Posts Tagged ‘Libertarian’

In responding to Pope Francis’ statement with respect to homosexuality, Oklahoma House District 91 candidate for state representative Scott Esk has made one of the most vile assertions possible. Mr Esk quoted the Hebrew Bible as condoning the stoning to death of homosexuals. When asked to clarify his position he stated:

“I think we would be totally in the right to do it… That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.” “If men wink at such perversions, God may have no choice than to judge such nations with calamities.”

This is a very direct statement and we should acknowledge Mr. Esk for being honest about his position – all be that position inhumane, despicable, and morally reprehensible. He was honest and, because of that, it’s crystal clear that he should not get a single vote, should not be representing anything within the United Stated government, and should surely not EVER use the word “libertarian” in speaking about himself.

To be clear: The 1978 Libertarian Party platform clearly states the libertarian position on governmental sex discrimination: “No individual rights should be denied or abridged by the laws of the United States or any state or locality on account of sex, race, color, creed, age, national origin, or sexual preference.”

If one can’t discriminate due to sexual preference then how the hell could one possibly murder someone for it!!! This may be some horrible fringe view from the bowels of the Tea Party. But is certainly is not only against “some parts of Libertarianism” but it forsakes the very foundation of Libertarianism by removing it’s cornerstone of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

How dare this man call himself “largely Libertarian” when he takes the most vile, liberty-averse, position that any sentient being could possibly take! Being willing to kill people for behaviors that have no effect on you cancels out every other Libertarian value. Saying that we would “be totally in the right” to stone gays is not only an abhorrent interpretation of the Hebrew bible but it is as evil as you can be. To a Libertarian, there are NO acts between consenting adults that constitute “things that are worthy of death“.

Mr. Esk: In the US constitution LIFE comes even before liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You should be deeply ashamed for holding such a mind-numblingly intolerant view, especially while having the balls to call yourself “pro-life”. This is 2014 not 4000 BCE and if you are pro-death when it comes to people who happen to differ in sexual preference from yourself then you are surely not pro-life. You are simply a bible thumping fringe hypocrite who has no place in American government.

If you know anyone in Oklahoma House District 91, I strongly urge you to encourage them to avoid Scott Esk. He does not represent American, he does not represent the fine tradition of Libertarian discourse, he should NOT represent Oklahoma.


Mitt Romney has selected a running mate who is supposedly a disciple of the great free market, laissez-faire thinkers. Indeed, Paul Ryan speaks of economics with much the same verbiage as Hayek and Mises. From that perspective, I actually like some of the things that Ryan has to say. I, too, consider myself a disciple of Mises and Hayek. And, although I dislike the dogmatic aspects of Randian Objectivism, I, too, was inspired in my youth by Ms. Rand’s vision of human potential, free rational societal structure, and the need for man to thrive through leveraging our uniquely human trait of reason. Rand’s vision, as seen through the eyes of people like Nathaniel Branden, David Kelley, and my friends Stephen Hicks and Michael Newberry (not the dogmatic views of Peter Schwartz and Leonard Peikoff) is inspiring. They will never consider my ties to my Judaism as intellectually valid; but neither do they disparage me for them.

So, then, you might think that I would like Paul Ryan… and…. you’d be….. WRONG.

You see, neither Hayek nor Mises, NOR UNQUESTIONABLY RAND, would accept Paul Ryan’s socially conservative positions. Remember that Rand has issues with both the Left AND the Right. Remember that Peikoff and Schwartz tried to sever all ties between Objectivism and David Kelley just because David was WILLING TO TALK TO Libertarians. Rand, Hayek, and Mises would certainly look upon Ryan’s economics as derivative of their own and they would fully embrace those views. But none of those thinkers are, like Ryan, willing to divorce their social politics from their economic ones. None of them would embrace the inconsistencies between Ryan’s notion of economic freedom and his acceptance of governmental social coercion (like laws about who can marry who or who can or can’t have an abortion.)

It’s like I’ve said before, you can NOT accept Laissez Faire economics and Evangelical Christian social values at the same time, and then try to call yourself consistent. We can all love or hate the Tea Party Movement, but I’m quite confident that Rand would have none of it. The willingness of the Tea Party to accept inconsistent views would turn her off more than the comparable acceptance of those inconsistencies in the Libertarian movement.

So, it’s absolutely fair to say that Ryan was influenced by Rand, Hayek, and Mises. But, don’t be deluded into thinking that any of them would actually view him as their disciple.  Believe me, I’m at least as inconsistent as Paul Ryan. Then again, I’m not running for Vice President. If I was, most of you would not vote for me; which is how I feel about Paul Ryan.

Try asking Ayn Rand what she thinks of the notion that our rights were granted to us by God. See how far Rand would follow Ryan then.