Why the Attacks on the Koch Brothers?

Why the Attacks on the Koch Brothers?

The simple answer is, pop your head up and you’re going to get hammered. The right has been going after international billionaire megalomanic and currency crasher George Soros, so the left had to find someone on the right to do the same to.

As usual, the left's aim is cockeyed...
The Koch brothers are not on the “right.” They are pro-gay rights, anti-drug war, anti-war, anti-Patriot Act libertarians. They’ve even gone so far as to fund suspect activities like the ACLU and ballet! For more information on these patriotic Americans, go here, and here. For a particularly funny and (and true) take on the lefty attacks, go read epistemicfail’s righteous rant. It will take you less than five minutes, you’ll learn something, and you’ll split your sides laughing.

The “Anonymous” attacks on the Koch’s belies the fact that these shadowy WikiLeaks confreres of the internet are not info-anarchists, but just lefty nihilists wanting to burn it all down, man.

American Left:  Unhinged, Unbalanced, Unencumbered by Reality

The attacks on these men are not surprising. Modern-day progressivism is an incoherent, personality-based movement of various caliginous interests and agitation groups, loosely gathered, each to protect his or her own particular ideological or financial turf.

They shout “science!” and talk about free thinking, but demand we all bow down when Reverend Al Gore, International Church of Gaia, declares the earth will catch fire if we (not he) don’t all start driving electric cars and living in Gilligan’s Island huts. They demand we perform the very unscientific act of accepting their self-serving models and theories as dogma, lest they anathematize us as stupid hicks not worthy of even debating.

This is why the Koch's Threaten the Left:

Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want. (Why Koch Industries is Speaking Out)

The Koch brothers have become the latest villain in the progressive narrative

The most effective lefty attacks are those that point out that the Koch brothers fund conservative causes. Although they are libertarian, they’ve got to plant the flag somewhere, and conservatism holds the firmest, highest ground right now. Would these critics expect libertarians to make common cause with politically correct, doctrinaire progressives who cheer the growth of the state?

Conservatives are not such a bad fit, since they share the goal of rolling back the size of the federal government. Yes, Democrats share Koch values on gay marriage, but the left’s belief in the supremacy of the state blows the whole deal. No, conservatives are a better, but not perfect fit. They want to roll back government power and restore personal liberty. And by the way, states continue to decide the gay marriage question on their own, abortion is still legal, and more and more republicans are blowing on their burned fingers, vowing to avoid touching the hot stove of foreign intervention again.

Libertarianism is an existential threat to Progressivism

Going after the Koch’s is stabbing at the heart of the anti-government beast. Modern-day conservatism is hard to defend and wholly complicit in bringing about our current fiscal calamity; libertarianism is not. It has a cachet right now borne of it’s inherent logic. It resonates with our founding principles and it is just the jolt conservatism needed to shock it back into some semblance of logical coherence and consistency.

Libertarianism has contributed greatly to the intellectual ferment on the right. Paloecons battle neocons, with moderates preaching a middle way while fiscal conservatives call for a truce on moral issues. Many religious conservatives don’t like libertarians, but it’s all in play, which is why the conservative cause is attracting interest (and votes) from those in the middle. For this reason I say the right will continue to surge, and the left will continue it embarrassing shrivel.

The Koch Brothers' Agenda is Clear--The Left's is Not

We know what the Koch brothers stand for because they state it clearly in person and through the organizations they openly fund, like CATO and Reason. The Koch’s stand for liberty and personal responsibility. For this reason they oppose an ever more overweening state that leaves the US Constitution getting smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror.

What does Soros and the left want? What are their guiding principles? What is their end-game?

