Opinon of Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY)

[Mechaman]

I was always a bit confused as to what Javits ever accomplished. JS what did he accomplish? He never exuded any particularly great erudition or smarts to me - at least that is my recollection.

It is certainly true that a chap like that could never be nominated - anywhere - in the GOP now, but then the NY GOP back then was totally controlled by Nelson Rockefeller, and primaries were mere formalities in which next to no one showed up. I am not sure even then Javits could have won a primary absent machine control.

Fair question, my friend!

Javits was a leader in the fight for Civil Rights before it was quite in vogue.  Even in the 40's, he was railing against Jim Crow and poll taxes.  His opposition to tailgunner Joe's lunacy was most refreshing.  A lot of people - R and D - were too afraid of the nasty old bastard to stand up to him.  I believe McCarthy called him a Commie Kike or something to that effect.  A badge of honor, if ever there was one.

Though I remain quite critical of Israel and the IDF's behavior today, in certain cases, I am an adamant supporter of Israel's right to exist as a nation.  Javits was a key player in supporting recognition of Israel.

Of course, there's this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javits-Wagner-O%27Day_Act

In later years, he supported Great Society programs and plans (which I know you and I disagree on in a major way -- but it helps explain why I like Javits.)  And he signed onto Cooper-Church, after realizing he -- and millions of other Americans -- were bamboozled by Lyndon and the military industrial complex over the Tonkin matter.

But I admit to this much:  it is his tribe I feel needs to retake the GOP.  Understandably, the far righties reading this will say, "Big deal.  A liberal wants a more liberal GOP."  But it's more than that.  I like choices but when one of the choices is perpetually anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-peace, anti-environment and anti-government...I have none.  I concede there are millions who would say the same in reverse.  But oh well.

I know I get asked the same question in reverse alot but really let me ask: Why does the thought of "anti-government" politicians freak out some people as much as the rest of the points you just mentioned? It's not like more government=more freedom.

Would you feel safe with voting for a Left Libertarian who was for helping the poor, the worker, pro peace, and pro-environmentalism yet was against government intervention?

Good question, Mech.  I hate to even disagree with someone I like as much as you.  But...the whole "government is bad" movement (endemic to Libertarians but certainly alive and well in much of the GOP and even some of my party) is extremely distressing to me on several levels.

We can argue all day and night about good government versus bad government...but I'll never believe in little or no government.  No, not even if Tom Jefferson disagrees.  It's government that builds and maintains roads, bridges, jails and our transportation system.  It's government that enforces the laws, protects us from aggressors -- foreign and domestic.  And it's government that finances flood mitigation projects, national parks, toxic waste dump remediation and job creation initiatives.  Government may do too many of these things, too often.  It may do too few.  It certainly does some of these things too poorly or inefficiently. But to see what life is like where government does none of these things, visit Mogadishu.

Now, a lot of very good people would argue that they are not against government, per se.  Just against federal government.  In short, leave it to the states.  I could accept that.  Really.  Not trying to be a moderate hero or anything.  But I won't accept it until I see it happen with regularity.  Because, at least in Indiana, this is what happens:

People bitch and moan about big government at the federal level.  They want it at the state level.

Then, they bitch and moan about big government at the state level.  And suddenly, they want it at the county or city level.

Then, they bitch and moan about how the county and city  everything up.  And they decide on one of three things.  A).  They want everything privatized  (essentially no government)  B).  they want things handled by the townships, to make government even more "local".   C).  They change their tune and want the feds to get involved all of a sudden...and fix all the local mistakes.

My contention has always been that what's best for our country is a usually large, and often activist government, restrained by law and -- yes -- by peaceful protest.  I would never negate or rule out the prospect of better private sector solutions.  The Salvation Army runs a more efficient soup kitchen than Uncle Sam, for example.  But I refuse to regard privatization as a panacea.

As I said in another thread....intrusive government saved my daughter's life.  So natch.  I am biased. 

At the risk of being crucified by hardcores here, I agree that there should be some function of government in the system right now. While I do think that localizing power more and more is a great thing, I can see how people will keep on griping about the "big government" on whatever level is the strongest.

