Posted on 02/27/2005 2:55:24 PM PST by 82Marine89
MUTH'S TRUTHS
"Three Big Disagreements With Libertarians"
by Chuck Muth
February 27, 2005
Having recently addressed the campaign nuts-and-bolts of getting limited-government candidates elected as members of the Libertarian Party, let's now take a look at three big issues which I believe currently stop many more conservatives from joining the them: Abortion, foreign policy and immigration. These are NOT minor issues.
Two things to recognize here:
One, it's not necessary (or shouldn't be) for people to agree with 100% of a party's platform in order to be a member in good standing of that party. A party which requires 100% thought compliance isn't a party; it's a cult. Indeed, one should bear in mind Ronald Reagan's wisdom that a person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is an ally, not an enemy.
Second, a principled limited-government voter's disagreement with a party platform position shouldn't be based on a "feeling," but on a reasoned argument derived from the principles of freedom and liberty as envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as enshrined in our Constitution. With that in mind, it is indeed possible to be a member in good standing of the Libertarian Party (or any party) if you can reasonably articulate and defend your disagreement with a particular plank in their platform.
In fact, platforms DO change over the years as opinion and leaders change. Heck, it wasn't all that long ago that the GOP platform called for the elimination of the Department of Education. Whatever happened to that? But I digress.
For many voters, abortion IS a litmus test issue. And for the record, there ARE pro-life Libertarians, as well as pro-choice Libertarians...just as there are pro-life and pro-choice Republicans. That is a fact of life, so to speak, regardless of what the LP platform may or may not say in that regard. But let's take a look at the actual wording of the LP platform position on this hot potato:
"Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion."
First, the party recognizes and states unequivocally that people "can hold good-faith views" on BOTH sides of this issue, while remaining consistent in its philosophy that the least government is the best government. More importantly, the LP has taken a position on funding abortions with taxpayer dollars which is even stronger than that of many Republicans. The bottom line: If you are pro-life and the abortion issue is a big thing for you, you CAN find a comfortable home in the Libertarian Party. Ditto if you are pro-choice.
The next big issue, which I think particularly harmed the LP in the last election, is foreign policy - especially since many people already harbor the perception that Libertarians are nothing but a bunch of dope-smoking hippie peaceniks. And although the LP's notion of "just leave them alone and they'll leave us alone" sounds nice in theory, it doesn't acknowledge life in the "real world." For the record, here's part of their platform position on Foreign Affairs.
"The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade and travel."
Under ideal circumstance in the United States of Utopia this would make sense. But a LOT of people are going to have trouble accepting and defending this position in the world as it actually exists. After all, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Recognizing the likes of Mohammed Atta's "right to unrestricted...travel" in the United States is nothing short of an open invitation to conduct more extensive and deadly terrorist operations on our soil. This particular foreign policy position DOES reaffirm the perception that the LP is weak, if not naïve, on national defense.
As to the historic tradition of avoiding entangling alliances - which President Washington was so adamant about in his Farewell Address - it should be noted that had that particular libertarian theory been put into practice by France and other nations during our Revolutionary War, Gen. Washington and the Founders might not have prevailed and we'd all be sipping tea at high noon to this day. Indeed, Ben Franklin and John Adams devoted considerable time and effort trying to persuade others to entangle themselves in our foreign quarrel with King George. Fortunately, some did.
Absolutely, sticking our nose into every foreign dispute is unwise and should be avoided; however, there are foreign alliances which serve the best interests of our national security. The key is to differentiate objectively without becoming the "world's policeman." In any event, I think the LP needs to take off the rose-colored glasses on this issue if they expect more people to join their political ranks.
Last, there's the red-hot issue of immigration. And it's rather disappointing to see the Libertarians acting like Bush Republicans in trying to "spin" this issue and justify their position on it. Here's the LP platform language: "We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new 'Berlin Wall' which would keep them captive."
Note how the LP uses the term "refugee" rather than immigrant. A refugee is someone who flees for protection from war and oppression. Now, there may be a lot of economic problems South of the Border, but I don't think millions of illegal aliens have crossed over the U.S. border to flee war and oppression in Mexico. This is a very disingenuous use of the word "refugee." Kinda like calling an amnesty proposal a "guest worker" program.
The LP platform adds, "We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally."
The Libertarians can debate their open borders philosophy 'til the cows come home in an academic environment, but politically speaking, "a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally" is DOA with the electorate. It also doesn't square with the views on immigration as articulated by a number of prominent Founding Fathers.
Hearing what Ben Franklin had to say about German immigration, for example, would singe today's politically-correct ears. "Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them," Franklin wrote, "and (who) will never adopt our language or customs any more than they can acquire our complexion." Ouch.
Franklin bemoaned the mass influx of foreign-speaking immigrants noting that "instead of learning our language, we must learn theirs, or live as in a foreign country." Sounds a lot like former Maryland Gov. William Donald Shaeffer, who only last year said of an Hispanic-speaking McDonald's cashier, "I don't want to adjust to another language. This is the United States. I think they ought to adjust to us."