Libertarian Nation

Libertarian Nation?  We’re not quite there yet…

* 10% Self-identify as libertarian

* 23 % responded to questions about the role of government in a way that categorizes them as libertarian

A survey conducted by Zogby for the Cato Institute has put the libertarian vote at around 15 percent. Loosen the wording, and the pool expands. When the Zogby survey asked voters if they would describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian, the number rose to 44 percent. When it simply asked if they were fiscally conservative and socially liberal, a full 59 percent responded yes. (http://nymag.com/news/politics/70282/)

Libertarian Me

I have turned libertarian over the past few years. There are many strains, but I tend more towards the Hayek/founding fathers variety. That makes me an “impure” medium-core libertarian, although I’m an avid fan of anarcho-capitalist and modern-day libertarian patriarch Murray Rothbard. The man is brilliant and his logic is unassailable, but I still believe in a state as envisioned by the founders.


Christian Me

Social conservatives consider us turncoats and libertines, especially those of us who are conservative Christians. I make my moral decisions based upon my Christian beliefs, but I make political ones based upon our nation’s secular bible, The US Constitution. This leads me to personally oppose gay marriage, but to also declare that the state should not interfere. I also believe, based on the same constitution, that the state may not punish churches that refuse to conduct same-sex ceremonies.

“Libertarianism gets marginalized in American politics because it doesn’t fit into the two-party paradigm. Libertarians want less state intrusion into the market, which aligns them with Republicans, but also less interference in social choices, which aligns them with Democrats. As Massachusetts governor William Weld put it in 1992, I want the government out of your pocketbook and your bedroom.” (http://nymag.com/news/politics/70282/)

The author goes on to note that “libertarianism is more internally consistent than the Democratic or Republican platforms,” which is what makes it so appealing to rational minded individuals. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of which party wields it. If I oppose liberal democrats hijacking the power of the state in the name of social justice, how can I support George Bush’s Office of Faith Base Initiatives?

“At least the highwayman would take your money and leave you alone.  The government takes your money, then stands around and tells you what to do with it” -- Douglas French, President, Mises Institute

You may be more libertarian than you think.  Christopher Beam has written a pretty good article about libertarianism today entitled, The Trouble With Liberty.  He takes a skeptical view, but he's fairly even-handed, taking only a few gentle cheap shots.  If you're curious about libertarianism and the tea party tie-in, you should go read the whole article.

If you're hungry for more, here are my favorite libertarian links.  There are many, many more than these, but these best accord with my "brand" of libertarianism.

The CATO Institute is America's preeminent libertarian think tank.  CATO@Liberty is their blog.

Reason Magazine is my favorite libertarian publication.  Full of fun and interesting stuff updated daily, with writers such as Drew Carey, Penn and Teller, John Stossel and David Harsanyi.

The flagship of Austrian School Economics is The Ludwig von Mises Institute.  It's not just wonky economics, so don't be scared off.  Fresh articles on freedom and liberty daily, as well as classic writing from the past that are relevant to today's topics.

For a principled criticism of Austrian School Economics, you can read Professor Bryan Caplan's paper, Why I am Not an Austrian Economist

GOP Destroyed America!

Republicans stand guilty of collaboration with progressives

Market Watch's Paul Farrell has written a scathing critique of Republicans, entitled GOP Destroyed the US Economy, where he comments on Reagan OMB Director David Stockman's stinging rebuke of Republican economic policy.

I'm particularly attuned to Reagan criticism, since I combat so much of it in Left Blogistan.  Lefty critiques are incoherent babble, easily refuted, but the libertarian thrusts draw blood.  Farrell and Stockman, though not libertarians, nonetheless deploy classic Rothbardian arguments (excepting their advocacy for higher taxes and protectionism).

Here Are the Four Republican Sins that Set Us on the Road to Perdition

• Nixon reneging on the Bretton Woods agreement and completely decoupling the US dollar from the price of gold.  The precipitous decline of our dollar is the result
• Crushing debts, from domestic pork and overseas adventures
• Corporate welfare for Wall Street
• Addiction to cheap crap and easy money has hollowed out our economy

We are a Progressive Nation
All I can say in defense of Republicans is they worked with what they had.  Give a sculptor a pile of dung, and she can sculpt something with it.  It won't come out as beautiful as her work in clay...

