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.

[Sparta]

Tell me any differences between LP press releases on the War on Terror and the Iraq War and the Communist/Islamist propaganda put out by ANSWER? The LP has been taken over by fruits and nuts.

[OWK]

The society called for by libertarians does not seem to differ materially from the lifestyles practiced by Hollywood stars -- and the comparison is not flattering.

The society called for by libertarians, is one in which the rights of individuals are respected in absolute terms, and the power of state is limited ONLY to the restraint of those actions which violate rights.

What individuals do peacefully and privately (without violating rights) is not a matter for state to determine.

Certainly I would prefer to see a nation in which individuals behave responsibly, morally, and reasonably, but I am unwilling to advocate state gunpoint demands for same upon my neighbors. You may not engage in immoral action on the part of state, to compel morality.

You stated:

When self-restraint is not forthcoming, then the society at large has a right (and responsibility) to restrain those who do not play by the rules.

I would agree completely... provided you recognize the ONLY rules state enforces, as those defined by the rights of individuals. The moment you try to enforce subjective wishes of the majority, you get a hodgepodge of nonsensical laws and government growth unchecked.

Take a look around you.

[Protagoras]

Preemptively destroy any who wish us ill.

Most of the people in this country, including many, many here, wish me ill. Can I kill them preemptivley?

[headsonpikes]

bump.

[Dead Corpse]

That'd make rush hour traffic a bit more interesting.

[Protagoras]

I'm thinking its also a Communist/Islamist front, just like ANSWER.

Clearly you don't personally know the people involved. You may or may not like what they say or stand for, but your "thinking" about them being a front for commies or Islamists is ridiculous.

[RightWhale]

who runs the L party? Does Harry Browne own it outright?

Harry Browne campaigned for the Libertarian Party nomination, and won it and got access to the small available funding. He then became spokesman for the Libertarian Party and and made his own arrangements for appearances in various venues. By no stretch does he speak for all members of the party, although he does promote the platform.

[Protagoras]

The only thing interesting is the idea that is acceptable to premptively attack others who may "wish you ill". (whatever that hell that means)

[Ten Megaton Solution]

Can the Libertarian Party even coexist with War on Terrorism?

No. It cannot. For the simple reason that liberty cannot exist in a nation that accepts the PATRIOT Act.

The party platform seems singularly incapable of keeping suicide killers out of the country

Yes, the Republican Platform and the Democrat Platforms were so overwhelmingly effective. By the way, I heard there's some vacant lots in lower Manhattan that weren't vacant when the Republicans took off in 2001. What happened?

or doing anything pre-emptively to stop the creation of terrorist cadres not already here.

What do you recommend when you say "pre-emptive"? Explain how freedom survives this.

[Dead Corpse]

Next time I'll put a "wry, absurd, illustrative humor" tag on my post. Where else are you going to find such a surfieit of "ill will" save for in todays high traffic ares, or at a DNC fund raising event?

[r9etb]

Certainly I would prefer to see a nation in which individuals behave responsibly, morally, and reasonably, but I am unwilling to advocate state gunpoint demands for same upon my neighbors. You may not engage in immoral action on the part of state, to compel morality.

While that sounds very nice, it's still just the same ol' yada yada yada.

As is lamentably typical of the libertarian response, you're skipping over the heart of the problem here: if people are already not behaving in a moral fashion, just how is libertarianism supposed to instill in them the moral behavior that is necessary for a libertarian society to work?

I would agree completely... provided you recognize the ONLY rules state enforces, as those defined by the rights of individuals.

People no longer even agree on what those rights are -- how do you propose to define and delimit them?

Beyond that, there are many (me included) who believe that community interests can and should take precedence over the untrammeled exercise of our individual rights -- people have a right to define the conditions under which they want to live. Thus, one couple's "right" to engage in sex in public is trumped by the rights of others not to have to be exposed to it.

