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.

[sheltonmac]

For starters, you would arm everyone.

Now that's what I call REAL homeland security!

[Dead Corpse]

Now that's what I call REAL homeland security!

It has the added advantage of being easy to do, and in line with Constitutional principles. Just repeal all the laws forbidding ownership and carry of firearms. Period. Doesn't cost the taxpayers a dime as even the cost of printing out the bill could be made up in the revenues saved by shutting down that portion of the BATF.

You just drop the "F". ;-)

[Protagoras]

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

I disagree. And I don't concider it to be nit picking. As far as I'm concerned the words we use to describe things are important.

When taxes become "contributions" and government spending becomes "investment" we are losing the battle. The minds of the young are the battle ground. They become used to hearing these things and it changes their perspective.

So no, I don't agree that we own these things or that we own the government. We don't. We elect some from among our number to represent us. We don't own them or what they do, or what they aquire with the money they take from us.

One of the ways you can tell if you really own something is if you are able to dispose of it at your will. Since I can't sell my part of the bridge, it isn't mine. It's not nitpicking, it's an attempt to prevent the further slide of the people into believing what isn't.

Walter E Williams explains this very well to his students, and we can all learn from it.

[tpaine]

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

I disagree. And I don't concider it to be nit picking. As far as I'm concerned the words we use to describe things are important.

Of course words are important. The words of the Preamble are important as they describe why 'we' established this government. Thus, to claim 'we' don't 'own it' is simply nitpicking wordplay.

When taxes become "contributions" and government spending becomes "investment" we are losing the battle. The minds of the young are the battle ground. They become used to hearing these things and it changes their perspective.

Like OWK you are preaching to a convert.. Why? Whats your real problem?

So no, I don't agree that we own these things or that we own the government. We don't.

'So', whatever. Believe as you like. 'Believe' you made your point.

We elect some from among our number to represent us. We don't own them or what they do, or what they aquire with the money they take from us.

??? Who said we 'owned' our representitives? We certainly own any property they aquire in our name, while in our employ however.

One of the ways you can tell if you really own something is if you are able to dispose of it at your will. Since I can't sell my part of the bridge, it isn't mine.

Absurd concept. The Golden Gate bridge is public property, thus partly 'yours'.
This discussion getting bizarro. Do you really think our political life would be somehow better if an individual owned that bridge? Why?

It's not nitpicking, it's an attempt to prevent the further slide of the people into believing what isn't. Walter E Williams explains this very well to his students, and we can all learn from it.

I've read and agreed with a lot, if not all of Williams works, and have never seen where he advocates that ~ALL~ public infrastructure should or even could be privatized.

-- Granted, far more could, & should.. -- And, - that would be possible under existing constitutional law. <
It is not possible under current political realities however, and that reality will never be changed by men ranting to sell the Golden Gate Bridge..

[Dead Corpse]

Do you really think our political life would be somehow better if an individual owned that bridge? Why?

Bad example. The answer to this one is "yes". As for why, why should I have my money confiscated to pay for the upkeep of a bridge I've never layed eyes on much less travelled across.

[tpaine]

Do you really think our political life would be somehow better if an individual owned that bridge? Why?

Bad example. The answer to this one is "yes". As for why, why should I have my money confiscated to pay for the upkeep of a bridge I've never layed eyes on much less travelled across.

Theoretically, the GGB District is self-supporting thru tolls. And it was, under its original charter & financing.. Like everything else in CA it is now a complete sham/fraud, violating all of our principles .
- The fact remains, without eminent domain the bridge and its approaches could never have been built. By all means, tell me a better, more constitutional way to build needed bridges & roads.

Somehow, our libertarian rhetoric always bogs down on the messy details of clearing land for a bridge approach, etc, -- at a unique geographical position.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Well, now you have been cautioned but I am sure you prefer their bs to the truth.

[justshutupandtakeit]

How can you beat me by posting one falsehood after the other which I then correct? Like the Federalists wanted to RE-write the constitution? That is one of the lamest comments I have ever seen.

George Washington was the Federalist candidate for the Presidency in 1792, Adams VP. George Clinton and Thomas Jefferson were the anti-Federalist candidates. Washington's policies were those of Hamilton, the Federalist supreme. He actually ran Washington's administrations and three years of Adams.

Federalists were destroyed by 1804 anything after that was shadow without substance.

The A&S Acts were rather trivial in real impact unfortunately they did allow the RATS to howl and whine and convince sufficient dumbasses to vote for them. Hamilton opposed them to no avail. As I said the state laws were much worse and were used by the Jeffersonians to prosecute those who spoke against his administration. So much for TJ's belief in freedom of the press. Hamilton, however, defended those accused in their trials.

Any competent biography of Washington will reveal the disdain in which he came to hold TJ. But it sounds like you avoid these like the plague and rely on Encyclopedia articles for your historical knowledge. That helps explain why it is so shallow.

Now that you have been corrected again you can declare another victory.

[moneyrunner]

You understand the primary fallacy of Libertarianism. A society with few laws can exist. But unless this society has a strong moral base, typically filled by religion, it will be a society in which the strong and aggressive rule over the weak and passive. At it’s worst, life in such a society will, for most people, be “nasty, brutish and short.”