I guess if I had the same situation happen in my life as it did yours I might have a more favorable opinion about government. I will admit lately I've become more accepting of certain government functions than I have been in the past. I used to be a bleedingheart liberal until I took Holocaust Studies in 12th grade, that's when I lost my faith in government. I became a lunatic fringe libertarian and eventually anarchist in college. Right now I consider myself a Left Libertarian (think of me as a more sane and rational Einzige). That's my story.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I was always a bit confused as to what Javits ever accomplished. JS what did he accomplish? He never exuded any particularly great erudition or smarts to me - at least that is my recollection.

It is certainly true that a chap like that could never be nominated - anywhere - in the GOP now, but then the NY GOP back then was totally controlled by Nelson Rockefeller, and primaries were mere formalities in which next to no one showed up. I am not sure even then Javits could have won a primary absent machine control.

Fair question, my friend!

Javits was a leader in the fight for Civil Rights before it was quite in vogue.  Even in the 40's, he was railing against Jim Crow and poll taxes.  His opposition to tailgunner Joe's lunacy was most refreshing.  A lot of people - R and D - were too afraid of the nasty old bastard to stand up to him.  I believe McCarthy called him a Commie Kike or something to that effect.  A badge of honor, if ever there was one.

Though I remain quite critical of Israel and the IDF's behavior today, in certain cases, I am an adamant supporter of Israel's right to exist as a nation.  Javits was a key player in supporting recognition of Israel.

Of course, there's this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javits-Wagner-O%27Day_Act

In later years, he supported Great Society programs and plans (which I know you and I disagree on in a major way -- but it helps explain why I like Javits.)  And he signed onto Cooper-Church, after realizing he -- and millions of other Americans -- were bamboozled by Lyndon and the military industrial complex over the Tonkin matter.

But I admit to this much:  it is his tribe I feel needs to retake the GOP.  Understandably, the far righties reading this will say, "Big deal.  A liberal wants a more liberal GOP."  But it's more than that.  I like choices but when one of the choices is perpetually anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-peace, anti-environment and anti-government...I have none.  I concede there are millions who would say the same in reverse.  But oh well.

I know I get asked the same question in reverse alot but really let me ask: Why does the thought of "anti-government" politicians freak out some people as much as the rest of the points you just mentioned? It's not like more government=more freedom.

Would you feel safe with voting for a Left Libertarian who was for helping the poor, the worker, pro peace, and pro-environmentalism yet was against government intervention?

Good question, Mech.  I hate to even disagree with someone I like as much as you.  But...the whole "government is bad" movement (endemic to Libertarians but certainly alive and well in much of the GOP and even some of my party) is extremely distressing to me on several levels.

We can argue all day and night about good government versus bad government...but I'll never believe in little or no government.  No, not even if Tom Jefferson disagrees.  It's government that builds and maintains roads, bridges, jails and our transportation system.  It's government that enforces the laws, protects us from aggressors -- foreign and domestic.  And it's government that finances flood mitigation projects, national parks, toxic waste dump remediation and job creation initiatives.  Government may do too many of these things, too often.  It may do too few.  It certainly does some of these things too poorly or inefficiently. But to see what life is like where government does none of these things, visit Mogadishu.

Now, a lot of very good people would argue that they are not against government, per se.  Just against federal government.  In short, leave it to the states.  I could accept that.  Really.  Not trying to be a moderate hero or anything.  But I won't accept it until I see it happen with regularity.  Because, at least in Indiana, this is what happens:

People bitch and moan about big government at the federal level.  They want it at the state level.

Then, they bitch and moan about big government at the state level.  And suddenly, they want it at the county or city level.

Then, they bitch and moan about how the county and city  everything up.  And they decide on one of three things.  A).  They want everything privatized  (essentially no government)  B).  they want things handled by the townships, to make government even more "local".   C).  They change their tune and want the feds to get involved all of a sudden...and fix all the local mistakes.

My contention has always been that what's best for our country is a usually large, and often activist government, restrained by law and -- yes -- by peaceful protest.  I would never negate or rule out the prospect of better private sector solutions.  The Salvation Army runs a more efficient soup kitchen than Uncle Sam, for example.  But I refuse to regard privatization as a panacea.

As I said in another thread....intrusive government saved my daughter's life.  So natch.  I am biased. 