For his part, George Washington questioned the "advantage" of mass immigration, suggesting the number of immigrants be kept small enough for the new citizens to "get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws." And many generally believed that new immigrants should be limited to those who possessed particular and specialized talents, abilities and skills which were needed in the new nation.
Then there was Thomas Jefferson, author of our Declaration of Independence, who warned of the dangers new immigrants posed to our republic: "They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another," Jefferson wrote. "They will infuse into (American society) their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." Yikes.
Or as Alexander Hamilton put it: "The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country, which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family. The opinion advanced in [Jefferson's] Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind."
Kinda like Californians moving to Nevada.
In their defense, the Libertarians have at least taken a VERY hard line on immigrants and public assistance: "The right to immigrate does not imply a right to welfare -- or any other government service," their platform reads. If only the White House and the Republican Party were so adamant on that position.
In conclusion, I think individuals can take contrary constitutionally defensible positions to the official platform positions of the Libertarian Party and still be good Libertarians; however, I suggest that the Libertarian positions on these three BIG issues discourage a lot of disgruntled limited-government voters, particularly Republicans, from making the leap to their party. The Libertarians would be well advised to go back to the drawing board and come up with some new language on them.
# # #
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com.
It is no distinction at all.
Armaments are not produced by Mom and Pop firms. They are produced by firms so hooked into the military-industrial complexes of their country that they might as well be state run. If an enormous amount of your business is done with the government you get this revolving door where the politicians and generals you dealt with become your future execs. And do you think they are allowed to fail ? Do you think the government would sit back and watch its defense contractors go out of business ? There are consolidations and bailouts to make sure they are viable and the capacity to produce advanced aircraft is not compromised. The rivalry between Boeing and the AirBus involves the governments of America and the EU. Big defense contractors really aren't "private industry". McDonald Douglas has more in common with Dassault or BAE or the Sukhoi Design Bureau than it does with WalMart.
And the 'initiative' of a mercenary if primarily focused on saving his butt, not getting the mission accomplished.
Good read, thanks for posting it.
Q: What do you call "Three Big Disagreements With Libertarians"
A: A good start.
Nicely stated.
Logically? You're not appealing to logic. You're simply repeating legalization talking points and appealing to emotion.
If all drugs were legal, I could paint a similar scenario. Legalization (with its corresponding advertising) will not drive up desirability? A legal climate for drugs will not bring out America's entrepreneurship in creating new recreational drugs? Oh, and what's so wrong with locking up "non-violent offenders"? What, we should release robbers, burglars, tax cheats, white collar criminals, child pornographers, etc. because their crimes were not violent?
And drug legalization will somehow eliminate the non-violent offenders? I say crimes would increase. I say crimes like theft and prostitution would increase as greater numbers of drug customers attempt to find the money for their next fix. And no, legalization will not reduce prices -- look around in today's world for examples of that.
Government, with their repressive taxation, will drive drugs back underground as they're doing today with cigarette taxes. Plus, the "underground" will now export our legal drugs to countries where those drugs remain illegal, and will sell domestically to teens.
If you do not legalize every drug, including prescription drugs, and make them available over-the-counter, the "underground" will continue to sell those that remain illegal.
Less that 1% of the U.S. population believes, as you do, in the legalization of all drugs. Your fantasy Libertarian world does not, and can never, exist.
BA-loney. Your own supporting statement says people spent more, not drank more.
Prior to Prohibition, about half the states made alcohol illegal. Alcohol consumption dropped, and dropped dramatically. As soon as Prohibition went into effect, alcohol consumption rose, but to levels lower than pre-Prohibition.
Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929.
With the drug alcohol, we did this via the 21st amendment -- Section 2 took the regulatory power away from the federal government and returned that power solely to the states.
Do you agree this would be the way to return the drug regulatory power back to the states?
Currently, we have about 2 million people in prison. 400,000 of them are there for drugs, and 99.9% of them are there for dealing or trafficking. The prison industry will survive.
Now, those 400,000 are ready, willing, and able to sell any drug that is not made legal under your Libertarian fantasy scheme. They also will not hesitate to sell drugs to those underage or export our legal drugs to other countries.
"We hold that all individuals have the right to excersise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."
Bump.
It might come to that but I would prefer not. I think the way that would have the most chance of succeeding would be for Congress to simply vote that it was none of the federal government's business unless it happened on federal property.
They could do that. But, unlike alcohol, I doubt that every state would want to legalize drugs. And that would cause a major problem with the adjacent states.
That is why I thought it best that all states vote on this issue in the form of a constitutional amendment.
That is the point. They will not have to if they do not want to. There are places that are still dry. I live next to one of them. You can not buy alcohol, you can not consume it in a public place. You may consume it in your house and yard only.
They have voted on this repeatedly and every time they have voted to stay dry by a landslide.
In my county, buy what you want, when you want and drink where you want so long as you are not drunk and disorderly. It does not cause problems because you move a few miles east or west and you can have whatever fits your taste.
That is what getting the federal government out of it will do. Not every state will legalize that's ok. Some will legalize some but not others. That is ok too.
One size fits all does not work. We have proven that. So let us try letting the states tailor it to fit the needs and wishes of their citizens.
