Is the Libertarian Party Libertarian Enough?
Thursday March 27, 2008
See also: Summary of the Libertarian Party Platform
During the 2006 Mississippi U.S. Senate election, I had difficulty choosing between the Republican and Democratic candidates. As I always try to do, I gave the third party candidate--Harold M. Taylor of the Mississippi Libertarian Party--a look. What I discovered was that he was to the right of both candidates on immigration, and at least as far right as either of them were on abortion and lesbian and gay rights. His libertarianism, as it was conveyed to me, was defined mainly by his commitment to state's rights and his vision of a small government. Very much a Ron Paul libertarian.
Ron Paul himself ran for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination in 1988, and got it. His socially conservative positions on issues like abortion and immigration were not shared by his chief opponent, Russell Means, but they were no obstacle to his candidacy. It has generally been understood that the Libertarian Party's base of support draws to a great extent on Republican demographics--almost exclusively white men concerned primarily about low taxes, state autonomy, and border security. Goldwater Republicans, in other words. Read more...
|
Ron Paul himself ran for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination in 1988, and got it. His socially conservative positions on issues like abortion and immigration were not shared by his chief opponent, Russell Means, but they were no obstacle to his candidacy. It has generally been understood that the Libertarian Party's base of support draws to a great extent on Republican demographics--almost exclusively white men concerned primarily about low taxes, state autonomy, and border security. Goldwater Republicans, in other words. Read more...
Comments
I agree with you premise. The Libertarian Party platform is abysmal. Keep in mind Libertarian Party activists are typically extremists. I’m a small-l libertarian (BIG TIME), but there’s no way I can support the libertarian party platform. And there’s no way such radical views can win an election, even with unlimited funding. Some of the radical views may make sense, but not without decades of transition. We’ve moved too far toward statist.
I don’t agree with how you got where you got. The things you list as “good news” about the Libertarian Party platform, 3 out of 4 are typically “liberal ideas.” And the one you describe as good news, the Right to Bear Arms, you destroy in you commentary after the list.
Although I agree with your conclusion on the Libertarian platform, I hardly think you are qualified to portray yourself as trying to present an unbiased disection of that platform.
If you would like for a libertarian to dissect and destroy the Libertarian Party Platform, let me know. I’ll be more than happy to do it from a libertarian perspective.
Todd, I’d be very interested in reading that! Please do send it along when you have time.
I consider myself a libertarian, but very much a left-libertarian, an ACLU libertarian rather than a Libertarian Party libertarian.
As someone who has come to support the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, I certainly didn’t mean to destroy that plank of the LP platform. I do have concerns about some of it–my position on gun rights is basically that, like the First Amendment, it protects an individual right that may be narrowly restricted in cases where there is a compelling state interest. I see it as no more or less protected than free speech.
They just need to stick to the constitution and the republicans will continue to steal ideas from them!
ALSO HELP NEEDED
Please Help Defend Democracy!
Please send this site to everyone you know and blog it everywhere!
http://thestevenreedlegalfund.4t.com/
BREAKING NEWS SEE CURRENT UPDATE OF FEDERAL CASE:
USA DRAFT MCCASKILL CASE
Click on each item below to see all attachments:
Plaintiff’s emergency motion requesting delay of depositions and continuance.pdf
Exhibit 1 Inter Office Mem.Police chief.pdf
Springfield Notice to take depisiton2 pages.pdf
Claire McCaskill inspires people flyer.pdf
Spfld Police Report.pdf
Claire McCaskill full color flyer Aug 3.pdf
Newspaper article april 6 2003.pdf
State in a mess article.pdf
Commentary tribune.pdf
Kansas city star letter to the editor.pdf
Columbia daily tribume March 22 2003 for the record.pdf
St. Louis article .pdf
Alfidavid 12.pdf
Office cheif dis. council.pdf
Office cheif dis. council page 2.pdf
Plea offer agreement not signed by Steven Reed.pdf
One thing about the Libertarians that doesn’t make sense to me is that they’re very much against government power, but they’re apparently not against restricting the misuse of private power.
On the issue of privacy, for example, there are legitimate reasons for concern about what the government does. But I have just as much concern about what information companies such as Google and Microsoft may keep about me and what happens to that info. Libertarians seem very reluctant to break up monopolies as well and don’t seem to recognize how much power private entities can have over our lives when they remain essentially unchecked.
the trooth should be we are american,act like it. we lack communication common knowledge and social abilitys. paying more attention to the reality knowing these issues will help americans who run this ish”to bettet understand or state of union and protect are way of life.
There are two types (for the purpose of my argument) of libertarians. The moralists and the consequentialists.
The moralists hold that any initiation of aggression is immoral, hence the simple Libertarain pledge not to initiate aggression for social or economic goals. To put it plainly, it is wrong to use violence or threaten violence against peaceful people even if you think that they should conform to your favored social or economic model. To a moralist, there is no gray area when it comes to use or threat of violence to coerce peaceful individuals, but there is still room to decide what it means to be peaceful.
The consequentialist, on the other hand, weighs perceived benefit versus perceivedcost. Many Republicans fit this mold, believing, for instance, that smaller government tends to enhance the economic status of all citizens but that (again, for instance) ending the drug war and legalizing drugs would encourage too many people to begin using harmful drugs.
In response to Eric: I recommend that you visit one of the sites which is devoted to Austrian economic theory. There you would gain a clearer picture of the economic model behind libertarianism. I’m not suggesting that you agree with it, only that you avoid attacking something that you apparently know little about.
In answer to Todd’s first post, many active members of the Libertarian party believe that while winning elections is a laudable, what is more important is to use the elections system to educate.
Only about 5% of the population is politically aware or active. Most people, if not apathetic, are interested in other things. Only at election time does a significant portion of the population “tune in” to what’s happening in the political arena. By engaging in the election process, the Libertarian Party candidate can, at a fairly low cost, reach the most number of people who are likely to vote or are just interested in the political process. I have run for office knowing full well that I would achieve only 3-5% of the vote, but I was not in it to win but to get involved in every debate and explain the ethics and economics of liberty.
I don’t believe that it would be wise to sacrifice principle for expediency. Electing candidates who are more interested in retaining power than adhering to principle is the reason that our country is the mess that it is. Political compromise and desire to retain or gain power almost inevitably leads to bigger government and instability, not less.