Posted on 12/12/2001 12:57:13 PM PST by Timesink
THIRD WHEEL: My friend Nick Schulz of TechCentral Station marks the 30th anniversary of the Libertarian Party with a call for the party to "grow up." As a small-l libertarian who occasionally votes Libertarian, I'd rather the party just go away. As satisfying as it may be to cast a protest vote, they're bad for the cause. Their 30th-anniversary press release eliminates any ambivalence I might feel. It's not enough that the party's rules have defined "libertarian" to exclude every major libertarian thinker except Murray Rothbard (who was really an anarchist) and that they have a foreign policy that amounts to defending America on the beaches of Santa Monica. They also have to spin their way through their celebratory press release, desperately claiming credit for trends they played little or no part in. That spin operation pretty much proves that they are, indeed, just what they claim: an honest-to-God political party. The most ridiculous paragraph details this supposed accomplishment: "Started to win over America's celebrities." Best of all, they had Bill Maher on the list this morning, but they've taken him down. P.S. All you pissed-off LPers, do not call Reason and try to get me fired. It wouldn't work, and I've already quit. [Posted 12/11.] Over the past decade, public figures including movie star Clint Eastwood, humorist Dave Barry, comedian Dennis Miller, actor Kurt Russell, magician Penn Jillette, author Camille Paglia, TV reporter John Stossell, author P.J. O'Rourke, Rush guitarist Neil Peart, country star Dwight Yoakam, and former 20/20 newsman Hugh Downs have all described themselves as "libertarian."
The LP didn't "win over" these celebrities. Calling yourself "libertarian" is no more partisan than calling yourself "republican" or "democratic." Clint Eastwood is a former Republican mayor. P.J. O'Rourke calls himself a Republican Party Reptile. Camille Paglia is a self-proclaimed Democrat who voted for Ralph Nader and who heaps patented Paglia-style scorn on the LP. John Stossel spells his name with one l. If they knew him, they'd know that.
In the words of Mister Spock, "Fascinating."
Excerpt from official LP press release on September 12th:
The Libertarian Party condemns the vicious and barbaric attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There is no excuse for such savage acts. No legitimate political or religious ideology can justify the murder of thousands of innocent people. These actions, and the revulsion they cause to all decent people around the world, demonstrate in the starkest way possible that the initiation of force is never an appropriate way to settle political or social differences. The result of such violence is more hatred, more grieving relatives and friends, more tombstones -- and, ultimately, more violence. Libertarians unequivocally reject the initiation of force as a solution to the disagreements between people and between governments.But most Libertarians support the attacks.The Libertarian Party calls for justice to be meted out to the terrorists responsible for the attacks. However, we encourage the United States government to be sure that any response is appropriate and measured. Action should not be taken that will cause innocent people in other countries to be killed because of the actions of terrorists. Such a response would only continue the cycle of violence and revenge.
Really? I don't think very many species engage in sexual acts like that.
Of course, many species of primates are as degenerate as humans, but I doubt bees engage in nontraditional sex acts, and I don't think birds do either.
This coming from the party of Log Cabins types?
You will see what you want to see, and you WANT to see the worst in others. Probably has something to do with your own self image.
By the way, did you read Cal Thomas today? He's a pretty moral guy who's saying that it's time for the Church to stop trying to legislate morality and get back to business.
Jesus said that it isn't what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, it's what comes out. Words flow from the heart of a perons and reveal the inner thoughts. Cleaning the outside does nothing to clean the inside, where it really counts.
I speak of individual responsibility, freedom, and liberty.
you speak of sexual perverions, gluttony, drunkenness, addiction, and other criminal matters.
What comes out of the mouth (keyborad in this case!) reveals the heart.
What a wishy-washy statement! And this from a man who sets himself up as a defender of liberty.
The LP supports changing our foreign policy in reaction to the attacks. Appeasement of that sort never works; it is a certain way to guarantee more terrorist attacks, because terrorist attacks would then become a successful, proven method of changing U.S. policy.
If you quote is true, then Libertarians have filthy mouths, since it the LP platform, which I quoted. Double standard here ?
Ah, and IF GOD has a mouth, then HE has THE filthiest mouth of all. It is HE, after all, who speaks through the Bible; condemning adultery, whoes, sodomites, drunks, et al. If preaching morality is NOT part of religion's pupose, then neither is the Bible.
I don't understand why YOU brought up the LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS . Don't Libertarians, and libertarians claim that they don't care what ANYONE else does ? What you've done, in your post, is pure hypocracy. After all, it was NOT I, who even brought up homosexualiy. Circular logic, is no logic at all. : - )
Libertarians of the Libertarian party as with all 3rd parties have to be totally ignorant about how our sytem of govenrment works. We have a two party system. The two parties have been in control since 1860. They have made every rule in such a way that third parties are always counter productive.
We should not be resigned to the smug, self-affirming dominance of the two major parties. The American people deserve a better range of choices and should certainly be able to vote for who they truly think is best without having to worry it will help the one they consider the worst.
The solution to change is what it has been for 140 years. Get in one of the existing party and change it to your liking.
No, the solution is to adopt preferential voting, or "instant runoffs", whereby voters can indicate their first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. on the ballot. For example, you could put Buchanan down as your #1 choice with Bush as #2, so that if Buchanan is eliminated from the race, your vote transfers automatically to Bush. Hence, no more "spoilers," no more wasted-vote anxiety, and no more victories by default for candidates who are (among the top three, anyway) the least favorite of the majority.
Has nobody here heard of this candidate-ranking system? (Alaska Republicans are trying to enact it for state elections, and I'm told that the Utah GOP uses it to determine its nominees.)
The difference is that the Founders' "self-evident truths" were granted by a Creator.
Modern-day Libertarians (at least at FR) tend to be atheists, and so are left claiming that the self-evident truths are just part of nature that can be "discovered" by reason alone. Unfortunately, logic demands that under those circumstances, the law of the jungle is at least as valid as the "self-evident" truths that oppose it. Ironically, atheist libertarianism self-reduces to a relativist philosophy that must be maintained by use of force.
That being said, the implementation of genuine libertarianism is a noble undertaking and should be pursued the the realm of politics simultaneously with the pursuit of morall renewall in the realm of culture
You would have to very carefully define "genuine libertarianism" and "moral renewal" before I could even begin to entertain the notion that the implementation would be "noble," as opposed to a call for libertinism. And the puruit of libertarian goals by means of politics requires a spirit of compromise: of which Libertarians are notoriously contemptuous.
I can certainly see why you make the connection between libertarianism and moral renewal. Indeed, a libertarian society cannot possibly exist without an underlying moral foundation. Moral renewal presumes active promotion of a set of principles by which all are held to account. Unfortunately, the very idea of pursuing "moral renewal" flies in the face of what Libertarians claim to stand for. Libertarians strenuously object to such "legislation of morality."
But it's not a two-way street: it would be difficult to defend the idea that introduction of a libertarian society would usher in "moral renewal."
From what I can see, libertarian theory has to assume things about human morality and human nature, that are directly contradicted by all of human history -- a fundamental failure for a group that supposedly values rational thinking.
To give but one example of the problem, I'm reminded of the FR Libertarians' consistent defense of Wal-Mart in its literal conquest of small local businesses. Apparently blinded by Ayn Rand's ideas, they seemingly cannot fathom the possibility that a big corporation can be anything but "good." This sort of blindness does not bode well for your proposed experiment.
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.