“Government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Instead it has turned against the people. Politicians and government bureaucrats of both parties want to impose their will and take control over every aspect of the lives of the American people. It’s time to turn the tables. I will fight on behalf of the people. I will defend the constitution. I will repeal laws, not create new ones. I will cut government, not grow it. I will find programs to terminate, not create new ones. The only power I will relish is the power of the veto. I love the smell of vetoes in the morning! I vow to veto more bills than any President in history.”

Always a good read.

Check out http://jimunro.blogspot.com/2007/05/wayne-allyn-root.html to see why, and use the link, or go direct to Root for America at;
http://www.rootforamerica.com/

This is not a sly attempt to get votes, (well 1 or 2 would ease my angst). Not really I vote for someone else.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-fall/decline-fall-american-conservatism.asp

For an alternate discussion of political labels I thought the following was interesting, although it seems to come at things from a starting point quite different to my own and at times I judged aspects of it to be quite flawed:-

http://beyondrightandleft.com.au/archives/2005/09/beyond_right_an.html

The same is likely to happen with the radical and right-wing labels, which are based on differences over selected issues. If neo and paleo don’t signify a difference between saying and doing, perhaps we require terms that do. Or, as the neos put, between pragmatists and purists.

A “neo” libertarian is pretty much exactly what I described as a “right-wing” libertarian (and pro-war) while a “paleo” is pretty much exactly what I described as a “radical” (and anti-war). Both groups are involved in politics, though (as per my original distinction) some “radicals/paleos” are opposed to the idea of voting. Believing something like:

“Don’t vote… it just encourages them”

The problem with the neo/paleo tag is that while those groupings were originally intended to be broad (like “right-wing” and “radical”) they have come to be associated quite closely with just the few American groups that use those words regularly. Also, some people define “neo” as also meaning “moderate”, which I think adds to confusion vis-a-vis my three way taxonomy.

I came across that distinction myself during this debate and found it useful. I think it explains why some people are happy with economic freedom but draw the line at more practical examples such as gun ownership or gay marriage. Economic freedom is much easier to theorise.

However, it does not explain why some people are neolibertarians to the extent that they get involved in political parties and elections, but paleolibertarians on foreign interventions like Iraq. Can the same person be both a neo and a paleo?

http://www.neolibertarian.net/

http://www.neolibertarian.net/blogs/