Progressives built a doomsday device.  Try to dismantle it and it will explode, destroying our nation and society.  You can't starve the beast without starving granny.

But this excuse won't fly anymore.  If the GOP gets power back, they had better use it to shatter the existing system, or we are done for.

Free Markets, Free People:  Let's try it here in America
We have been suffering under the fallacy that there is not downside to government programs.  Austrian School libertarian Kel Kelly provides some guidance:

in a free market, we would not need government "protection" because we would be protected by tough competition in the marketplace. If one company tried to underpay or overcharge us, there would be many more companies we could turn to that were offering higher wages and lower prices (i.e., market wages and prices) in order to attract us.

Companies would therefore find ways to produce with lower costs, a goal they could more easily accomplish with more capital available to them. The more capital they employed and the greater workers' corresponding productivity, the higher the market wages.

Stop the Printing Presses!

And without the government's manipulation of interest rates and the printing of money, there would be no wide-scale malinvestment, and therefore no recessions and financial crises. In this case, prices would fall instead of rise most years, and our lives would generally improve through time.

You could also save your money in a safe, low interest bank account and not have it nibbled away by inflation, thereby being able to support yourself in your old age.


Failure:  Businesses go broke - Government grows bigger

No central planner can determine what is best for each of us individually or in the aggregate. The economy works only though individual decisions and choices.
No politician can help companies produce more efficiently or in a way that better pleases consumers. By using market prices and rates of profit, businesses generally best determine what we individuals want for our lives. If they judge correctly and produce what we need and desire, they succeed; if they don't, they die.

Government, on the other hand, dictates what it wants us to have, and has no system of profit and loss to determine whether it is succeeding in pleasing its "customers," or whether it is producing or destroying wealth in the process. Since it can't determine its success or failure in money terms, it is necessarily always destroying wealth on a net basis. And since government is a monopoly, it does not allow competitors for us to turn to.

Is government doing a "good job?"

The only real test of whether a "good job" is done is whether or not it has become easier for people — all people — to achieve an increased living standard from one year to the next, given the same amount of labor hours performed.

Excerpts from Mises.org: Kel Kelly - Can Politicians Help Us?

War is Un-Conservative

I got slightly cross-ways with fellow Right Blogistan blogger Epaminondas over at Infidel Blogger's Alliance.   It's all good.  He was voicing support for John Bolton, a smart man and a patriotic American, and I went off on neocons.

It's important for us conservatives to have these conversations and air our differences while still respecting each others' opinions.

I am Anti-War

I am anti-war, but not for the America-hating reasons lefties are. My opposition is a libertarian one:  No nation has the right to invade another unprovoked, and anyway it's a waste of money and a tragic expenditure of blood and treasure.  Since I'm a medium-core libertarian, I do allow exceptions, especially when we are helping others help themselves.

I also support our ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, although I would like to see them wrapped up and us out of there.  Americans are fighting and dying there, and they need our support

Here are four reasons I dislike the neocons, with links to my blog posts containing in-depth information for those who want more details.

Unintended Consequences
George Bush had good intentions, and he really could have tipped over the old Muslim World order, but our allies and public opinion abandoned us, and now the forces of evil there have retrenched. Despotic regimes everywhere are re-empowered, especially Iran.  (The Road to Hell)

International Progressive projects are just as bad as domestic ones
Neo-Wilsonian efforts to usher in a New World Order is an internationalist progressive pipe dream, and we can't afford it. Conservatives cannot credibly rail against grand progressive projects at home while supporting them overseas. (Global War on American Prosperity)

Nation Building is folly
Nation building is folly when not done in cooperation with the people whose nation you are trying to build. Successes in this area have a common theme: Those we helped build or rebuild accepted our help and did most of the heavy lifting themselves.Also, small government advocates should admit that the central-planning we rail against at home is equally no good when we impose it on others overseas.  (The Folly of Nation Building)