[LizardQueen]

The question is: how does one institute the sort of self-limiting impulses in a society that does not practice it already?

My belief is that self-restraint is never developed if there are never consequences for one's actions. Good parents learn this early on ::smile::.

What we've done in this society in many instances is to continually bail people out of the results of their bad decisions. This means they will never have any incentive to develop a sense of personal responsibility or self-restraint because their actions don't have negative consequences.

I'll use helmet/seatbelt laws as an example since it's easiest to describe: Fr'instance, I think helmet laws are bogus - if someone wants to risk cracking their head open and becoming an organ donor that's their business. But if we continue to use public and/or insurance funds to patch up idiots who crashed into a tree without a motorcycle helmet, then lack of helmet laws negatively impacts the rest of society because we all have to pay to glue their heads back together.

Most people use this as an argument to implement helmet laws. The alternative is to not make helmet laws, but instead not publicly pay to treat no-helmet head-trauma cases, and let the insurance companies deny coverage to those who ride without one.

Then if the head meets the tree without a helmet, it's the riders choice, their head, and they pay for the results on their dime. Or they don't get treatment and they die. This would be a deterrent to most, and those that wouldn't be deterred may Darwinize themselves out of the gene pool, by their own volition.

This isn't a perfect example, but I hope it makes my point.

The problem is society has to stop it's handwringing and treating everyone as "victims" even if their own stupidity got them into that situation. There are a lot of bleeding hearts who would fight this tooth and nail, but the idea of saying "Tough Noogies" shouldn't be discarded.

And this type of "actions have consequences" shouldve been introduced during childhood, as well, but a lot of kids don't get that when they should.

LQ, who always wears her seatbelt and helmet, law or no law ::grin:::

[Protagoras]

Next time I'll put a "wry, absurd, illustrative humor" tag on my post.

Great idea!

[gcruse]

What do you recommend when you say "pre-emptive"?

The doctrine of pre-emption would have been unthinkable
before 9/11.  But 9/11 changed everything.  Another unlikely
but critical policy, Mutual Assured Destruction, doesn't work
against suicide attacks from groups dispersed in countries
around the world.  We have to get them before they get us.
It took me a while to come around to this way of thinking,
but there's really no other way.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

As is lamentably typical of the libertarian response, you're skipping over the heart of the problem here: if people are already not behaving in a moral fashion, just how is libertarianism supposed to instill in them the moral behavior that is necessary for a libertarian society to work?

Libertarianism isn't about forcing people to be moral. Quite the opposite. It's about not preventing people from doing what they please, with the single caveat that said actions cannot injure another person's body or property or freedom.

People no longer even agree on what those rights are -- how do you propose to define and delimit them?

People don't have rights. Specifically, the First Amendment says you don't have the right to shut anyone up. The Second Amendment says you don't have the right to deny me a gun. The Third says you don't have a right to use my house as a spare barracks. The Fourth Amendment says you don't have the right to search my person or property without a proper warrant. The Fifth says you don't have the right to hold me without indictment (Fifth is invalidated by the PATRIOT Act, apparently),

...etc...

[Protagoras]

people have a right to define the conditions under which they want to live.

Precisely. But not how others live. You contradict yourself with your own post.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

It took me a while to come around to this way of thinking, but there's really no other way.

What is no other way? You haven't said anything besides that you dirtied your shorts on September 11th and want to use my freedoms to clean them up.

What, exactly, are behaviors you now fear from your fellow citizens, and what, exactly, are the preemptive measure you wish to see taken againt them?

[Protagoras]

Please expand on your preemption doctrine.

Almost the entire world wishes ill on us, and each other.

Who do you attack first? Who's next?

[gcruse]

I'm sorry, but I never said anything about pre-empting fellow citizens. I am talking going into terrorist supporting foreign countries without having been attacked by them.

[gcruse]

Let's see.

Afghanistan, Iraq...

...Syria? North Korea?

How would you defend against another 9/11?