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.

[r9etb]

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.

Uh huh. The truth is that libertarianism will work as long as people are already largely self-policing. If people are not, then one gets a spiral toward anarchy instead of an orderly society -- which begets the proliferation of laws to try to limit those who use the letter of the law to get around the (moral) spirit of the law.

A good a non-governmental example is found in mortgage paperwork. A nice libertarian society might expect it to be one sheet of paper -- at most. Why? Well, because a good libertarian would live up to his obligations, of course.

Here in reality, your mortgage closing will have you signing something that's tens of pages long, and just about every sheet and clause has something you must or cannot do -- and just about every one of those was added because somebody tried to get away with something, instead of honoring the spirit of their agreement.

[JohnGalt]

Who let the barbarians through the gates in the first place?

The state.

Who benefits from a more centralized government?

State workers.

Who needed an explanation to justify more of the state?

State apologists also called Beltway Conservatives.

"We have to get them before they get us."

No true libertarian would ever make the mistake of believing the state as an extension of self

[OWK]

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 --

You, Marx, Engels....

[Ten Megaton Solution]

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

and

I am talking going into terrorist supporting foreign countries without having been attacked by them.

Okay, I read the first passage as promulgating efforts to prevent the growth of new cells domestically.

Now. Where is the line drawn when deciding what nations to "pre-empt", and which to ignore? IMO, we should have "pre-empted" China when they hijacked our EP-3 in April, 2001. We should certainly "pre-empt" Saudi Arabia, yesterday, if not sooner, for it's continuing role in fomenting terrorism. That funny guy with the beard in Cuba, let's "pre-empt" him, while we're at it. And those nasal voiced snots in Paris, they could use a solid dose of "pre-emption", at about the same time we "pre-empt" Mexico for it's unofficial ongoing invasion.

What ever happened to the idea that Congress is supposed to declare war, then the president wages it?

[r9etb]

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

It's no contradiction at all. How others live can and does affect my quality of life. People living in community have the right to ensure that the bad actions of a few do not degrade conditions for everybody else. Thus, a community may pass laws against people having sex in public, or public intoxication, or playing ultra-loud car stereos in residential areas.

[Protagoras]

Afghanistan,

That was not preemptive.

Iraq...

So far, there is no proof that they were a threat to us. I supported the war when they told me that Iraq was preparing to attack us. I'm waiting for the evidence to come in. I am patient, but history will judge.

...Syria? North Korea?

Syria is going to attack us?

As to North Korea, are you advocating a preemptive war? If so, please say so.

How would you defend against another 9/11?

By enforcing and tightening the immigration laws. All of the attackers, (Saudis) were in this country legally at first.

And if you think that another 9/11 type attack can be prevented absolutely by any means, you and I disagree. It is impossible to prevent small groups of whackos from doing harm to others.

[r9etb]

You, Marx, Engels....

... John Adams, George Washington, and a few others. (The key word was "untrammeled," in case you missed it.)

Your quip is a shining example of why libertarians will forever be marginalized as a group of unpleasant and unelectable loudmouths.

[Dead Corpse]

How would you defend against another 9/11?

For starters, you would arm everyone. At least, you would remove all un-Constitutional, and un-ethical, restrictions on invidividual arms carry. Anyone could carry anything they wanted anywhere they wanted. Including airplanes.

Private property owners, including "public" business owners, set the rules for carry on their property.

Once you'd gotten the liberals revived from that conniption causing issue, then you'd go on to kill the welfare state and impose an NRST with no exepmtions. This would allow business to flourish as well as reducing the incentive for illegals to want to come here. It'd also kill a lot of the power the government has to make and regulate business deals. Most of these tin-pot dictators would get strung up within a few short months as moneyed US based interests buy them out or pay for their over-throw so we can get our capitalistic hands on their un-tapped resources.

[Protagoras]

Thus, a community may pass laws against people having sex in public, or public intoxication, or playing ultra-loud car stereos in residential areas.

The things you mention affect you so I agree. Now I must assume you have no problem with personal behavior as long as they are done in private.

[OWK]

How others live can and does affect my quality of life.

You are not entitled to happiness.

Only to the right to act unrestrained in pursuit of it, provided your actions do not violate the rights of others.

[gcruse]

Uh, okay.

[OWK]

Your quip is a shining example of why libertarians will forever be marginalized as a group of unpleasant and unelectable loudmouths.

Libertarians will of course remain unelected.

People have no wish to be free.

They simply appeal over and over to government, to save them from themselves.

And the chains grow ever tighter.

[JohnGalt]

What about when your 'community' decides abortion is what the community wants? I know, I know, just elect more conservatives who will change the standards for the community in the same wrongheaded way the left did.

OWK and most libertarians would argue that a town of 20,000 can make whatever laws and ordinances it wants, its the community of 250,000,000 that has us a little concerned.

[Dead Corpse]

People living in community have the right to ensure that the bad actions of a few do not degrade conditions for everybody else.

Try looking up the definition of the word "commune" sometime you friggin' socialist. You don't even have the decency to deny it any more, do you? I've suspected you of being a democrat plant for some time, this really takes the cake.

[Protagoras]

The truth is that libertarianism will work as long as people are already largely self-policing.

You have a bizzare and inaccurate concept of libertarianism.

[gcruse]

What ever happened to the idea that Congress
is supposed to declare war, then the president wages it?

The Congress gave that up with, wasn't it, the War Powers Act?
I can't find out when the Tenth Amendment was repealed, either,
but there you go.  :)

[Protagoras]

OWK and most libertarians would argue that a town of 20,000 can make whatever laws and ordinances it wants,

Not hardly. Ask OWK if you think so.

"They can make any laws which do not violate rights", might be a better statement.

[OWK]

OWK and most libertarians would argue that a town of 20,000 can make whatever laws and ordinances it wants...

The question, is whether it may do so morally.

I would argue that anything that is immoral for an individual to do, remains immoral if attempted by state.

Morality does not benefit from economies of scale.

If it is immoral for me to stick a gun in my neighbor's face to pay for my grandmother's kidney transplant, then it is likewise immoral for 100,000,000 of my neighbors to do so.

[JohnGalt]

Apologies I posted before I made a point.

So long as those calling themselves 'libertarians' continue to make the same assumptions that all statists make, there will be no point in trying to communicate with the 'further right.'

[Protagoras]

And the chains grow ever tighter.

And the conflict draws ever nearer. I hope it's a long time from now, but I'm not convinced it will be.