It wouldn’t be the first time Antiwar.org’s Justin Raimondo expresses naivety. He had previously supported Rand Paul, called all those libertarians who suspected Rand of being phony “purists”, and members of a “sect”, but finally had to distance himself from the younger Paul. Not that this led to any self-reflection on Raimondo’s part because he managed to still vilify “purists” while admitting Rand Paul was not worthy of a libertarian vote. Nevermind that many of those who saw through Rand Paul actually supported Ron Paul’s for the presidency.
Of course, Ron was principled and consistent and Rand proved almost from the start that he wasn’t. This was no problem for Raimondo, at least not until Rand was unprincipled in the ways that Raimondo himself could no longer accept. Does this not make Raimondo himself a “purist” on matters of foreign policy? Of course it does, because every libertarian has his limits and draws the line somewhere, and Raimondo draws his around war and interventionism. To suggest that the line ought to be there and nowhere else is a purist position in itself.
But never mind that. Justin Raimondo’s naivety apparently goes farther. So far, in fact, that he is actually surprised that Bernie Sanders, a leftist, would condone or even support aggressive and disruptive actions by his supporters at a Donald Trump rally.
I’m actually surprised at this. But I guess I’m being naïve. Bernie Sanders ought to be ashamed of himself.
Eh, Sanders – a SOCIALIST – is less than good on matters of non-aggression, freedom of speech, and private property? You don’t say…
At which point did Raimondo start to believe that socialists have problems with disrupting events they consider wrong? At which point did he start to believe that socialists have problems with trying to stifle someone’s right to free speech; or invading private property? When in history have they EVER, Justin?
Did he actually, somehow, think that Bernie Sanders was some saintly exception to socialism’s disregard for individual liberties and rights, especially those of political opponents? Was it because Sanders is an old man? Was it because he is a politician? Yes, Raimondo was being incredibly naive, but the question is why? What is it with this naive desire to trust certain politicians to be better than the norm when there is simply no reason to do so? Why does Raimondo insist on fooling himself about the nature of politics and of politicians? How naive can you be as a libertarian, to go so far as to expect this from a socialist?
Even the claim that Sanders ought to be ashamed of himself is naive. Socialists have no shame. There is not a country in world history that was run by socialists that respected human rights and liberties. You think a Sanders-led United States would be any different?
When you are a libertarian, and you actually expect a socialist statist to have a basic respect for rights and liberties that were never any part of any socialist reality, i start to wonder if the naivety isn’t pathological.
What would be a reason to be surprised, is if Sanders *did* call upon his supporters to behave decently, to allow his opponents to speak undisturbed, and to not protest on someone’s private property.
H/T Target Liberty