The Forgotten Human Cost of War
Finally, the human cost of war is all too often blithely dismissed. Couples divorce, families are irretrievably broken, lives are changed forever. People who have survived combat will never be the same again. Children will lose parents; spouses will lose their beloved; siblings and parents will be left with nothing but memories. War wrecks lives and produces a cohort of walking wounded. For this reason, military action should never be taken lightly.  (War is Hell)

Conclusion
I think we need to look at what has happened and use our experience to make better decisions in the future.  Would it really have mattered whether we ended up buying Kuwaiti oil from Kuwaiti despots versus an Iraqi one?  Especially since we are doing business with Saudi despots who hate us and who are funding Islamic jihad against the West. 

Sometimes it's better to sit back, save up some money and keep your powder dry.  Now that's a conservative concept.

A Libertarian Defense of the Religious Right

The Goose-Stepping progressives are on the march against Christianity and traditional American values


Social Conservatives have been fighting the good fight against radical Islam and gay marriage, and doing it with tact and logic, sending the knee-jerk, lock-step left into bug-eyed apoplectic seizures.  Whatever normal Americans are for, the anti-American left is against. 


They call support for civil partnerships hatred, although this solution would grant gay couples the rights to all that a heterosexual couple have excepting the word marriage.

They are reduced to planting agents provocateur at tea party rallies in order to get pictures of "racists."

They've been screaming since the Reagan 80's about the dangers of a Christian theocracy, while ignoring blown up buildings, decapitations, genital mutilation, and routine killings of adulteresses and homosexuals by the poor misunderstood Muslims.  It can't be easy maintaining such studied ignorance...

Here's the best defense of Christianity in the public arena that I have read to date, and it's written by an agnostic libertarian.

Engineer extraordinaire, professor, pundit, and committed hard-core libertarian Randall Hoven has written a piece in the American Thinker entitled, A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism. He defends social conservatism better than social conservatives do.

He exposes the angry left as the truly intolerant social engineers who use legislation and the courts to boss the rest of us around.  In the midst of all this cultural combat, this is a real morale boost.

The most obvious point to me is that it is the do-gooding liberals who are telling us all what we can and can't do.

The religious right usually just wants to be left alone, either to home school, pray in public or not get their children vaccinated with who-knows-what. Inasmuch as the "religious right" wants some things outlawed, they have failed miserably for at least the last 50 years.

Abortion, sodomy, and pornography are now all Constitutional rights. However, praying in public school is outlawed, based on that same Constitution.

I must say, even as an agnostic, something is creepy about a government that outlaws Nativity scenes at City Hall, but subsidizes Piss Christ. That tries to disband the Boy Scouts but promotes gay marriage. That disallows even voluntary, student-led prayer at public school, but teaches children how to put on condoms.

What is so funny about Bill Maher's Religulous? What is so bad about Sarah Palin hoping to do God's will or praying for His guidance?

Religious Conservatives can embrace core principles, keep our traditional values, and still attract small government and libertarian agnostics to our cause. Onward Christian (and Jewish) soldiers!

War Protesting is Too Important to be left to Liberals

Despite tea party camaraderie, conservatives remain suspicious of that oddball ideology called libertarianism.  Conservatives agree with perhaps 90% of it, but it's that other 10% that's bothersome. 

Kinda like the new guy at work.  A solid family man, he seems normal, likes sports and enjoys bantering over the issues of the day...  but he wears a bowtie and drives a '56 Citroen.  Hmmm...

Leftists Give "Anti-War" a Bad Name
Libertarians, like our founders, believe we should only resort to war when our nation is threatened.  This irks many conservatives rubbed raw by eight years of screaming Bush-haters.

