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.

[Protagoras]

Which books?

I see your wonderful personality has made a bunch of new admirers.

Is namecalling your one true talent? It sure seems so since I haven't seen any evidence of any others.

[LittleJoe]

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

Teach me master!

[Protagoras]

Teach me master!

Do you think this guy is all there? I'm pretty sure the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.

[moneyrunner]

"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."

I have read Ayn Rand. I have read the threads on which libertarians like you, OWK and others are active. Are you suggesting that you and others on these threads are misrepresenting what libertarians stand for? You see, I don't misunderstand libertarian philosophy or, for that matter, libertarians.

On the contrary, I believe that libertarians misunderstand human nature and the political and moral environment in which they live. Libertarians are fine if they are a miniscule minority within a society held together by the broad moral and religious bonds that permeate our society. Should libertarians ever become a meaningful plurality, or – God forbid – a majority, there will be endless debates about where your fist stops and my nose begins.

[Protagoras]

Are you suggesting that you and others on these threads are misrepresenting what libertarians stand for?

I'm suggesting that you don't comprehend or intentionally misrepresent. I base that on your incorrect posts on the matter.

You see, I don't misunderstand libertarian philosophy or, for that matter, libertarians.

Of course you do. Or alternately, you are purposely obtuse because freedom will always interfere with your desire to control the actions of others which do not concern you.

there will be endless debates about where your fist stops and my nose begins.

If you violate my rights there will be no debate, just look for then blood, then you will know where my fist stopped and where your nose was.

[LittleJoe]

LOL...He's pushing buttons like crazy, but he's still stuck in the basemant!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Start with the Age of Federalism. We can go from there. Forrest MacDonald's writings on that era are tremendous and his "Presidency of...." books are quite short.

It is not necessary to agree with all the authors I mentioned say but they will give you the parameters of the debates. Even Marx can be informative and useful to one who wants to find the truth.

Disagreements here are very useful in that regard. If I am challenged and can't back up what was said then I need more work. My mind has been changed when errors and mistakes have been pointed out.

[Protagoras]

My mind has been changed when errors and mistakes have been pointed out.

Name one instance. (And skip the namecalling for one post.)

[moneyrunner]

”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.”

I understand your confusion. Let me see if I can help: conservatives traditionally wish to conserve something. In a few cases they wish to restore something that has been destroyed by the Left. One such impulse is to rein in omnipotent government: one under which that which is not forbidden is compulsory. Another is to resist and roll back the secularization of society.

Conservatives understand human nature as being essentially prone to sin (or prone to do evil for those who reject theology). For that reason, humans need to be restrained by the bonds of law, custom or religion. The less informal bonds restrain them, the more they will need to be restrained by laws. As a result, conservatives favor religion and the public display of society’s disapproval of those acts which break society’s traditional taboos.

As an aside, this is one of the reasons that even non-believers like Jefferson paid homage to religion. Jefferson realized its utility in restraining those passions that would otherwise require elaborate laws and an overbearing government to restrain.

Libertarians, on the other hand, generally either disdain or hate bonds on human nature from religion or custom. Ayn Rand went on lengthy, and not very literary, rants about the evil of religion in her books. The Libertarian impulse is toward self-reliance and non-interference, which is fine as far as it goes. However, carried into practice in a society that is truly libertarian, would result in a society that few people would be prepared for.

In a libertarian society there would be no public assistance. Since such a society would be Randian, there would be no faith based assistance for those who fall on hard times. Lose your job, can’t pay the rent, get evicted in mid winter? Tough. Not my responsibility and I‘m not going to interfere. Shoot up with heroin (perfectly legal) and fall into a coma? Get the Darwin award. Crash your motorcycle into a tree and see your brains fall out? Well, it’s a free country and you’re not my problem, man. And, from society’s point of view, would we not all be better off if the jobless, the addicted and the careless were gone? All we would have left were the hard working, the strong and the skilled – a society of ubermenschen - and isn’t that the ideal Randian society?

There have never been societies like this, but it’s not one that I would care to live in, even if I were one of the top dogs. For those who fall into the gears to serve as object lessons for the rest, we have a distopia.

[moneyrunner]

”If you violate my rights there will be no debate, just look for then blood, then you will know where my fist stopped and where your nose was.”

