Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: WSJ: The NSA's Surveillance Is Unconstitutional [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)46. Advocating repeal of Obamacare and Dodd Frank
Randy Barnett: The Mistake That Is the Libertarian Party
Voting the LP line could swing the election to the Democrats. That's not an outcome libertarians should hope for.
What a guy!
Voting the LP line could swing the election to the Democrats. That's not an outcome libertarians should hope for.
<...>
It was a Democratic Congress and president who gave us the federal takeover of the health-care industry that will bring us closer to a Western European-style social democracy. All four Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices voted to uphold ObamaCare as constitutional, with four Republican-appointed dissenters.
<...>
Neither party wants to question the futile and destructive "war on drugs." But Republicans have been much better on free speech in recent years. With respect to economic liberty, the Environmental Protection Agency has restricted land use throughout the nation and would do more if not stopped. Dodd-Frank has amped up restrictions on financial services.
<...>
Libertarians need to adjust their tactics to the current context. This year, their highest priority should be saving the country from fiscal ruin, arresting and reversing the enormous growth in federal powerbeginning with repealing ObamaCareand pursuing a judiciary who will actually enforce the Constitution. Which party is most likely to do these things in 2013?
Citing the Republican Congress under George W. Bush, some libertarians contend that divided government is best for liberty. Yes, divided government is good for stopping things (until some grand deal is made). But divided government won't repeal ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank or give us better judges.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203922804578080684214526670.html
It was a Democratic Congress and president who gave us the federal takeover of the health-care industry that will bring us closer to a Western European-style social democracy. All four Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices voted to uphold ObamaCare as constitutional, with four Republican-appointed dissenters.
<...>
Neither party wants to question the futile and destructive "war on drugs." But Republicans have been much better on free speech in recent years. With respect to economic liberty, the Environmental Protection Agency has restricted land use throughout the nation and would do more if not stopped. Dodd-Frank has amped up restrictions on financial services.
<...>
Libertarians need to adjust their tactics to the current context. This year, their highest priority should be saving the country from fiscal ruin, arresting and reversing the enormous growth in federal powerbeginning with repealing ObamaCareand pursuing a judiciary who will actually enforce the Constitution. Which party is most likely to do these things in 2013?
Citing the Republican Congress under George W. Bush, some libertarians contend that divided government is best for liberty. Yes, divided government is good for stopping things (until some grand deal is made). But divided government won't repeal ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank or give us better judges.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203922804578080684214526670.html
What a guy!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I recall the exact opposite. The WSJ was one of few media pubs that rallied against this.
Melinda
Jul 2013
#2
What's your point here? That this cant be true because some lowly columnist wrote it?
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#7
Siobhan Gorman is an investigative reporter for WSJ - not a columnist. arely is wrong on this.
Melinda
Jul 2013
#10
Nonetheless, it was known & revealed that everything was scooped up under the surveillance regimine.
Coyotl
Jul 2013
#53
Snowden only released evidence of Verizon customers' phone records being collected. nt
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#74
There was outrage back in 2006 when it was revealed that the telecoms were spying on
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#88
So now it's hypocritical to change ones mind? How would you expect to correct
xtraxritical
Jul 2013
#49
Not weighed in on this? The WSJ decides what to publish under its banner.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#51
Newspapers print op/eds that are contrary to their editorial board's position all the time.
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#61
It is presumed that people intend the natural consequences of their voluntary acts.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#67
The 1st article is clearly marked opinion, but the one I posted is not marked as an opinion...
Melinda
Jul 2013
#8
It has a byline. It is not the opinion of the WSJ, but rather the author whose name it carries. nt
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#12
You're wrong about this. Siobhan Gorman is an investigative reporter for the WSJ, period.
Melinda
Jul 2013
#16
The opinion of the WSJ would be expressed in an editorial by the editorial board and without
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#17
It's not an editorial - it's a piece by an investigative journalist. Seriously, this is a bit anal.
Melinda
Jul 2013
#23
What other 'side' would a judge want to hear from when granting a search warrant?
randome
Jul 2013
#25
The WSJ and the Economist are fearful the NSA spying is uncovering money laundering and
byeya
Jul 2013
#43
Here's the law establishing it: it looks like a standard regulatory agency to me
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#87
Of course the WSJ would never have said this while Dummya Bush was a presidentin'.
Enthusiast
Jul 2013
#89