To understand where these anti-war libertarians are coming from, I recommend The Siren Song of Pax Americana, a coherent argument for discontinuing American military interventions.  I don't agree with every line, but it is a good anti-war argument minus the "Bush is Hitler" and "America is terrorizing little brown people" crap constantly being slung in all directions by the slobbering baboons on the left.

His first point is that there are so many fires we just don't have enough people or equipment to stamp them all out, and endemic cultural dysfunction (or mere cultural differences) make the task even more difficult.  A close corollary is that world peace can never be achieved, so we are wasting time, money and lives in a Utopian pursuit. 

If an inconsequential and globally un-strategic country falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?

The author asks a good question:

Why must a single power act to restore order? If America does not act, will not those nations in the vicinity of a crisis have a strong incentive to cope with it?

The Balkans in the 1990's comes to mind.  Nobody coped with it.  Europe dithered and we had to go in.  Or did we?  Would it have damaged our national interests to stand back and let them go genocidal on one another?  Sounds callous, but "Nothing" is exactly what we are doing in the hundreds of other hot spots, most famously, Darfur.  More importantly, The US Constitution nowhere charges the federal government to "do something" just because our moral sensibilities are offended.

OK, what about "protecting" Middle Eastern oil?

As oil is the principal source of revenue for the Persian Gulf countries, an explicit attempt to withhold this source of wealth from world markets would certainly be more painful for the perpetrators of such a policy than for their intended victims.

But he lost me at the end...

We will never be able to limit American overreaching so long as the current imbalance in military power persists.

Given America's overwhelming military superiority to any opponent, the temptation to use that power is well-nigh irresistible. To cope with this problem, our military forces must be drastically reduced.

Logically, that makes sense.  Build war toys and politicians can't resist using them.  But in today's world, it is just not practical. 

The best we can hope for is to maintain a very strong defense tempered by a citizenry who demands that a very high bar must be cleared before we actually use it.

What do Jim Crow and Today's Liberals Have in Common?

The Rand Paul-civil rights hubbub caused me somewhat of an intellectual crisis.  An ideology that indifferently resigns people to second-class status cannot be defended in my mind.  Time for Silverfiddle to abandon libertarianism?  Perish the thought!  Happily, I stumbled across two pieces that put everything in proper context.

First, David Paul Kuhn did an excellent job explaining why sincere civil rights champions were so incensed.  Then along came Jacob Sullum to reiterate basic libertarian fundamentals and apply them in defense of civil rights for all.  These two excerpts reconciled my crisis.  I'm still proudly in the libertarian camp.

Some Anger is indeed Righteous

David Paul Kuhn explains why sincere liberals and civil rights activists are upset over Rand Paul's comments concerning the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Shorn of the MSNBC screeching and community activist bullhorn shouting, the argument makes a lot of sense. 

This calls to mind, for the left, a long-standing grievance. Many of today's conservatives speak of the civil rights movement's virtues and denounce racism. But they also rail against an activist government that was vital to ending Jim Crow. For liberals, Paul personifies how the right tries to have it both ways. They hear a conservatism that espouses the virtues of equality but opposed the only means to attain it.

Buckley later expressed deep regret for his stance on civil rights, as did Goldwater. But to liberals, that leaves much unresolved. They believe one cannot champion the civil rights movement today without coming to terms with yesterday's arguments for opposing it. This is why phrases like "states rights" still anger progressives.  (David Paul Kuhn)

Jim Crow is No Libertarian

Meanwhile, Jacob Sullum makes an important point:  Jim Crow laws also violate libertarian private property principles:

If we own ourselves, it follows that no one else can own us—the most obvious way in which slavery violates human rights.

It also follows that we own our labor, which means we decide who benefits from it and under what terms, and the fruits of our labor, which means we control access to our property.

All these rights were flagrantly violated not only by slavery but by the racist Jim Crow regime that succeeded it, which forced businesses to discriminate against blacks as customers and employees. (Jacob Sullum)

 He also defends the 1964 act by pointing out that it "belatedly implemented the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law."

