Feed on
Posts
Comments

He writes today:

I learned a real lesson about politics from my brief involvement in this issue — which is, don’t ever become involved again.  I am still frankly reeling from the refusal of gay rights activists to work with our group because I and others involved did not hold other Left-wing opinions.  Until this time I had a fantasy that libertarians could make common cause with the Left on social issues and the Right on fiscal and commerce issues, but I saw how this was a pipe dream.

I think I still share the pipe dream but perhaps from the other direction. In other words, I think I can/have done a reasonably good job convincing some Team Reebok members that they should care about economics and how the economic way of thinking can help us all get more of what we want, and had always believed that building common ground about good economics and fiscal sanity might make them more amenable to thinking harder about issues that are important to me, such as the gay rights issue, increasing respect for immigrants, and a few others. But I sense that I should be equally depressed as Coyote, the only reason perhaps is that I’ve not yet gone out on a political limb like Coyote has.

What do you think?

6 Responses to “Coyote’s Pipe Dream”

  1. Harry says:

    Every year I stick yard signs in the yard along the road, hoping to improve the name recognition of candidates I support in both primary and general elections. I have done additional work, too, like making hours of phone calls and circulating candidates’ petitions for primary elections.

    Some of these candidates have been philosophically better than others. None have been Marxists. Some have read both Bastiat and Hayek, and some think you are insulting them with the word Bastiat. None have been from the Libertarian Party. Most either wittingly favor Aristotle over Plato.

    One time I asked my U.S congressman at a local town meeting about the stupidity of the ban on incandescent light bulbs, and his reaction was as if my shirt were covered with polonium. His answer was that that was going to be taken care of. It turned out that the law did not get repealed. But then, as I think about it, it was not his fault at all, nor was massive election fraud in Philadelphia, nor were the continual debacles we see today. He got my yard sign, my bumper sticker, my phone calls on Election Day, and over the years a few hundred dollars of my hard-earned money. International readers of TUW can guess his political party.

    So. I think it is most important to contribute to the intellectual debate, which Coyote (and WC, and many others do) does so well. I think the more people know, freedom and liberty win.

    But I do not think it is constructive to give up on Mitch McConnell and John Boehner because they have been unpersuasive with Valerie Jarrett in changing any of her policy decisions, some of which might lead to World War III. If you want to change that, the first step is to support the campaign of a Republican running for Senate to get rid of Harry Reid.

    I understand Coyote’s frustration, living in Arizona. He should be glad he never had to hold his nose and vote for Arlen Specter.

  2. Harry says:

    Meant to say, “wittingly or unwittingly..”

  3. chuck martel says:

    The gay marriage issue is one the political class loves to argue because its ramifications are more social than economic and distract the chattering masses from meaningful stuff like government mandated unemployment and tax payer funded football stadiums. The reality is that gays have been living together since the mammoths, some of whom may have been gay themselves, roamed the earth. There’s no reason why government should have anything to say about who lives with whom, no reason legislative action should be taken on the issue, and no reason judges and courts should have a say in it. Any concerns that the participants might have can be addressed through voluntary contractual relations.

    The staunch Epicurean/Existentialist ignores arguments like this, takes his kids fishing, shows them how to sharpen a knife and tie knots, and spends his evenings playing cribbage with the old lady.

  4. Harry says:

    My apologies both to WC and Coyote, who were on a different topic.

  5. sherlock says:

    Chuck,

    Coyote does agree with this sentiment that government shouldn’t really be involved with who is living with who, but the fact of the matter is, the government is already so involved (“economically” speaking via tax codes) with marriage that it is unfair to not recognize gay marriage. And there’s no way that you’re going to get all those references to marriage removed from the state and federal books.

    See here: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/06/the-non-marriage-penalty.html

  6. Harry says:

    So is the question, “What can be done to convince some, many, gay people that the Liberals are not their friends?” I could reformulate that question in another hundred different ways to start a reasonable discussion of the same serious question; any way that will quiet the room will do, as long as people are of good will, which generally describes the contributors to TUW.

    It is perplexing, the question. One would think the principle of freedom, embedded in our Constitution and derived from robust philosophical principles, would be embraced by every outcast, among whom are gay people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, and the Amish. OK, the Amish cast themselves out. But, for example, how can Jewish people prepare to give Hillary Clinton hundreds of millions of dollars after she hugged and kissed Yassir Arafat’s wife in support of the destruction of Israel? Or, how come Lutheran Bishops, traveling to the Holy Land on the Synod dime, kissed and hugged Mr. and Mrs. Arafat, supporters of ruthless bloodshed?

    Some people are Marxists, collectivists, Communists, single-issuists, who place those values first, and use whatever means they can to advance their cause, and if it is useful, promote themselves not as defenders of Marxism, but as defenders of the gay community, or since it is demographically convenient, of women. After all, Marxism has failed miserably, and continues to fail miserably everywhere. Why try to explain that, when changing the subject elects more sympathetic people willing to take freedom away?

    So, what to do? I hope neither Coyote nor WC get too discouraged, because they both do a great job of promoting freedom, which allows tolerance even for the freedom of Marxists, ubiquitous as cockroaches in some places, to speak their minds and convince gay people they are their friends. Notice that I have avoided trying to answer the very question I asked.

Leave a Reply

books on zlibrary official