At the risk of being crucified by hardcores here, I agree that there should be some function of government in the system right now. While I do think that localizing power more and more is a great thing, I can see how people will keep on griping about the "big government" on whatever level is the strongest.

I guess if I had the same situation happen in my life as it did yours I might have a more favorable opinion about government. I will admit lately I've become more accepting of certain government functions than I have been in the past. I used to be a bleedingheart liberal until I took Holocaust Studies in 12th grade, that's when I lost my faith in government. I became a lunatic fringe libertarian and eventually anarchist in college. Right now I consider myself a Left Libertarian (think of me as a more sane and rational Einzige). That's my story.

     Well government is not bad so much as compulsory government is bad. If we were given the option to not pay taxes, & in exchange be allowed to live outside of the sphere of government power (how that would work is another question), I would lodge far fewer complaints against proponents of government.

[JSojourner]

I was always a bit confused as to what Javits ever accomplished. JS what did he accomplish? He never exuded any particularly great erudition or smarts to me - at least that is my recollection.

It is certainly true that a chap like that could never be nominated - anywhere - in the GOP now, but then the NY GOP back then was totally controlled by Nelson Rockefeller, and primaries were mere formalities in which next to no one showed up. I am not sure even then Javits could have won a primary absent machine control.

Fair question, my friend!

Javits was a leader in the fight for Civil Rights before it was quite in vogue.  Even in the 40's, he was railing against Jim Crow and poll taxes.  His opposition to tailgunner Joe's lunacy was most refreshing.  A lot of people - R and D - were too afraid of the nasty old bastard to stand up to him.  I believe McCarthy called him a Commie Kike or something to that effect.  A badge of honor, if ever there was one.

Though I remain quite critical of Israel and the IDF's behavior today, in certain cases, I am an adamant supporter of Israel's right to exist as a nation.  Javits was a key player in supporting recognition of Israel.

Of course, there's this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javits-Wagner-O%27Day_Act

In later years, he supported Great Society programs and plans (which I know you and I disagree on in a major way -- but it helps explain why I like Javits.)  And he signed onto Cooper-Church, after realizing he -- and millions of other Americans -- were bamboozled by Lyndon and the military industrial complex over the Tonkin matter.

But I admit to this much:  it is his tribe I feel needs to retake the GOP.  Understandably, the far righties reading this will say, "Big deal.  A liberal wants a more liberal GOP."  But it's more than that.  I like choices but when one of the choices is perpetually anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-peace, anti-environment and anti-government...I have none.  I concede there are millions who would say the same in reverse.  But oh well.

I know I get asked the same question in reverse alot but really let me ask: Why does the thought of "anti-government" politicians freak out some people as much as the rest of the points you just mentioned? It's not like more government=more freedom.

Would you feel safe with voting for a Left Libertarian who was for helping the poor, the worker, pro peace, and pro-environmentalism yet was against government intervention?

Good question, Mech.  I hate to even disagree with someone I like as much as you.  But...the whole "government is bad" movement (endemic to Libertarians but certainly alive and well in much of the GOP and even some of my party) is extremely distressing to me on several levels.

We can argue all day and night about good government versus bad government...but I'll never believe in little or no government.  No, not even if Tom Jefferson disagrees.  It's government that builds and maintains roads, bridges, jails and our transportation system.  It's government that enforces the laws, protects us from aggressors -- foreign and domestic.  And it's government that finances flood mitigation projects, national parks, toxic waste dump remediation and job creation initiatives.  Government may do too many of these things, too often.  It may do too few.  It certainly does some of these things too poorly or inefficiently. But to see what life is like where government does none of these things, visit Mogadishu.

Now, a lot of very good people would argue that they are not against government, per se.  Just against federal government.  In short, leave it to the states.  I could accept that.  Really.  Not trying to be a moderate hero or anything.  But I won't accept it until I see it happen with regularity.  Because, at least in Indiana, this is what happens:

People bitch and moan about big government at the federal level.  They want it at the state level.

Then, they bitch and moan about big government at the state level.  And suddenly, they want it at the county or city level.

Then, they bitch and moan about how the county and city  everything up.  And they decide on one of three things.  A).  They want everything privatized  (essentially no government)  B).  they want things handled by the townships, to make government even more "local".   C).  They change their tune and want the feds to get involved all of a sudden...and fix all the local mistakes.