Every Coin Has Two Sides
But he also reminds us, with a twist on Voltaire, that "we cannot abridge the freedom of those we despise without endangering our own freedom."

As Dr. Sowell is fond of reminding us, there are no magic bullets, only trade-offs.  Defend a theoretical point or right an historic wrong?  No contest, especially if you are the one experiencing discrimination.
 

Life is full of double edged swords.

When Theory and Reality Collide

Well, libertarian hero Rand Paul is off to a rough start.

He was asked his opinion about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  He gave a nuanced answer based upon property rights theory as understood by libertarian natural law (and our founding fathers).  It resounded badly in the ears of a nation marinated in statist progressivism for the past 100 years, and the hooting loons on the left are having a field day. 

Equating a defense of property rights with racism is the same as calling anti-war people un-American.  It doesn't follow.  Someone can choose to be racist with their property, but all defenders of property rights are not racist. 

Racism and Civil Rights: Theory colliding with reality

The Civil Rights Act gave all people the same rights under our government and its accommodations, an obviously great good.   It also constrained the rights of private property owners to decide who they allow on their property, a fundamental violation of one of the unalienable rights of man, and one more abuse of the commerce clause.

A person has a natural right to do whatever he wants with his property as long as he does no harm to others.  Being a racist and barring certain people from your establishment is mean and un-Christian, but it does not harm those who are barred.  Libertarians argue that it ultimately harms the proprietor because he has narrowed his pool of customers and workers.

However, history shows us that societies can easily continue to discriminate until stopped from doing so by force.  So we have a conundrum.
 
Irony Bites
The 1964 Civil Rights Act satisfies our struggle for equality for all human beings, while also violating our god-given rights. 
 
So, upon applauding the act, I can thereafter only do a poor William F. Buckley imitation and stand athwart government social tinkering and shout "Enough!  No More!"

But the social meddlers march on, and that is the problem.  Allowing a government to violate a fundamental right for a good purpose erodes the bulwark and that particular right is now lost.  How is it OK to condone government violation of rights in one case but condemn it in others?

Ironically, progressives are making a classical, Thomas Carlyle conservative argument
Modern-day progressives want government to regulate private behavior, and private property, for the good of society.  It is a very un-liberal cry for a Hobbesean Leviathan constituted in the Federal Government. 

Here is the problem with that
Conservatives and liberals end up abusing the power of the Leviathan for base partisan purposes when they win control of government, cramming their narrow ideologies down everyone's throats every 4 or 8 years.  It is rule by caprice that disrespects our unalienable rights that the founders sought to protect.

Classical Liberalism (and Libertarianism) Rejects the Leviathan
The philosophers of the enlightenment (Classical Liberals), Locke and Rousseau among them, posited than man's rights are inherent and inviolable because they come from God (or nature, if you prefer).   No earthly power may abridge them.  This was a radical idea, and it is the idea upon which the founding fathers created this nation.

So we are now in a position where private property is declared a "public accommodation" and the state of Colorado can ban smoking in bars and restaurants.  They ignore the power of citizens who don't like the smell of cigarettes to go somewhere else.  Ideas such as banning salt and sugar are toyed with, and this all constitutes a verifiable slippery slope.  Who knows where it will end?

Further Reading:  WSJ - Paul Remarks Have Deep Roots

I am a Libertarian

According to the Libertarian Purity Test, I am a Medium-Core Libertarian.  Because I am not a Hard Core Libertarian willing to legalize the sale of heroin to children and shred every last safety net, I have always feared coming out of the closet.

I am a big fan of the Austrian School of economics, but I have never placed ideological purity over whatever works in the real-world.  I realized I may have went overboard when I got a facebook invitation to an Anarcho-Capitalist group.  So I have dialed myself back to a squishy sort of libertarian that the Hard Core sneers at.

