Libertarian Virginia Postrel Tells Libertarian Party to "Go Away"

Dynamist.com ^ | December 11, 2001 | Virginia Postrel

[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."

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.

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.]

[Doctor Doom]

Sodomy encompasses any oral or anal play. Straights do it. gays do it. Birds do it. Bees do it. :)

[nunya bidness]

So what your saying is that Kevin never engages in the aformentioned acts ever or he is a hypocrite.

In the words of Mister Spock, "Fascinating."

[xm177e2]

After 9/11, however, the Libertarian Party came out in favor of what amounts to appeasement.

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.

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.

But most Libertarians support the attacks.

[xm177e2]

Birds do it. Bees do it.

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.

[Doctor Doom]

Poetic license. You know - the song.

[Doctor Doom]

PS - Thank gods for degeneracy. Beats network television.

[M.K. Borders]

I am a (small L) libertarian, and as such I recieve E-mails and snail mails from the LP. Recently, I recieved an E-mail from the LP wanting me to run for Congress as an LP candidate. Sorry folks. I cannot support a party who would sink so low as to have me for a candidate.

[LiberalBassTurds]

Great post and right on the money.

[Eagle Eye]

Shallow-thinking but well-meaning conservatives who fancy themselves libertarians often protest in one breath that they abhor dope, porn, sodomy and gay marriage but in the next breath complain that their party seems fated to attract "kooks" including dopers, pornographers and porn-lovers, and sexual perverts seeking open social acceptance of their perversions

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.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #48 Thanks you for your vote of confidence.

[Mitchell]

Your second link says: "LP National Director Steve Dasbach said the results seem to indicate that Libertarians see the September 11 terrorist attacks as an 'initiation of force' against the United States."

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.

[nopardons]

George Will says that Libertarians are FAUX CONSERVATIVES and Ann Coulter calls them far worse things. I'm a Hamiltonian Conservative, and am in GREAT company ; certainly NOT a socialistic one. Unlike Libertarians, I don't need code words and phrases, with which to make a point. Just keep on slandering nonlibertaran Conservatifves, dear, it is garunteed to drive people far, far, FAR away from Libertarians.

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. : - )

[Tom87]

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.)

[rob777]

"From what I've seen here at FR, application of libertarianism requires that people agree that the underlying moral principles are "self-evident." Unfortunately, many people do not agree with them. Confronted with this situation, libertarians are quite simply stuck: how does one prove that something is "self-evident," to a person who does not agree? "



This is true, but then, it is also true in respect to our founders ideal of ordered liberty. Both have their roots in "self -evident truths". When a culture slides in moral relativism and denies the existance of self-evident truths, liberty is impossible as we end up with the law of the jungle prevailing.

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

[rob777]

"The Libertarian Party has completely destroyed its prospects through the abandonment of one of the most fundamental libertarian principles -- national defense as a primary role of government."



This is utter nonsense. Although some individuals seemed to be taking such a stand, the official statement of the LP defended the use of force in the wake of September 11th as an act of national defense. Furthermore, a poll of the LP membership, shows that an overwhelming percentage of the party supports the military action in Afganistan.

The LP has enough faults to point to without dreaming up imaginary ones.

[rob777]

"It is my observation that the LP has not developed a comprehensive and coherent philosophy. Additionally, it is fragmented by too many people with irrational interests and life styles seeking to use libertarianism to license those interests."



Unfortuntely, this is all too true. I find this unfortunate, as the cause of libertarianism could use a good third party to force the major parties to address its concerns, in much the same way that the Socialist parties got the Dems to adopt much of their platform.

Still there is an argument to be made that it was the larger socialist movement, not the Socialist Party itself, that pushed the Dems to the left. Taken from this perspective, libertarians should look more to the larger libertarian movement than to the LP. That is the direction which I seem to be leaning towards.

[rob777]

"In my limited experience, LP gatherings have a few people with some good ideas, plus a whole lot of hangers-on who were anti-draft during the '60s, or who want drugs or prostitution legalized, etc. As single-issue voters go, those tend to be most unattractive. It's one thing to reluctantly tolerate deviant behavior (as long as it's confined to consenting adults), but it's quite another to build a political movement around such behavior. But that's the tendency I've seen; and LP events tend to be freak shows rather than gatherings of enlightened philosophers. Still, there'a a core of good thinking burried in there. But I think the Republican party is the way to go."



That has been my experience as well. On the other hand, I do not want to put all my eggs in the GOP basket. Been there, done that! In a nutshell, I do not see any easy answers as to where to focus my efforts.

[rob777]

"It is ironic that the only large group who committed themselves to brining this long-term rightward shift is Unfication Church, "Moonies"."



That ceased to be true following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism. They seem to be following an aimless "midway" course now that includes both "family values" and a global peace movement with the UN playing a major role. In short, an ideologically confused attempt to blur the left/right distinction.

That aside, your point about moving the goal posts is well taken.

[r9etb]

This is true, but then, it is also true in respect to our founders ideal of ordered liberty. Both have their roots in "self -evident truths". When a culture slides in moral relativism and denies the existance of self-evident truths, liberty is impossible as we end up with the law of the jungle prevailing.

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.