The reason why Libertarianism appeals to people who are not necessarily druggies or worse is that we live on the left-over moral capital of a largely Christian nation. That is changing, but slowly, and the result is that Libertarians are surrounded by a sea of people whose restraints are the inculcation of an old time morality rooted in Christianity.

If that were to disappear and the majority of people were to become Libertarians – that is to rely on their own moral code, re-invented for each of us and based on our own, atomistic moral standards - we had better hope we have the biggest guns and the best trained gang around us.

[Protagoras]

Your post only shows your fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of libertarianism.

[moneyrunner]

” Your post only shows your fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of libertarianism.”

I can read. And I understand the beliefs of those who are here to speak of Libertarian theory. What I see is empty bombast and the kind of sophomoric theorizing totally unrelated to political reality and human nature.

I read the words of loony loners who claim to be above the law. I read with incredulity a discussion about the private ownership of the oceans … and the Golden Gate Bridge. I read of nostalgia for the Ante Bellum South; about who is and who is not a Federalist.

All this, started by an article about the inconsequence of the Libertarian Party, when the fact of its impotence and lack of support is evident on its face. And the discussion that has taken place on this article is a perfect illustration of why that is a fact and will always be a fact.

[Snuffington]

Could it be that they feel alienated from mainstream politics?

Are we supposed to psycho-analyze them?

The fact remains, the third party option is considerably more difficult to implement than working within a party to achieve an agenda. I would imagine feelings of alienation would make this even more difficult, rather than less so.

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.

No offense, but I think we need to start using the term "we" less broadly.

Understand that a party is not an ideologically pure entity. It is a conclave of diverse and often competing factions. Argument, belittlement, and shouting down comes with the territory. It may be a reason to avoid American politics altogether, but it's not a reason at all to avoid a particular party. People truly interested in results need to learn the way the system works and plan a strategy within it.

[Protagoras]

Well, now you have been cautioned but I am sure you prefer their bs to the truth

The Truth? You can't handle the truth!

BTW, who is "they"? Do you hear little voices from "them"?

[Protagoras]

You may have run into all kinds of people in your life, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with your ignorance of the philosophy.

You even refer to it in capital letters, further evidence.

It's hard to logically oppose something if you don't know what it is.

Why not just say you oppose those who think that private ownership of oceans is feasable? At least you know there are a few nuts like that. I have never met one however.

[r9etb]

The reason why Libertarianism appeals to people who are not necessarily druggies or worse is that we live on the left-over moral capital of a largely Christian nation. That is changing, but slowly, and the result is that Libertarians are surrounded by a sea of people whose restraints are the inculcation of an old time morality rooted in Christianity.

You mean to tell us that Ayn Rand was a moral looter? (Answer: yes.)

Good post.

[LittleJoe]

Now that you have been corrected again you can declare another victory

LOL...Kicked your butt again!!!

I'm basing my spin on textbook history. I don't know where your spin originated as you refuse to give me a source to refer to the lying Jefferson statement.

Incidentally, There was no Federalist candidate in 1792!

[LittleJoe]

I read the words of loony loners who claim to be above the law. I read with incredulity a discussion about the private ownership of the oceans … and the Golden Gate Bridge. I read of nostalgia for the Ante Bellum South; about who is and who is not a Federalist

Maybe that's because we become bored with the same old dogma of those who attack Libertarians and head off into the realm of silliness for entertainment reasons.

I'm not a Libertarian. I'm a Conservative, I think. It's hard to know what is or is not conservative these days. This constant attacking of each other over neo and paleo nonsense leads me to believe that true Conservatives are a dying breed. In fact, I think Libertarians are more Conservative than Republicans these days.

[LittleJoe]

Are we supposed to psycho-analyze them?

If that's what it takes to get them to vote, and vote Conservative we'd damn well better.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Delusionary to the end.

Every incorrect statement you have made has been corrected and still you persist in claiming you have stated truths. Whatta maroon. Everyone can read and see where the truth lies in this discussion.

Son, you are outta your league and must learn a LOT more before you can run with the big dogs.

Merely examining the Information Please Almanac would show you that Washington and Adams were the Federalist candidates. It is true that Washington tried to keep the peace between TJ and AH but it was his persistent bias toward H which finally drove TJ from the cabinent. Federalists were not a political party such as the democratic-republicans.

The Age of Federalism-Elkins and McKitrick
The Presidency of George Washington- MacDonald
The Rise and Fall of Alexander Hamilton- Hendrickson
Washington biographies by Flexner, Henry Cabot Lodge
A New Age Now Begins- Page Smith are all instructive with regard to the Washington-Jefferson falling out.

Essentially, Washington got wind of an insult J had put in a letter to a friend, Mazzini, and that was the straw that broke the camel's mack for him. Added to the attacks from J's pressitutes: Benjamin Franklin Bache, James Callender and Philip Freaneau it was too much.

Jefferson lied all the time about Hamilton. That isn't even disputable.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The books, mope.