I am also not an Ayn Rand fan.  Her atheistic and narcissistic Objectivism seems like Nietzschean ubermench morality dumbed down and warmed over for a new generation.  Her novels, though turgid and preachy, provide a needed counterbalance to an overweening state sponsored collectivism, as long as we don't take the rugged individualism stuff too seriously.  We are an interconnected society after all, driving on taxpayer funded roads, and enjoying public utilities right in our own homes. 

John Stossel does a great job succinctly explaining just what libertarianism is: 

We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."

And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.

By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.  (RCP - Stossel)

I have a whole permanent page dedicated to Libertarianism.  Please visit it if you want more information. It has numerous links if you want to strike out and explore the issue on your own.

Of Course Government is Broken

The image of the benevolent politician working tirelessly for the public good still makes some of us feel all warm inside, like when we think of Santa Clause or our childhood days.

But like those warm conjurings, it is at best a distant memory or at worse a complete fantasy that never was.  Mr. Smith has left the building.

D. W. MacKenzie has brilliantly summed up my thoughts on politics and government

American politics is not broken: it is working in the dysfunctional way that it should be working, given its unwieldy size and scope.

What may be breaking are naïve idealistic beliefs that politicians can use a large and intrusive government to serve "the people." And the demise of such beliefs would be a good thing.

The Solution?  A Strictly Limited Constitutional Government

We certainly should not give bureaucrats power over healthcare — or any other commercial industry for that matter.

There is, however, a third option. Strictly limited constitutional government is relatively immune to both special interests and ideologues. Constitutional government limited to providing internal and external security can be evaluated by objective criteria.[4]

A return to limited government would, of course, mean much greater reliance on private enterprise and unhampered markets. The record of private institutions is, when carefully examined, strong.[5]  Source:  (Mises-MacKenzie)

Conservatism vs. Libertarianism

“If Congress can regulate this (private use of marijuana) under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.” 
-- Justice Clarence Thomas

Lately a lot of people are identifying themselves as conservative/libertarian or some similar formulation.  Me included.  Hardcore libertarians scoff at such notions.  Modern-day conservatism is only slightly less repellent to a libertarian than the bald-faced thievery of liberalism.

How do you want your statism, Republican or Democrat?
Despite rubbing shoulders at tea parties, there is an inherent tension between conservatives and libertarians. 

Here is the crux:  Conservatives and liberals in the political arena are merely two flavors of statism.

Property rights is a key concept of libertarianism
You and your possessions are your own property and no one, not even a government, can tell you what to do with them so long as you are not harming others.  This stems from an understanding of Natural Law.  For a pretty good explanation, read this short article:  A Society of Criminals.

Republicans, like Democrats, use the coercive power of the federal government to violate our natural rights

The founders established the the Federal Government to guard our God-given liberties.  Reading The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, will give you a good idea of what a government based upon natural law looks like. 

Republicans and Democrats have turned it upside down
In their world, your rights come from them (to own a gun, to get married, spend money on political campaigns).  The state can confiscate your property and give it to others (redistribution via taxation).  And the state can criminalize your private activities (drug use, sodomy, distilling spirits, starting a church in your home).  All fundamental violations of natural law.

Constitutional Conservatism

Jacob Sullum laments that constitutional conservatism is still just a theory...

Yet conservatives ... tend to forget their principles when they hold the reins of power. The most conspicuous signatories of the Mount Vernon Statement include several conservatives who are famous for using the federal government to advance their moral agendas, even when there is no constitutional authority for such crusades.

When Congress sought to stop people from drinking, it recognized that amending the Constitution was the only legitimate route. Nowadays it does not hesitate to suppress vice and compel virtue, at best throwing in a boilerplate reference to interstate commerce by way of justification. 

By enlisting the federal government in their moral crusades, conservatives [...] sanction the idea that the federal government can do whatever the Constitution does not explicitly forbid, as opposed to the Framers’ vision of a federal government that can do only what the Constitution explicitly allows.