If we try it the other way it will not work. To many people do not want all drugs legalized.
And to force them would be just as much a trampling of the rights of the states as what we have now.
Well, that takes 99% of the wind out of the sails of the people who say we should legalize to get rid of the gangs, lower the prison population, save money, get rid of the DEA, yada, yada.
If, as you say, not every state would legalize, where's the benefits? Where's the savings? My guess is we'd have to spend more defending the borders of all the "non-legal" states.
BTW, if medical costs rise in the states that legalize, do I have to continue to send them my federal tax dollars to subsidize their medical care?
My guess is we'd have to spend more defending the borders of all the "non-legal" states.
We don't with alcohol. It would get rid of the DEA. Now if only we could get rid of the ATF as well.
If, as you say, not every state would legalize, where's the benefits?
Do you need financial incentives to get rid of a bad law? Having the federal government involved is just bad law. A comparison could be made to Roe v. Wade which is also bad law. That power was never given to the federal government. Never mind if you agree or disagree with abortion a bad law is a bad law.
BTW, if medical costs rise in the states that legalize, do I have to continue to send them my federal tax dollars to subsidize their medical care?
Like you do for alcoholic treatment? That should also be a state issue and it is. Several states have reformed their Medicaid program because of cost.
So, how pray tell can the gov't tell us that consumption went down, while 'speakeasy', 'Bootleggers', 'Smugglers' and home stills prospered? The gov't only had data on taxes. By extrapolating the income from tax revenues associated with various alcoholic drinks, one can compute the average consumption rate. When prohibition went into effect; liquor sales plummeted (go figure!). It did NOT go to zero, as alcohol was made available for hospitals for sterilization (and it was closely monitored there).
People began making 'Washtub' Gin, Corn Whiskey and home made Beer (which is all very easy). How do you measure this?
People spent more, and those who could drink, drank more. We also had an entire change in the drinking styles. Whiskey, Gin, Vodka used to be the drinks associated with the low-life drunks. Wine, Conac and distilled liquors were popular, with Beer running pretty much number one. When the bootleggers found that they could either smuggle a case of beer in, and get 4 people drunk; or smuggle a case of whiskey in and get 40 people drunk.
This created more potent spirits that didn't exist previously (Everclear) and created a market for a group of drinks considered very 'Low Class'.
Today, we have new 'designer' drugs coming out, that are more powerful and more addictive than their predessors. Pot today is much more powerful than the stuff we had availalble (and I ignored) while in High School. This is because one of the side effects of Prohibition is to make the product more concentrated so profit goes up, and transportation problems go down.
"Ummm, hate to burst your bubble, but that is exactly the kind of thing Ronald Reagan proposed while getting re-elected in a landslide.
Exactly when did RR call for the elimination of "all agencies concerned with transportation -- including the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Maritime Commission -- and the transfer of their legitimate functions to competitive private firms."
When exactly did RR: "call for the privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, public roads and the national highway system."
Because we treat it with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge attitude. A "dry" county or city doesn't offer alcohol for sale -- but they look the other way if a citizen purchases it elsewhere and brings it in.
I seriously doubt the same attitude would be held towards those who bring in heroin or methamphetamine from another state.
But prior to Prohibition, interstate transportation of alcohol from "wet" states into "dry" states WAS a problem. So much so, Congress passed the Webb-Kenyon Act in 1913, a long-sought federal statute against transporting liquor into states that wished to block its entry.
"It would get rid of the DEA."
The DEA costs $11 billion per year out of a $2.3 trillion budget. Half of that money is spent on drug education, anti-drug advertising and treatment. The other half is spent on overseas drug interdiction and border patrol. Seems to me like money well spent, even if some drugs were made legal. In your example, if the states do not legalize heroin or cocaine, who's going to stop those drugs at the border if not the DEA? How would that work?
"Do you need financial incentives to get rid of a bad law?"
A bad law? You said the states could prohibit drugs if they wished. It's "bad law" if the feds do it, but "good law" if the states do it?
"Like you do for alcoholic treatment? That should also be a state issue and it is."
Here's my point. I do not want my federal tax dollars supporting the health care costs of a state that CHOOSES to legalize drugs. Let that state pay for the increased health care costs associated with additional accidents, violence, murders, addiction, care of drug babies, drug treatment, methadone clinics, free needles, etc.
And I want that part of the same legislation that legalizes drugs.
It would be appreciated if you could add just a brief explanation of what kind of meeting it was.
Was their a speaker and a listening audience, with of with out a question and answer period afterward? Was it more like a business meeting, with voting going on through out the meeting? Was it an issues discussion meeting, with or with out voting? Was it a local, county or state meeting? Was it a convention with debating and voting? Was the public (non libertarians) invited? Were non members welcome to fully participate, or was that reserved to members only. Was it any kind of central or executive committee meeting.
Without describing the kind of meeting, the information you give can not be adequately assessed, and says nothing about the LP.
Thankyou in advance with sharing any additional observations.
It seems to me that quite a few of the "libertarian" conservatives here at FreeRepublic, would be better suited in the Constitution Party, which seems to be more in line with their beliefs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.