Steve G.

Redpath speaks at Virginia Commonwealth University

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics on October 10, 2008 at 1:29 am

Libertarian National Committee Chairman Bill Redpath, the LP candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, spoke Wednesday evening at Virginia Commonwealth University. A video of his appearance starts below; subsequent segments may be found here.

  1. Mr. Redpath does not mention his views against gun ownership. “….I would propose retention and even creation of a few that, according to research by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, who has written at least two pro-gun books, have likely reduced crime.”

    He apparently feels that our right to own guns is established by the Supreme Court, rather than inherent in ourselves.

  2. When Redpath ran for Governor of Virginia in 2001, he stated, unequivocally on a PBS interview that he supported gun registration, which would provide necessary information for law enforcement to solve crimes involving firearms which had been discharged.

    I don’t believe that Redpath is opposed to gun “ownership”, though he could surprise again with support of further gun control measures, such as gun bans. Plus, I don’t recall him ever saying that he opposed the “one handgun a month” restriction, a no brainer libertarian position.

  3. So, in keeping with Redpath’s horrible characterization of libertarianism as being liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues, Redpath (in the video) indicates being a Democrat who became “conservative” on economics! Then he says it again in this speech, that libertarianism is essentially a fusion of liberal and conservative stances!

    When the LNC chair thinks of liberty as a fusion, rather than conservative and “liberal” (modern liberalism) being a ripping apart, of fundamental liberty, there is something very wrong with the LP. It starts at the top.

    Mr. Redpath ought to get his history and fundamentals straight. The truth is, modern American Conservatism and Liberalism picked the parts of libertarianism they support, and discard the parts they don’t. Libertarianism keeps them all.

    Now Bill, repeat after me . . . libertarianism is NOT liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues (repeat until it gets through!!!)

  4. Steve I don’t know where the idea came from, that the LP is socially liberal and economically conservative, or some variation of that phrasing, but it has spread like a disease.

    The California LP has similar wording at the top of their website. Until we can get someone to stand up in front of the convention and say otherwise we seem to be doomed to have to listen to such nonsense.

  5. Ditto to Steve and Michael.

    I can understand how a good neolibertarian might be tempted to use the socially liberal/economic conservative meme when explaining to a mentally retarded voter what libertarianism is in 5 seconds or less, but why would the Chair of the LNC running for US Senate pull such a meaningless soundbite from his tightly clinched sphincter when not forced to?

    If I decide to leave the comfort of my home on election day to go to the polls, it won’t be to vote but rather to urge others not to vote.

    The government AND the candidates have no legitimacy. I withhold my consent to be governed.

  6. I don’t recall Redpath being a member of the one-gun-a-month club here in Virginia – that was Governor-now-Mayor Doug Wilder’s thing.

    I voted for Redpath for Governor and have supported him previously in the LPVA – but not this time. I’m not really digging his CATO/Hoover Institute platform.

    As for Barr/Root, I’d sooner vote for Cynthia McKinney – and I can’t do that either. I don’t trust any of them.

  7. Refusing to vote is equivalent to saying “do what you wish” to the winner.

    Redpath is talking to the masses who have absolutely no idea what a Libertarian is. It is my belief that we need to get more people to dip their toes (so to speak) into the idea of true freedom. If the fussion argument works, then great, do it. Once they get in, they’ll more than likely “get it”, if not, we didn’t want them anyway.

    I’m voting Libertarian where possible and writing in just about everywhere else. I’m registering my displeasure to the system and I’ll be working towards the 2010 elections on Nov 5.

  8. Refusing to vote is equivalent to saying “do what you wish” to the winner.

    I don’t see it that way. It could be saying “I’ve got better things to do,” or “All you state-approved candidates suck, and I know my write-in vote will be tossed,” or even “I find voting immoral/distasteful/stupid, so I’ll sit this one out, thanks.”

    None of those things is any more the equivalent of saying “do what you wish” than the refusal of a robbery victim to fight it out over a five-dollar bill is acquiescence to the theft.

    We should respect the nonvoters’ decision. I miss my nonvoting days and look forward to returning to them, but I don’t rightly feel I can ask folks to vote for Candidate X unless I am willing to do the same.

    Think how much better the world would be if *no one voted* (or, hell, even if 20% of asshats kept voting after the mass of folks gave it up). There’d be no talk of a ‘mandate’ for robbery and butchery on the massive scale allowed by the ‘democratic’ system of government we have now.

  9. One of my purposes in life is to agree with Susan Hogarth every chance I get. Here’s one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: