Reinventing Libertaria

The Washington Dispatch ^ | May 27, 2003 | Gary Cruse

[gcruse]

---

Reinventing Libertaria

Should the Libertarian Party, a party that barely shows up on political radar as it is, be further split? Has the LP written itself out of post 9/11 America? In a country moving perceptibly to the right, does a retrenched, leftist Democratic Party open up middle ground for its own replacement to the right?

As a small 'l' libertarian, I increasingly find myself at greater odds with the LP than I am with conservatives. When social conservatism is replacing the Tenth Amendment (the powers not delegated to the United States ...are reserved to the States) with any number of Commandments, a party of individual liberty and responsibility should be highly visible. The Democratic party has been equally contemptuous of the Tenth when that party has been in power. Are the pieces there for assembling a real party of Liberty?

The Libertarian Party might be poised to make such a run, but not in its present incarnation. A couple of planks in the party platform are serious anachronisms and must be dealt with first.

Completely out of step with America today,a'foreign policy of non-intervention and peace' sticks out and resonates with recent anti-Iraqi war sentiments. Isolationism was almost a necessity when the oceans made dealing with the rest of the world more nuisance than blessing, but not any more. Anti-terrorism cannot be a winning hand without the cooperation of nations capable of harboring future Osamas. As to an announced policy of peace, let the lambs be silenced. There is an insidious, woolly-headed thinking among the naifs of society who are willing to settle for lack of conflict, for now, and call it peace, without regard to the wolfy machinations on their doorstep.

France and England had a treaty with Poland to come to each other's aid if attacked. When Germany invaded Poland, the treaty was enforced to the extent that war was declared but nothing else was done, bringing about the Phony War that allowed Hitler to gobble up someone else (it's always someone else who needs to sacrifice for the common good) while Poland's friends worked to restore the 'peace.' We used to call that appeasement, but now it's peacekeeping. The subtle shift in emphasis from defending what is worthwhile to redefining 'necessary' as 'expendable' isn't negotiating, it is surrender. Well, maybe it's negotiating. "I'll give you everything you want, but that's my final offer," might be dressed up enough to dance with, if you're that desperate.

As road maps go, expecting Israel to give up the Golan Heights, a strategic sacrifice of elephantine proportion, for useless promises of peace from those who unfailingly call for her extinction, secures a peace that passes understanding, not to mention overtaking credulity. The Libertarian Party's notion of peace is appeasement in Birkenstocks.

The other disconnect I have with the LP platform is the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, which, coming from the Libertarian Party of Texas is a 'kick me' sign I wouldn't want to wear around the Alamo. I'd still be laughing at that if I didn't know they were serious as a front yard fiesta del tercer mundo.

Can the Libertarian Party even coexist with War on Terrorism? The party platform seems singularly incapable of keeping suicide killers out of the country or doing anything pre-emptively to stop the creation of terrorist cadres not already here. The primary mandate of sovereignty is survival, a principle easily translated into libertarianism's recognition of the individual, with his full complement of rights and responsibilities. At the national level, this is vaporized without border control and amounts to shattering the individual writ large.

That's why I got the 'L' out of Libertarian in favor of raising a little 'l' of my own. Being a libertarian may be a step in the direction of conservatism, but being a Libertarian puts me in the pocket of people out to kill me.

As constituted, the LP will remain off the political radar, and small 'l'ers will agonize over how far down the ticket the silliness has to be before one can safely vote for it. So far, dog catcher is not far from the ceiling. A party rethought without these suicide clauses might do well as the major parties peel away from each other. The Republicans look to have a lock on 2004, so there's plenty of time to get a new dog ready. This one won't hunt.

---

Gary Cruse is a steely-eyed photofinisher in Texas.

[OWK]

tpaine thinks ill of me.

I'm crushed.

Crushed I tell ya.

[tpaine]

Thinks ill? - Odd choice of words.

-- Nope, its just sad that your fixed view of libertarianism can't seem to cope with the realities of our constitutions principles.
'Common' property exists. Eminent domain is a necessary evil in a finite world.
Learn to live with them.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Oh, a third rate pyschiatrist named for a second rate philosopher. How quaint.

[OWK]

-- Nope, its just sad that your fixed view of libertarianism can't seem to cope with the realities of our constitutions principles.

The reality is that your constitutional "principles" have been subverted into the quagmire you see before you, and precisely because the absolute and inalienable nature of rights has been disregarded in favor of majority assertions of "common property".

'Common' property exists.

Da Kommrade

Eminent domain is a necessary evil in a finite world.

In other words, it's OK to steal if the majority says so.

Learn to live with them.

I will not learn to live peacefully with people who presume the moral authority to steal.

[Protagoras]

Oh, an incompetent amatuer historian with a bad personality and a screenname which reflects it. How quaint.

[LittleJoe]

The question Libertarians and others should be asking themselves is not "how do I form a new party." They should be asking "what is the best strategy for getting my agenda enacted

Could it be that they feel alienated from mainstream politics?
The majority of Americans do not vote. Why is that?
I think we need to do a better job of winning people over to our Conservative cause. I think we are too quick to shout people down when they express legitimate concerns about issues that directly impact their lives.

Calling people "Red Diaper Doper Babies" may be entertaing radio, but I think this kind of nonsense belongs in the Liberal camp.

We need to get back to "It's a Free Country"!

[justshutupandtakeit]

You version of history is not askew but apparently totally misinformed, misinterpreted and maybe delusionary.

I told you TR was not elected as a Bull Moose, I don't need you to tell me what happened.

Federalists scorned democracy, eh? If you knew any history you would know that 1) No one in that period claimed to be democrats it was a bad word meaning mob rule, anarchy and licentiousness. 2) There was no Universal Sufferage particularly in the South. New England had a much greater percentage of eligible voters than the South. 3)In Jefferson's Virginia less than 5% of the population could vote. He, of course, was an aristocrat in every meaning of the word.

Your description of the Federalists is false in every respect hilariously so. Federalists WROTE the constitution. Jeffersonians opposed it. Madison was a federalist in 1787 and Jefferson pretended to be. Federalism cannot include the destruction of state governments because divided sovereignty is the essence of federalism and the constitution the Federalists wrote doesn't do that. Federalists never tried to RE-write it as your asinine sentence claims.

The sedition act was less onerous and punative than the State laws regulating such behavior. Truth was a defense in the fed. law but NOT the state laws. See the persecution of Croswell by Jefferson's ally, George Clinton in NY state, for the some of the relevent facts.

They did NOT "meet their end with the War of 1812" the party was effectively destroyed in election of 1800. Hamilton's death in 1804 was the final blow. America's greatest revolutionary heroes were Federalists: Washington, Hamilton, Adams, John Marshall and Madison (until about 1792.)

Jefferson sucked up to the KILLERS of those who had aided our Revolution. He supported the far left Jacobins and Girondists. He never opposed the Reign of Terror and egged it on with irresponsible statements. Lafayette was imprisoned and almost killed by those terrorists.

Jefferson had nothing to do with the constitution since he was in France and later opposed it in his sneaking, deceitful way through the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

He was supported by the NYC RAT machine of corruption and the petty Tyrants of the Slaverocracy. He destroyed the American military (so that 5000 redcoats were able to burn Washington) and weakened the national economy through the embargo virtually destroying America's shipping industry especially in N.E.

Jefferson was the most overrated president in American history and you are oblivious to the truth about him preferring to uncritically swallow the mythology which has grown up about him. You are probably even unaware that Washington ended their long friendship and stopped communicating with him after he left his cabinent because of the lies Jefferson's pressitutes were spreading about him. And because while SecState he was undermining Washington's policies.

You need some serious study in American history before you post here it is embarrassing to read what you write it is SO wrong.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You can't even mimic effectively.

Nor can you point to any errors of fact in any history I reference.

[tpaine]

-- Nope, its just sad that your fixed view of libertarianism can't seem to cope with the realities of our constitutions principles.

The reality is that your constitutional "principles"

Mine? Are you so far gone you deny its principles?

have been subverted into the quagmire you see before you,

I don't deny they're being subverted, tar baby.

and precisely because the absolute and inalienable nature of rights has been disregarded in favor of majority assertions of "common property".

Hype. Only kings & madmen have ever claimed 'absolute rights' to own everything.
We the people 'own' the USA's common property. ---
'Common' property exists

Da Kommrade

'Ya bol' mine fanatical anarchist..

------------------------

Eminent domain is a necessary evil in a finite world.

In other words, it's OK to steal if the majority says so.

Nope, its silly to stick your head in the sand about unique facts of geography, like the Golden Gate.
We the people own it, and delegate to others its administration, so that everyone can peacefully use it..
Learn to live with them.

I will not learn to live peacefully with people who presume the moral authority to steal.

No one 'stole' the golden gate from you.. Get a grip on reality.

[Liberal Classic]

Sounds worth reading. 9/11 is when I split with The Libertarians.

You ain't the only one, either.

[Protagoras]

Nor can you point to any errors of fact in any history I reference.

ALL of your "facts" are incorrect. You read them in incorrect books.

I read books that said precisely the opposite of your "facts". ALL of my books were right, ALL of your books were wrong.

And you still have a bad personality.

[Protagoras]

We the people own it,

Which part is mine, I want to sell it.

[OWK]

We the people own it, and delegate to others its administration, so that everyone can peacefully use it..

The problem with this communal approach, is that there is no restraint to that which "the people" (otherwise known as the majority) can "own", by simply laying claim to it by "eminent domain" using the vote process.

Ask any of the countless victims of property condemnation and subsequent theft.

The only restraint against such theft, is individual rights.

Once you've dismissed the notion (as you've clearly done)... you are at the utter mercy of your countrymen. (who clearly could give a crap less about your rights, versus their wants).

You have precisely the nation you've asked for.

Congratulations.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Didn't I warn you about books whose titles begin with "The Real History of ..." "The Hidden History of ...." and "The Secret History of..."

If you have read any real books by reputable authors I have likely read them too.

Not one fact can you dispute. Not one.

My personality is so winning the ladies love me and cats twist around my ankles.

[tpaine]

Go pick a pebble off the beach, mail it to me and I'll buy it as your share. We can dicker on price later.

{Include a quit claim deed, w/CA title insurance.}

[Protagoras]

Didn't I warn you about books whose titles begin with "The Real History of ..." "The Hidden History of ...." and "The Secret History of..."

No.

If you have read any real books by reputable authors I have likely read them too.

Impossible to tell from the nonsense you have been spouting. Perhaps your comprehension is as faulty as your personality.

Not one fact can you dispute. Not one.

In order to dispute facts, they need to exist in the first place.

My personality is so winning the ladies love me and cats twist around my ankles.

The ladies liked Charlie Manson too.

[LittleJoe]

You need some serious study in American history before you post here it is embarrassing to read what you write it is SO wrong

ROTFLMAO!!! Give it up Ace, I beat you fair and square. Your revisionist rant is bogus, to say the least.
Washington a Federalist? Washington himself denied adherence to any faction.

They did NOT "meet their end with the War of 1812" the party was effectively destroyed in election of 1800. Hamilton's death in 1804 was the final blow.

Remember the Hartford Convention of 1814? That's where the Federalists won the stigma of treason! The party under Rufus King carried only Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Delaware in the election of 1816, and quietly died in 1828.

Federalists tried to suppress Republican opposition to the undeclared war on France by prosecuting newspaperman Thomas Cooper and Republican congressman Matthew Lyon under the sedition act.

You are probably even unaware that Washington ended their long friendship and stopped communicating with him after he left his cabinent because of the lies Jefferson's pressitutes were spreading about him.

Ok, I've pretty well shot my wad of reading material, so I don't know of what you speak...Can you reference this statement?

[Protagoras]

If you can show me clear title to any piece of any communally owned government property, I'll gladly sell it to you.

The truth is, the government owns the property you speak of, not "the people". That leaves the question to be how much property is the proper amount for them to own.

[tpaine]

We the people own it, and delegate to others its administration, so that everyone can peacefully use it..

The problem with this communal [constitutional] approach, is that there is no restraint to that which "the people" (otherwise known as the majority) can "own", by simply laying claim to it by "eminent domain" using the vote process.

Not true. The entire constitution is devoted to restraints on various levels of government, and on majorities. -- As you well know.

Ask any of the countless victims of property condemnation and subsequent theft. The only restraint against such theft, is individual rights.

You are preaching to the converted. That our constitution is being violated is a given.. We must change our political structure, not our constitution.

Once you've dismissed the notion (as you've clearly done)...

Bull. You're arguing for some weird version of anarchy, I'm arguing constitutional restoration.

you are at the utter mercy of your countrymen. (who clearly could give a crap less about your rights, versus their wants). You have precisely the nation you've asked for. Congratulations.

We both used to argue for restoration. You've slipped off the deep end into a utopian dream world. Sad.

[tpaine]

If you can show me clear title to any piece of any communally owned government property, I'll gladly sell it to you.

Exactly my point in my post to you. - We all 'own it'..

The truth is, the government owns the property you speak of, not "the people".

'We' own the government.. Read the Preamble.
BTW - What's with the nitpicking?

That leaves the question to be how much property is the proper amount for them to own.

Indeed it does. 'They' violate eminent domain every day in every way at all levels of government.

Time to change things, -- radically, -- imo.