Posted on 12/20/2006 3:27:19 PM PST by neverdem
In a recent column, I discussed the disaffection of libertarians within the conservative coalition, suggesting that many might be more at home on the political left. A number of readers wrote to say that they agreed with my analysis and had left the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party. Among these is former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, who officially joined the Libertarians last week.
Of course, people are free to do what they want to do, and if they want to join the Libertarians, that's their business. But if their goal is to actually change policy in a libertarian direction, then they are making a big mistake, in my opinion. The Libertarian Party is worse than a waste of time. I believe it has done far more to hamper the advancement of libertarian ideas and policies than it has done to advance them. In my view, it is essential for the Libertarian Party to completely disappear before libertarian ideas will again have political currency.
The basic problem with the Libertarian Party is the same problem faced by all third parties: It cannot win. The reason is that under the Constitution a candidate must win an absolute majority in the all-important Electoral College. It won't do just to have the most votes in a three- or four-way race. You have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win, period.
Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
You're saying the same thing I am. Sure Libertarians matter, but in our system, the way for them to get their ideas implemented is to fight in the primaries. We have ideological fights, but they are in the primaries, not after the election, as is true in most of Europe.
A third party won't get anywhere in our system, but specific political views can sway one of the major parties. Right now, the Dems. are pretty much united on the far Left, and the GOP has a major battle between Libertarians and Conservatives taking place.
bttt
This is an important and intellectually fascinating discussion. Unfortunately, a few people here as I'm reading this thread have chosen to cheapen it by calling people 3rd grade names like "poopyface".
______________________________________________________
You write:
"Liberal" has its roots in "libre" or "free". Todays liberals have nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word "liberal". They are socialists and collectivists to be much more accurate.
______________________________________________________
You are 100% right. There is a 19th Century definition of "liberal", and a modern day connotation based on what today's Liberals advocate in America:
"THE WHOLE COUNTRY STINKS. Everything we stand for; military might, American exceptionalism, Capitalism, God, guns, Hot Dogs, Budweiser, John Wayne...Let's throw it all out and replace it with a World Utopia like John Lennon described in his ballad "Imagine"...no countries, no religion, no war, no hunger, no poverty."
Sounds great in theory, but Communism doesn't work in practice. It's been tried and it's failed.
No, the GOP shouldn't disregard them. Neither should it pander to some of the other kookball planks, legalization of drugs, for instance....
______________________________________________________
I wrestle with the "anarchy" platform the LP espouses too. Still undecided.
But think about this...
Drugs are already legal in the US. One big on in particular: Alcohol. In a matter of fact they advertise this drug during the Super Bowl.
So we're just haggling over which drugs should be legal and which shouldn't. (In the interest of full disclosure: I drink beer. I haven't smoked weed since 1991. The crap never agreed with me. It just made me paranoid.)
Sounds Utopian? Don't know about that. To me it is a recipe for disaster when it comes to the family, community, and America's survival in the face of the world's current plague - Islam.
To me, true libertarianism is just one step above anarchy -- it is morelike 'loosely controlled anarchy' in my opinion.
__________________________________________________________
Maybe. This is a tough one. In a matter of fact, this whole idea of Democracy, idiots left and right, deciding our fate needs a closer examination.
Maybe a benign Monarchy is the best political system. We'll let King Michael Bloomberg XV decree what is in our best interests.
He has the most money. He makes the rules.
Democracy, small 'd' is a nice idea, but it leads to majority rule and the consequences thereof - that's why we're technically a consitutional republic with laws. Libertarianism takes the 'majority' out of the picture by keeping the government, the people, from interfering with you - good or bad. Libertarianism in its extreme might not be a good thing (e.g., freedom to use any drugs, live your own 'lifestyle' (whatever that might be). And their only caveat is that what 'they' do shouldn't affect the rights of others. I believe that they can't help but affect others in some way with some behaviors and some can be a detriment to society if left to their own devices. That's why I'll never support an LP candidate - never.
I'm just curious, since you brought it up, what is your level of education?
You also have a Merry Christmas...and I already anticipated you advice; I just began reading The Triumph of Liberty..last night, in fact.
Well said, yet Socialist Party B for some reason feels entitled to your vote and gets all nasty if they don't get it.
Apparently not, give when the GOP did to the size of government the last six years.
Good point. Did you ever read Slivinskis book "Buck Wild"?
Pelosi and the libs had to come in to elimate the pork barrell spending altogether.
Now these tax and spend left wingers look like the party of small govt and fiscal responsibility???????????
Its our own fault. We threw em a Batting Practice pitch by spending like drunken sailors on shore leave and they hit it out of the park.
I believe that this new organization would be vastly more influential than the party and give libertarian ideas far more potency than they now have.
Ninety-eight percent of the populace doesn't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against other persons or their property. They don't murder, assault, rape, rob or threaten persons. While that appears to be a major plank of the Libertarian party, that people act responsibly tolerant of others has virtually nothing to do with laws or politics. The reason 98% of the people peacefully co-exist is personal integrity -- do unto others as others would do unto you. And that begins with choosing to be left alone. More fundamental than the freedom to associate -- which requires agreement from at least one other person -- is the freedom to disassociate/discriminate. A single person's choice that has no requirement of agreement from anyone.
As Thomas Jefferson so aptly stated:
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. " -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816
Ninety-eight percent of the populace doesn't commit aggression on the equal rights of another. Doesn't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against persons or their property. A couple dozen laws can cover that. One law? No person, group or government shall initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person's life or their property.
And...
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1820
The federal government creates about 3,000 new laws and regulations each year. Most of the mountain of laws and regulations have oppressed persons and society from ever greater prosperity. They sacrifice the individual, in whole or part, for the supposed greater good of the group. The fallacy of that is that before a group can exist there first must exist an individual. Sacrificing the individual diminishes the group. Protecting the individual's rights enhances the group. Protect the smallest minority -- the individual -- and all minorities and majorities are protected.
Just as evermore gun control laws will not keep criminals from obtaining guns, evermore laws will not stop the 2% from initiating force. Both those supposed goals are red herrings. Especially since government is by several magnitude the most destructive fraud foisted on the populace.
Politics is not the solution. Politics is the problem. Voting for the lesser of evils is not the solution. Evil always begets evil so voting for evil is the problem.
Solution:
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. " -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816
No person, group or government shall initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person's life or their property.
That's true. However, thinking in two dimensions is way too difficult for some people, who are only able to apprehend their world in boolean terms: "My Way" v. "Highway".
It's always about "The Gays" for Religicans. It's always about "The Gays".
Funny...I always thought that way about the theocons: pretending that, with the right laws, the government will keep people from shagging (the way they want to).
THANK you! Of course, one has to actually *read* the document...
The major issue that the Libertarian Party faces is to dispell the rumors/inuendos/lies/misconceptions/history that many believe and reach out with the truth about what libertarianism really means. There were some good discussions buried in this thread. Maybe we changed a few minds or made a few people rethink their positions. The GOP-bots want to blame us for losing the last election--it's easier than admitting that the failure was in their own abandonment of Reagan conservatism. My hope in posting in threads like this is to bring a bit of truth about libertarianism and the LP, and to either cause the libertarians in the GOP to move to the LP, or to cause the GOP to move back to the libertarian philosophy. Either way, libertarianism eventually grows and wins.
Well said, on both counts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.