Libertarians are Enemies of GOP -- With Good Reason -- says Sci-Fi Author

Some years ago, I wrote a column that was an open letter to the just- diselected southern California congressman Robert K. "B-1 Bob" Dornan.

Dornan was bitterly complaining that he'd lost the election because there was a Libertarian Party candidate running against him, depriving him of votes -- in his peculiar view -- that were rightfully his. He pointed to other races that year where LP candidates had won more votes than the margin between the winning Democrat and the losing Republican, and chastised libertarians for failing to recognize and act for the "higher good" of helping Republicans defeat Democrats, as if libertarians were somehow the second-string team in the fight for freedom.

For some reason, Dornan never wrote back to me. I wanted to ask him why it was that he imagined libertarians -- many of whom had disgustedly departed Republican circles back in 1968, and others of whom had never been anything but libertarians -- should have any interest whatever in seeing any Republicans elected to any office, anywhere.

An election or two later, Michael Medved, neoconservative movie critic, syndicated radio host, and the most egregious dogwhistle this side of Cal Thomas began calling those who choose to live by the Zero Aggression Principle "Losertarians", whimpering, like Dornan before him, that individuals of that persuasion are essentially vandals who, without genuine reason or purpose, damage Republican electoral hopes by drawing off votes that would otherwise go to GOP candidates.

I trust by now that everyone knows what a dogwhistle is. I started to write an open letter to Medved, too, but selfishly allowed myself to get distracted by the frivolous desire to earn a living and feed my family.

We've heard it all before, anyway. I remember one election in which Patrick J. Buchanan, former Nixon speechwriter and mortal enemy of free trade, open immigration, and a woman's right to sovereignty over her own body, smugly advised libertarians to back his independent presidential campaign because it was "the only train in the station headed in their direction". Clearly Buchanan failed to understand what direction libertarians are actually headed in, but that's all right. Buchanan's presidential hopes (if not his aspirations) are gone with the wind. The Libertarian Party is still here, however battered and bowed.

This year, Medved's at it again, reportedly calling libertarian electoral efforts "masturbatory". Mind you, I haven't heard him say it myself. I used to keep four or five radios running all over the house, every weekday, so I could hear three or four conservative talk shows in a row (none of them Medved's), as my morning took me from room to room. I haven't listened to them since September 11, 2001, when they switched from talking about individual liberty (they were always good at _talking_ about individual liberty) and resistance to socialism, to spewing propaganda in support of the Bush Administration's naked fascism.

Blubberers like Medved and Dornan, however -- and their general ilk -- need to get something straight, for once and all: throughout its long, dismal history, the Republican Party has, time after time, promised to support individual liberty, and promptly betrayed it. There wouldn't _be_ a Libertarian Party if that wasn't true. On that account, if no other, we're not buddies, friends, allies, or fellow travelers. We're enemies, as surely as we're enemies to Democrats. We've always been enemies, but it was on an almost friendly basis until ...

For me, it may have been until then-Senator Robert Dole, with no discernible motivation except his longstanding and utterly Nixonian loathing of freedom, helped the Clinton Administration ram the Brady Bill through, and with it (just as it was becoming clear that armed individuals were reducing crime by double digits) an unconstitutional prohibition on efficient personal weaponry and magazines of adequate capacity.

Or it might have been until "revolutionary" Republicans tucked their tails between their legs and slunk away, instead of seeking truth and justice in the matters of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City.

Or it may have been until the same "revolutionaries" failed, like the Eisenhower and Reagan Administrations before them, to stamp out every remnant of the New Deal and run government on a constitutional basis.

Or it might have been ... to hell with that. The Republican Party was born for no other purpose than to oppress Americans. It has done nothing but that since the War between the States. The GOP is the party of conscription, the income tax, the loyalty oath, fiat money inflation, political censorship, and the midnight knock on the door. The only reason they got away with it is that Democrats were so much worse.

That's all over now. Doing exactly _opposite_ of what's really needed to ensure "homeland security", Republicans have turned this country's airports into rape zones where, if you protest at what they do to you, you're guaranteed a thorough anal probing as punishment for exercising your First Amendment rights. In the past year, Republicans have trampled the Bill of Rights at home until it's unrecognizable, while bombing, shooting, and otherwise terrorizing helpless peasants all over the planet in a bald attempt to corner the world supply of petroleum.

As hard as it may once have been to conceive, from the standpoint of individual liberty, Republicans are vastly worse than Democrats. George Junior has managed to make Bill Clinton look like a statesman. The only strategy libertarians ought to follow -- the only one that works for us, apparently -- is to prevent the election of as many of these goose-stepping imbeciles as possible. If it were up to me, I'd dedicate all of the Libertarian Party's resources to that and nothing else.