I’m not sure that direct resort to violence is part of the libertarian philosophy; however, we now know that is part of your nature. At least we know that you can threaten people from behind your computer keyboard.

My earlier comments about libertarian whack jobs has been reinforced. Thank you.

Love and peace.

[Protagoras]

I’m not sure that direct resort to violence is part of the libertarian philosophy;

It's not. Which is why I never advocated whatever "direct resort to violence" means. The point is self defense. I'm not particularly surprised that you didn't figure that out based on all the other incorrect conclusions you have reached.

however, we now know that is part of your nature.

Actually you ("we") nothing of the kind. I'm far from violent. Which of course doesn't mean I have given up my right to self defense. The second amendment was written to acknowledge that right.

At least we know that you can threaten people from behind your computer keyboard.

I have never threatened anyone much less you. And I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm also not afraid of you.

My earlier comments about libertarian whack jobs has been reinforced.

It has been refuted, despite you inability to recognise it.

Thank you.

You are quite welcome.

Love and peace

The people who love me don't call me a whack job or accuse me of cowardise, so I guess you told a fib about that.

And peace is not a very high aspiration. Why not go for something more worthwhile, like harmony.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since I am rarely corrected, there are few examples. Blow-hards attacking me for my ideas don't count.

However, I one time claimed that the leaders of the South did not rely on claims that the 10th amendment justified their treason. Someone posted a quotation from J.D. in which he referenced the 10th. So I admitted my mistake on the faith that the quote was accurate.

[Protagoras]

So I admitted my mistake on the faith that the quote was accurate.

That is so big of you. I gueess you aren't nuts after all. LOL

[justshutupandtakeit]

You started the insults and namecalling and now attack me for responding in kind. :>(

Whatta guy.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Did you read L.J.'s posts? Do you claim his history is accurate?

[Protagoras]

I started the insults and namecalling? Now you need to apologise and admit error again! LOL

[LittleJoe]

Well, your reply is interesting but doesn't hit home for me. I'm old enough to remember when "conservative" didn't mean "Republican".

Remember the American Conservative Union? The Union brought Republicans and Libertarians together to fight a common enemy.

The following is the ACU's Statement of Principles, adopted in December 1964:

We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the best political charter yet created by men for governing themselves. It is our belief that the Constitution is designed to guarantee the free exercise of the inherent rights of the individual through strictly limiting the power of government.

We reaffirm our belief in the Declaration of Independence, and in particular the belief that our inherent rights are endowed by the Creator. We further believe that our liberties can remain secure only if government is so limited that it cannot infringe upon those rights.

We believe that capitalism is the only economic system of our time that is compatible with political liberty. It has not only brought a higher standard of living to a greater number of people than any other economic system in the history of mankind; more important, it has been a decisive instrument in preserving freedom through maintaining private control of economic power and thus limiting the power of government.

We believe that collectivism and capitalism are incompatible, and that when government competes with capitalism, it jeopardizes the natural economic growth of our society and the well-being and freedom of the citizenry.

We believe that it is the responsibility of the individual citizen, whenever his inherent rights are threatened from within or without, to join together with other individuals to protect these rights, or, when they have been temporarily lost, to regain them.

We believe that any responsible conservative organization must conduct itself within the framework of the Constitution; in pursuance of this belief we refuse to countenance any actions which conflict in any way with the traditions of the American political system.

The American Conservative Union is created to realize these ends through the cooperation in responsible political action, of all Americans who cherish the principles upon which the Republic was founded.

The American Conservative Union will welcome all Americans who are prepared to fight for the realization and preservation of these principles through political action at the local, state and national level.

It is my opinion that the Republican Party, of which I am a member, has moved more to the left than the Libertarians since the sixties.

Conservatives were Republicans and Libertarians in those days. Without Libertarians, Conservatives are nothing more than a cheerleading squad for the Republican Party.

Maybe it's time to get back to basics!

[justshutupandtakeit]

#256. Now are you man enough to admit you were wrong. I said nothing insulting to you prior to that post.

[Protagoras]

I said nothing insulting to you prior to that post.

ROTFLMAO. You have insulted and name called every person on the thread but now you say it doesn't count because it wasn't me? LOL, I was wrong, YOU ARE NUTS!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Typical. I have called no one a name prior to them calling me one.