if you’re sick? You’re sick like a jerk. How are you going to be free if you’re dumb? You’re too dumb to participate in freedom. Freedom means education. Freedom means health care. Freedom means a sound economy.”
He acknowledged that he was old enough to know that he doesn’t have all the answers, which is why he would leave it to the people.
“But what happens when 300 million different voices and people disagree with each other?” I asked him.
“You rule by majority,” Gravel said.
“Well, what if the minority doesn’t want to pay for someone else’s health care?”
“Go to another country,” he said.
Majority rule - robbing 49% Peter to pay 51% Paul - doesn’t square with the rights-based libertarianism I subscribe to. Further, why should I be optimistic about voters whom gave a majority of support to Al Gore in 2000 and George Bush in 2004?
After all, there’s a reason Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a book titled: Democracy: The God That Failed.


3 Comments Received
Actually you are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. That’s just non-sequitor rhetoric. What you are doing is taking from everyone (Peter and Paul) and giving to everyone (peter and Paul). Gravel also expressed one of the most fundamental and basic criticisms of libertarianism, the wholesale rejection of the social contract.
Under a majority rules system (like Gravel says he wants) 51 percent can use government coercion to take from the other 49 percent. Just because they say it is for “healthcare” doesn’t make it right.
Under your theory of the social contract, there is no limit to what a majority can decide they want to do to everyone (or how much in taxes they want to take from everyone) for the sake of what they think is best. That is pretty much the opposite of libertarianism.
Wow… you are a douche bag. Sory was that too harsh. I think not.
RON PAUL IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN A REAL LIBERTARIAN. EVER. PERIOD END OF STORY.
I CAN CITE CHAPTER AND VERSE ON THE SUBJECT.
RULE 1
DISCRIMINATION OF ANY PERSONS IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN IDEA. NOR IS GIVING THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE TO THE STATE.
You’re not even worth the energy it takes to type. So…
Leave A Reply