The truly silly thing is that all the Republicans have to do to eliminate the terrible threat that we libertarians represent is to be better than we are on the issues that count. Put a stop to the current War on Everything. Call the troops home for good. End the evil War on Drugs. Outlaw "civil forfeiture". Repeal 25,000 gun laws. Seriously reconsider taxation -- extortion and theft -- as a means of funding government.

Why should anyone vote for candidates from a political party that not only failed to protect this nation from the attack on the World Trade Center (whose foreign policy, along with that of the Democrats, made the attack inevitable, and whose domestic policies made it easy) but cynically use it as an excuse to obliterate every remaining trace of the Founding Fathers' America? Something that we all need to get straight is that it doesn't advance the cause of liberty to elect Republicans, it hasn't for a long time, and it probably never really did.

So I would ask Medved and his fellow freedom frauds, given the choice between those who stand up publicly for what's right by voting libertarian -- in a venue where, in terms of swaying the public, one vote for a third party candidate is easily worth 100 votes for anybody -- and those who vote for Republicans in the demonstrably false hope of achieving freedom in our lifetimes, who's really masturbating, here?

Three-time Prometheus Award-winner L. Neil Smith is the author of 23 books, including _The American Zone_, _Forge of the Elders_, _Pallas_, _The Probability Broach_, _Hope_ (with Aaron Zelman), and his collection of articles and speeches, _Lever Action_, all of which may be purchased through his website "The Webley Page" at . Autographed copies may be had from the author at .

L. Neil Smith writes regular columns for _The Libertarian Enterprise_ , _Sierra Times_ RoadHouse , and for _Rational Review_ .

No such thing, constitutionally, as a 'legal ban'. Local/state gov's can regulate, but not prohibit possession of property. 'Covert' efforts prove this point.

I mentioned four things: prostitution, pornography, drugs and abortion. You must have drugs on the brain. Clearly most states do ban prostitution. And until recently, many jurisdictions had bans on abortion and pornography. Now they have to make use with zoning and other non-overt means of control. I don't know if you are right about bans on drugs, but clearly states and localities can ban activities or behavior regarded as destructive.

Things are 'out of hand' because of the 'war'. Regulate drugs as we regulate booze, and the main problems of black market lawlessness dissappear, as the end of alcohol prohibition once taught us.

If you look at my post, I suggested that this was a possibility. But one also has to take into account the problems of societies with widespread legal drug use. If you don't, you're only looking at half the picture.

Again, no one is advocating that local gov's lose their power to regulate criminal conduct.

No one? There are some libertarians, anarchists and anarchocapitalists who suggest just that. There was much agitation to legalize "victimless crimes." You may not agree with that, but any full portrayal of libertarianism can't ignore those who think that way.

Your point is a generalization, true of any political idea based on individual liberty. -- Thus: 'Republicanism rests on an idea of the rational and responsible individual, but one can't assume that all individuals fit this pattern or that republican policies would increase the number of such citizens.'

True, but the gap is much greater with libertarianism or anarchism than with other ideologies. No other ideologies rely so much on the existence of rational and responsible individuals. But libertarians don't put more effort -- may even put less effort -- into inculcating reason and morality in society.

It may be that the "war on drugs" has been a failure, and that laws will be loosened to allow some access to drugs. But this will come about in a very controlled atmosphere, that takes all sides of the question into account. It won't -- and shouldn't -- be done in the way the radical libertarians want.

Big deal, -- then [L. Neil Smith & CommieBasher] they do not fairly represent libertarian attitudes, which conform to those of our constitution, IMHO.

So, Smith and CommieBasher are LINO's!? Hmmmm....

Just because you imagine all libertarians to have such a view, doesn't make it true. It only makes you look absurd.

What is more absurd is when someone imagines that I said that I "imagine all libertarians" have the same view. In fact, if you go back and read what I said, you'll see that I said some libertarians.

That being said, I still fail to see where the Libertarian Party is a pro-life party especially given that LP celebrities like L. Neil Smith are spouting off that you somehow are violating the "sovereignty of a woman's body" by protecting the unborn child within. Can you point me to the Libertarian Party plank in their platform that describes their desire to protect pre-birth children? I must have missed it.

"Well to review, I said that the libertarian position on US foreign policy was similar or identical to that of the Left.And I provided quotes from Harry Browne to support this. He says that our foreign policy is "insane" and that the 9/11 attacks are a result of American "bullying."I ask you does this sound similar to the Left or not?