Human laws not rooted in natural law are a capricious form of control and a violation of fundamental human rights

This is especially true today; our US body of law has reached such a critical mass that the people can't begin to comprehend it all.  More insidiously, government manipulators can selectively enforced these incomprehensible statutes, producing a coercive system of reward and punishment.
 
In the eyes of a libertarian, a conservative who cannot restrain himself from using the power of the federal government for his own extra-constitutional agenda is no better than a liberal.

We're All Criminals Now

In a nation of hammers, every problem looks like a nail...

In a government ruled by lawyers, every citizen looks like a criminal, and every problem can be solved by one more law...

Gene Healy at CATO writes about a case before the supreme court arguing a law "criminalizing schemes to "deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.""

Yes, it's as ridiculous as it sounds.  Justice Breyer observed, to the government lawyer defending the broad criminal statute...

"Of some 150 million workers in the United States, I think possibly 140 million of them would flunk your test."

Healy points out that the founders would in no way approve of the dense tangle of criminal law our busy barristers have spun out over these many years:

It's for good reason that our Constitution mentions only three federal crimes (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting).

At one point on Tuesday, Breyer protested: "I thought there was a principle that a citizen is supposed to be able to understand the criminal law."
Good luck with that.

More Laws Than We Can Count

There are now more than 4,000 federal crimes, spread out through some 27,000 pages of the U.S. Code.

Some years ago, analysts at the Congressional Research Service tried to count the number of separate offenses on the books, and gave up, lacking the resources to get the job done.

If teams of legal researchers can't make sense of the federal criminal code, obviously, ordinary citizens don't stand a chance.

You can serve federal time for [...] misappropriating the likeness of Woodsy Owl and his associated slogan, "Give a hoot, don't pollute." ("What are you in for, kid?" your new cellmate growls.)

... And every week Ray Lahood or some other liberal Obama apparatchik marches out and announces another new writ from the emperor.  Does it make you feel safer knowing that if you unwittingly break one of these laws you could go to jail?

Republican Advantage: Liberalism is Too Expensive

A burgeoning national debt looms over the political environment

We may be able to go on five more years like this, or even 10 or 20.  But we are certain to one day hit the tipping point where our government bonds are considered junk, driving interest rates into the stratosphere and making the dollar good only for toilet paper.

These are not feverish Pat Buchanan rants or Glenn Beck apocalyptic nightmares.  Read respected economists and commentators like Steve Forbes, Robert Samuelson, or anybody writing in finance magazines.  They all agree the situation is not pretty and that we can't continue on like this forever.  Even uber lib Matthew Yglesias says we can't afford more government.  Sooner or later, The Crash will come, dumping us into the third world toilet.

A stunning admission from the New York Times detailing just how dire our fiscal situation has become:

Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors.

Bribing Voters with Free Stuff is Expensive
Think about it.  Everything on the Democratic menu costs money:  Health care, college tuition assistance, food stamps, welfare...  Or it relies on economy-crushing taxing and regulating (taxes on "the rich," cap and trade).  They get elected by promising people free stuff and then robbing innocent citizens to pay for what they can't borrow.  In fairness, Republicans have abandoned conservative principles and eagerly jumped on this shameful vote-buying bandwagon.

Conservatism Costs Nothing
Conservatism steeped in the more libertarian philosophy of our founders costs nothing.  And Americans are hungy for it.  A rugged individualism backed by our traditional generosity towards charities could win elections in the country.  Separating traditional banking from Wall Street casinos would gain independents.  Telling Wall Street to shove it, that we won't pay off their gambling debts anymore, will pick off many working class traditional values democrats.

People are not stupid:  We know we can't keep running deficits forever
America is ready to hear the truth about our fiscal cancer that threatens to destroy us.  John McCain missed his chance to crap in the punchbowl back in 2008.  He was just the crabby old man to do deliver the message that the federal government must be slashed.  

Can the GOP man up and deliver the message in 2010?  We'll see...