The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.
Forums
 »
Economics
 »
Economics Questions
 »
Mike Gravel

Mike Gravel

rated by 0 users
Not Answered This post has 0 verified answers | 131 Replies | 16 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
81 Posts
Points 2,755
miksirhc posted on Wed, Mar 26 2008 7:33 PM

Apparently Mike Gravel just joined the Libertarian Party

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/2008/03/gravel_turns_libertarian.html

 So the question is WTF?

Here's his stance on issues:

http://www.gravel2008.us/issues

If he thinks he's a Libertarian, he's uber-crazy...

I'm not lazy, I just have a high time preference.
  • | Post Points: 80

All Replies

Top 50 Contributor
375 Posts
Points 9,410
Reply
ViennaSausage replied on Wed, Mar 26 2008 7:41 PM
I was surprised myself when I heard he left the Democrats, but shocked when I heard he was joining the LP. He is more of a civil libertarian (which is really liberal, in the American sense, imho). Judging from his stances on the issues, I would conjecture he would sway more towards the Green Party. He reminds me of Obama, but less charismatic, combined with Hillary, but not part of the Democratic establishment, with a sprinkle of guts of Dennis Kucinich.

Top 500 Contributor
Male
30 Posts
Points 420
Reply
Taelor replied on Wed, Mar 26 2008 7:57 PM

If the LP nominates Gravel, they'll have lost what little respect I had for them (which was not much).

You can't take the sky from me.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
12 Posts
Points 345
Reply
Throatpoker replied on Wed, Mar 26 2008 9:26 PM
I'm more and more amazed and irritated by the sheer number of social democrats that consider themselves libertarians (Bill Maher, P.J. O'Rourke, Penn and Teller, Drew Carey, etc.). They're all for freedom, but they friggin' hate capitalism, to say the least, which shows their complete ignorance of how the economy works. For them, it's not the state that's inherently coercive and wrong, it's just that the people elected are the baddies, plus it's a BIG NO'NO to even insinuate to them that the state must shrink in order for people to become more free and prosperous.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
327 Posts
Points 5,425
Reply
scineram replied on Wed, Mar 26 2008 9:58 PM
What makes Penn and Teller social democrats? I am unfamiliar with them.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
119 Posts
Points 2,045
Reply
IrishOutlaw replied on Wed, Mar 26 2008 11:01 PM

 Yeah, I am tired of all these crazy politicians that want to close down the borders saying they are libertarians.

The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that 'the best government is that which governs least,' and that which governs least is no government at all.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
162 Posts
Points 2,210
Reply
billott1 replied on Wed, Mar 26 2008 11:38 PM

Gravel hopes to full and blind the Liberterians among us with some anti-war, rights to my body, freedom to take drugs, etc.  Then in the same platform proposes giant state run programs that steal these rights with Socialized Health Care, locked up borders and lots more central government run education.  He obviously listens to the self proclaimed Liberterian:Neil Bortz and is a believer in the gimmick "Flat Tax".

If this guy is the Liberterian Candidate for President then the Liberterian Party is worse than I thought.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
162 Posts
Points 2,210
Reply
billott1 replied on Wed, Mar 26 2008 11:47 PM

And the worst part of his agenda of freedom sucking ever expanding welfare for some/warefare on the productive state:  He wants more investment in Social Security?  This more than any other program is the second venture into pure socialism after the Federal Reserver Act 20 years earlier.  Social Insecurity is the least Liberterian government program in existence simply for the reason that it is the largest government program in existence.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
30 Posts
Points 540
Reply
RiflesReady replied on Wed, Mar 26 2008 11:55 PM

When I read what SEKIII wrote about the Libertarian party being a kind of statist attack on libertarians, I thought he was perhaps paranoid.

But if this nonsense is true, then his words may be prophetic, at the least. 

 

"The difference between death and taxes is death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets." Will Rogers
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
1,523 Posts
Points 29,350
Reply
Brainpolice replied on Thu, Mar 27 2008 12:08 AM

Oh, SEKIII was definitely correct about that in the first place. The Libertarian Party was a horrid idea from the start. Aside from it being a strategic contradiction and blunder, it has contributed to the ideological confusion about what libertarianism is.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
1,523 Posts
Points 29,350
Reply
Brainpolice replied on Thu, Mar 27 2008 12:37 AM

IrishOutlaw:

 Yeah, I am tired of all these crazy politicians that want to close down the borders saying they are libertarians.

Haha. Right on. *wink wink* Geeked

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
439 Posts
Points 8,150
Reply
Donny with an A replied on Thu, Mar 27 2008 1:46 AM

I thought this was funny: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/you-wont-want-t.html 

http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
1,143 Posts
Points 21,300
Reply
Stranger replied on Thu, Mar 27 2008 10:46 AM

 Let's admit it. The word libertarian has returned to its original, pre-Rothbard meaning: anarcho-communist.

Start calling yourself something new. 

Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 10 Contributor
849 Posts
Points 17,195
Reply
Ego replied on Thu, Mar 27 2008 10:52 AM