No. The difference is that the Left is STILL saying we shouldn't retaliate for 9/11. AFAIK, no libertarian has taken that position. Your postings from Brown do NOT illustrate the fundamental difference between the libertarian position and leftist pacifism. Leftist pacifists say ANY war is morally wrong. Libertarians say a defensive war is morally OK

"To suppose that, if we just become less aggressive that the Muslims will love us is a delusion. Dude, they want to conquer the world and convert it to Islam."

And of course, this is true.

Throw open the doors to drugs, porn, prostitution and abortion, and if the result is a society that loses its freedom, then it never deserved it in the first place. The world could only help but be improved by its loss.

Arguably, doing away with such moral regulations changes society, produces weaker characters with weaker capacities and commitments to freedom and morality. I think we can all imagine evils that if legalized or allowed on a mass scale will corrupt nations and peoples. Certainly the founding fathers did. Arguing that somehow societies ought to be able to resist such evils without legal restrictions and that if they succomb they deserved to fail is a great display of bravado, but it doesn't seriously confront the question. Legal restrictions are one way that society protects itself.

All societies legislate morality. Laws against murder and theft are legislated morality. I suppose if a country legalized murder and theft and perished it would be an unworthy society whose loss is a blessing. But its unworthiness would chiefly consist in the fact that it had abolished those laws.

We had two 'revolutions' in the 20th century, prohibitionism in 1910/20 era, and FDR socialism in the 30's. - Both were radical changes, now obviously failed

FDR socialism has not "obviously failed" in the eyes of most Americans. And if you argue for repealing all of it now, you might get 10% support. So you'll make a nice argument, maybe even the correct one, and lose. If you think otherwise, I think you're projecting your political views on a mass electorate that does not share them.

BUT, how about the welfare reform of the mid-90's? A small step, but it helped reinstitute the concept of self-reliance and restoring natural incentives. So maybe the next round further reduces it.

Or how about Bush's idea for starting to privative some aspects of social security? It's not all that you'd want, but it is a step in the libertarian direction. And certainly better than what we'd get if Gore would have been President.

The bottom line is that its easier to win a fight for the direction of the Republican Party than it is to win the fight through having the Libertarian Party itself become a major force.

No one reasonable is advocating such a "wide-open" society. Libertarians advocate a return to our constitutional principles, as written.

Actually, you are not. Under the earliest years of the federal constitution, almost all of the things which libertarians are constantly complaining about occurred regularly. Abortion was outlawed, states had official religions, drugs were illegal, pornography, prostitution, and even adultery were illegal. In actuality, only the Constitution Party is the real advocate of the constitution. Libertarians just use it as a tool.

Not true. The Republican party's principles are to find the right balance of freedom and restraint necessary to preserve society. This point is suffused throughout Lincoln's words and the writings and speeches of Edmund Burk. The Democratic party, likewise, has a different ideology not based on the principles you said, as do the Greens, Socialists, Communists, etc.

BTW, Thomas Paine was no libertarian. He was a leftist who supported the totalitarian French revolution. He advocated a Socialist Security-type system and also wanted universal health care, not a good role model.

Well OK - heres from Harry Browne website

"When will we learn that "teaching someone a lesson" never teaches anything but resentment – that it only inspires the recipient to greater acts of defiance." Here he was discussiong Reagan's attack on Libya.

"Second, resolve that we won't let our leaders use this occasion[ie 9/11] to commit their own terrorist acts upon more innocent people – foreign and domestic – that will inspire more terrorist attacks in the future."

"Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him in America. He must have a fair trial – consistent with the rules of evidence and the Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial, he'll become a martyr throughout the Muslim world – creating hundreds of millions more anti-Americans who will support future acts of terrorism. If he isn't really behind the 9-11 attacks, killing him without a fair trial terminates the hunt for the real criminal – leaving us in danger. So prosecute anyone who shoots him on sight."

"Declare an end to the so-called War on Terrorism. Call it a victory, a defeat, or an armistice. But quit acting as though it's an excuse to invade any country or take away our civil liberties."

"The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war"

"Because the September attacks were a crime, the government's job is to locate and bring to trial any perpetrators who didn't die in the attacks. If some of them are located in foreign countries, our government should request extradition — not threaten to bomb the foreign country if we don't get our way."

There are many more such quotes but I think it can fairly be said that Browne's only response to 9/11 would be to treat it as a case of breaking and entering. He wants to "request extradition." I think it is fair to say that Browne opposes any military response whatever to 9/11. We are just supposed to post mug shots of UBL in all the post offices.

IMHO this is severely delusional. It would amount to a simple surrender to the Jihad. And it would prevoke even more attacks by revealing us to be weak.

It is sad when an obviously intelligent man like Browne is so seduced by his own libertarian dogma that he fails to see what is so obvious to the janitors, the mechanics, the truck drivers and just about everyone else.