My contention has always been that what's best for our country is a usually large, and often activist government, restrained by law and -- yes -- by peaceful protest.  I would never negate or rule out the prospect of better private sector solutions.  The Salvation Army runs a more efficient soup kitchen than Uncle Sam, for example.  But I refuse to regard privatization as a panacea.

As I said in another thread....intrusive government saved my daughter's life.  So natch.  I am biased. 

At the risk of being crucified by hardcores here, I agree that there should be some function of government in the system right now. While I do think that localizing power more and more is a great thing, I can see how people will keep on griping about the "big government" on whatever level is the strongest.

I guess if I had the same situation happen in my life as it did yours I might have a more favorable opinion about government. I will admit lately I've become more accepting of certain government functions than I have been in the past. I used to be a bleedingheart liberal until I took Holocaust Studies in 12th grade, that's when I lost my faith in government. I became a lunatic fringe libertarian and eventually anarchist in college. Right now I consider myself a Left Libertarian (think of me as a more sane and rational Einzige). That's my story.

     Well government is not bad so much as compulsory government is bad. If we were given the option to not pay taxes, & in exchange be allowed to live outside of the sphere of government power (how that would work is another question), I would lodge far fewer complaints against proponents of government.

You can't live in a country and be outside the sphere of government if you use the roads, the parks, the schools, benefit from clean water, inspected meat & food, police and fire service and military protection.  I suppose one could inherit some land, try to live with complete self-sufficiency and never leave the compound...raising and growing all your own food...having your own well...choosing to die from a heart attack rather than calling 9-1-1.  But like I say, when everyone lives that way, you get Somalia.

And if the founding documents of this country mean anything, promoting the general welfare and insuring the blessings of liberty sound pretty compulsory to me.  Opting out is an option...by leaving the United States for somewhere else.  Where?  Well...again...I can think of just a few countries were there are no taxes, few or no laws, no infrastructure to maintain, etc.

[Mint]

You can't live in a country and be outside the sphere of government if you use the roads, the parks, the schools, benefit from clean water, inspected meat & food, police and fire service and military protection.  I suppose one could inherit some land, try to live with complete self-sufficiency and never leave the compound...raising and growing all your own food...having your own well...choosing to die from a heart attack rather than calling 9-1-1.  But like I say, when everyone lives that way, you get Somalia.

Well you certainly could privatize a lot of that and have it functional, regardless of how 'ethical' we think the results might be... Don't get me wrong though, I agree with your over arching point. That's one of my big problems with the 'Big L' libertarians and the anarcho-capitalists, because even though I find a lot of concepts like taxation to be disturbing I also recognize that we can't have things like Pullman's town popping up again. I think at minimum you need a well funded police/army/etc. and efficient regulatory structure (independent of business) to keep the country from degenerating into that sort of quasi-feudal arrangement.

[Mint]

Well government is not bad so much as compulsory government is bad. If we were given the option to not pay taxes, & in exchange be allowed to live outside of the sphere of government power (how that would work is another question), I would lodge far fewer complaints against proponents of government.

I'm actually somewhat curious about how they managed to enforce sales tax when this country was still in its 'frontier' stage for that reason, since it was entirely possible to essentially do just that if you lived in the right area... Even now there's still a lot of ways to get off the 'grid.'

[cannonia]

But I admit to this much:  it is his tribe I feel needs to retake the GOP.  Understandably, the far righties reading this will say, "Big deal.  A liberal wants a more liberal GOP."  But it's more than that.  I like choices but when one of the choices is perpetually anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-peace, anti-environment and anti-government...I have none.  I concede there are millions who would say the same in reverse.  But oh well.

This says more about you than it says about the GOP. :-)

[JSojourner]

But I admit to this much:  it is his tribe I feel needs to retake the GOP.  Understandably, the far righties reading this will say, "Big deal.  A liberal wants a more liberal GOP."  But it's more than that.  I like choices but when one of the choices is perpetually anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-peace, anti-environment and anti-government...I have none.  I concede there are millions who would say the same in reverse.  But oh well.

This says more about you than it says about the GOP. :-)

I would hope it would say something about both.