Some local governments try to keep these things under control, either outright through legal bans, or covertly through zoning regulations.

No such thing, constitutionally, as a 'legal ban'. Local/state gov's can regulate, but not prohibit possession of property. 'Covert' efforts prove this point.

I mentioned four things: prostitution, pornography, drugs and abortion. You must have drugs on the brain.

You do, not me. -- I mentioned unconstitutional prohibitions on property, any property.

Clearly most states do ban prostitution. And until recently, many jurisdictions had bans on abortion and pornography.

They can 'ban' criminal acts using due process. Prohibitions on 'sin' or on property are not due process, thus are unconstitutional.

Now they have to make use with zoning and other non-overt means of control. I don't know if you are right about bans on drugs, but clearly states and localities can ban activities or behavior regarded as destructive.

That is a common misconception about unconstitutional 'bans'. Criminal conduct can be banned. "Activities or behavior regarded as destructive" can be 'regulated', under constitutional guidelines.

Things are 'out of hand' because of the 'war'. Regulate drugs as we regulate booze, and the main problems of black market lawlessness dissappear, as the end of alcohol prohibition once taught us.

We have ALL been looking at ALL the 'picture' for five years now at FR.

Again, no one is advocating that local gov's lose their power to regulate criminal conduct.

Yet again:
"You may not agree with that, but any full portrayal of republicanism can't ignore those who think that way" --- either.

Your point is a generalization, true of any political idea based on individual liberty. -- Thus:
'Republicanism rests on an idea of the rational and responsible individual, but one can't assume that all individuals fit this pattern or that republican policies would increase the number of such citizens.'

True, but the gap is much greater with libertarianism or anarchism than with other ideologies. No other ideologies rely so much on the existence of rational and responsible individuals.

Sheer, unsupported supposition on your part. Our republic was formed on the basis of the rationality of the individual. Many founders remarked upon that fact, as you well know.

But libertarians don't put more effort -- may even put less effort -- into inculcating reason and morality in society.

Again. --- Sheer, unsupported supposition on your part. Getting silly in fact. Repetition of biased thought is still bias.

Whatever. -- As long as the radical Rino WOD madness is ended.

You show great passion, but your arguments really don't add up. You don't explain what makes an act "criminal" if not laws against it. You apparently subscribe to some cultic view that defines words differently from common usage. That's fine, I guess, but it makes your arguments difficult to follow.

Sheer, unsupported supposition on your part.

That's the kind or rejoinder one could make against any argument -- including yours, but such a blanket dismissal doesn't carry the argument any further. Nor do the "you too" responses. Any defense of Republicans will have to take Republicans of all stripes into account, but I'm not aware of any Republicans who advocate legalizing all "victimless crimes." There are libertarians who do and one can't deny that they exist. You can't say that "no one is talking about" something that more than a few libertarians have been talking about and expect to be taken seriously.

Similarly, how can one deny that libertarianism relies more on the existence of rational and responsible individuals than other ideologies? Isn't it a staple of libertarian rhetoric that individuals know best for themselves what they want and how to get it? Isn't it a point of pride for libertarians that they represent this point of view more than those of other political stripes? And will libertarian policies encourage or discourage such intelligent and moral conduct? Simply denying these questions or my earlier assertions doesn't prove anything.

You show great passion, but your arguments really don't add up.

Hmmm, a little futher on, YOU say:
"That's the kind or rejoinder one could make against any argument". -- How true. Agreed.

You don't explain what makes an act "criminal" if not laws against it.

We have a body of common criminal law that the states administer, using our bill of rights as the supreme "law of the land". If state laws violate our constitutional rights, they are void. Get it?

You apparently subscribe to some cultic view that defines words differently from common usage. That's fine, I guess, but it makes your arguments difficult to follow.

That is simple bull on your part. You have no answers, so you punt 'cultic view'. Grow up.
You're using too much:

Sheer, unsupported supposition on your part.

No one makes such denials. - You are 'hyping' my replies.

You can't say that "no one is talking about" something that more than a few libertarians have been talking about and expect to be taken seriously. Similarly, how can one deny that libertarianism relies more on the existence of rational and responsible individuals than other ideologies? Isn't it a staple of libertarian rhetoric that individuals know best for themselves what they want and how to get it? Isn't it a point of pride for libertarians that they represent this point of view more than those of other political stripes? And will libertarian policies encourage or discourage such intelligent and moral conduct?
Simply denying these questions or my earlier assertions doesn't prove anything.

Nor does your above rant 'prove anything '.
You have a 'great passion' that libertarians somehow threaten our constitutional republic. You are wrong.

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.