Posted on 12/12/2001 12:57:13 PM PST by Timesink
I'd go farther and say that in many ways big corporations are identical to statist big government -- and why not? Both are in control of vast power, both are governed by human beings, and both are interested in expanding their power by almost any means available to them, and both are institutionally interested in separating as far as possible the exercise of power from those most directly affected by it.
http://www.liberty-tree.org/ltn/crisis-and-leviathan.html (available at www.bookfinder.com)
I read the book over the holidays, and from my reading of the book, as well as other historical sources, I think you have a misimpression of the actual growth of government over the 20th century.
If you read Crisis and Leviathan, you'll see that the People's Party (aka, the Populist Party), the Progressive Party (Teddy Roosevelt's offshoot of the Republican Party), and the Socialist Party (under Eugene Debs) were actually spectacularly effective. And you'll also see that the Democratic Party turned Big Government long before FDR. In fact, many of the economic controls FDR used in the New Deal were simply carryovers and extensions of the economic controls of WWI (under progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson). The reason the Populist, Progressive, and Socialist parties were spectacularly effective is that they did, in fact, pull the entire country substantially to the left. FDR merely completed a job that was already well underway. A big shift to the left had already occurred between the late 1890's and 1919 (the end of WWI).
In fact, if you read "The Roosevelt Myth" by Joe Flynn, you'll see that FDR's actions as president essentially completely repudiated the ideas on which he ran. When running for president, for example, he criticized Hoover for deficit spending. (And I don't mean, "for not enough deficit spending.")
In conclusion, based on my readings, your opinions are based on an incomplete view of history. The various third parties (Populist, Progressive, and Socialist) did in fact carry public opinion substantially to the left. Just as we Libertarians plan on pulling public opinion substantially to the "Top."
By the way, we Libertarians don't agree that politics is based on Left/Right, and instead think that politics is actually a diamond...with Left (liberal), Right (conservative), Top (libertarian), and Bottom (authoritarian). See the "smallest political quiz" on the Libertarian Party website...http://www.lp.org/quiz/ )
Mark (member of the Libertarian Party...accept no substitutes!)
P.S. On behalf of the tens of thousands of members of the Libertarian Party, let me tell Ms. Postrel that we aren't going anywhere. She can go away. We're staying. And if she doesn't like it, she can come get us. But she should remember that most of us have guns. ;-) Because, unlike Republicans, we actually think that the 2nd and 10th Amendments MEAN something!
In case you didn't know, the LP has recommended ALL the things it's recommending now: 1) removal of all troops from Saudi Arabia (and every other foreign country), and 2) elimination of all GOVERNMENT support of Israel (and every other foreign country) for many, many years.
So what the LP is recommending now is NOT "appeasement"...it's recommending ONCE AGAIN that the U.S. federal government DO THE RIGHT THINGS. That these "right things" will also result in less danger to The People that the federal government is supposed to be protecting, is merely icing on the cake.
Mark (Libertarian Party...accept no substitutes! The ONLY Party of limited government, free trade, and non-intervention!)
There's much more Democratic Party philosophy in the GOP than there is Libertarian Party philosophy in the GOP.
Mark (Libertarian Party...accept no substitutes!)
Positive, constructive people like the doper, G.W. Bush? Isn't it a shame he wasn't imprisoned for his admitted marijuana use, or his (slightly less-admitted) cocaine use?
Then John McCain would be President today. Except that HE probably smoked marijuana, too. So HE should have been imprisoned, too. (That's the trouble with Washington, DC. So #@$% few people there are actually "positive and constructive!")
"The Libertarian Party has thrown away any chance it had of being taken seriously."
Sort of like the Republican Party has thrown away any chance it had of ever being taken seriously as a party of Limited Government or the Rule of Law?
Let me explain some election arithmetic to you. You have one vote in each race (unless you're committing voter fraud). NO State or federal official will EVER be elected by ONE vote.
So your job as a voter should be to identify and vote for the candidate who you think is the best. Period. In the voting booth, you should completely ignore what may be going on or have occurred in all the other voting booths. Because in the voting booth, all you should care about is YOUR vote. Because that's all you can change.
"Yes, I know its about principle with the LP, but principle doesn't have to figure out how to deal with the hard left loonies of the Democratic party."
NOTHING you can do will EVER change what the "hard left loonies of the Democratic party" do. (They may vote Green, by the way...thus making them "hard left loonies of the Green party.")
And NO way you vote will EVER change whether your candidate at the state or federal level wins or loses. The only thing YOUR vote does is say what YOU want. If you want the statist Republican in the presidential or congressional spot you're voting on, you should vote for him. If you DON'T want a statist, you should vote Libertarian. Simple as that. Because...unless you're living in Ron Paul's district in Texas, ALL your Republican candidates for federal office are statists.
"And no, I won't come back from the dark side."
Well, you really should work out the math. It's fairly straightforward. One vote. It's NEVER going to decide a federal or state election.
Mark (Libertarian Party...accept no substitutes!) (Because there simply aren't any at the federal level.)
No, I stopped being disappointed in the GOP by the middle of Reagan's first term (about the time he ditched David Stockman).
I'm no longer "disappointed" by the GOP, because I KNOW they are a party of Big Government, and don't have the slightest intention of ever coming close to following the Constitution.
That's why I'm a straight-ticket Libertarian voter. (And when there are no Libertarians running, I pretty much flip a coin between Republicans and Democrats, because I know they're not any different on any level I care about.)
As a straight-ticket voting Libertarian, the only thing that disappoints me is how few of my fellow citizens (including most on these boards) are truly interested in having a Free Republic, as outlined in the Constitution.
I certainly haven't been disappointed by the quality of candidates put up by the Libertarian Party, either at federal or State levels. Almost always, they're clearly the best candidates. (Harry Browne, for example, was sooooo much better than G.W. Bush, it wasn't even funny. Bush was verrrry wise never to let Harry Browne into any debate. Harry Browne would have eaten him, and spit him out.)
Bill Maher is not a spokesperson for the Libertarian Party, and never has been.
"The LP (if it is to survive) needs to go conservative..."
No...why would we go statist? That would be in direct opposition to what we all think is the best form of government.
Mark (Libertarian Party...acccept no substitutes)
You're "basically happy" that between 25% and 40% of your income goes to government of one level or another? Even though U.S. history has demonstrated that a country gets along just fine (is the best country in the world) with less than 10% of a typical person's income going to government at all levels?
You're "basically happy" that the federal government is massively violating the U.S. Constitution?
Why?
You replied: In case you didn't know, the LP has recommended ALL the things it's recommending now: 1) removal of all troops from Saudi Arabia (and every other foreign country), and 2) elimination of all GOVERNMENT support of Israel (and every other foreign country) for many, many years.
So what the LP is recommending now is NOT "appeasement"...it's recommending ONCE AGAIN that the U.S. federal government DO THE RIGHT THINGS. That these "right things" will also result in less danger to The People that the federal government is supposed to be protecting, is merely icing on the cake.
It's true that this has long been the LP's foreign policy platform. But,even if one believes in such an approach, switching foreign policy in response to an attack would be a terrible idea; the terrorist attack would be viewed as a success, and we'd start getting yet more of them. It's simple: When a behavior is rewarded, you get more of it.
The foreign policy of the U.S. is legitimate and Constitutional, even if the LP happens to oppose it. The general thrust of the U.S.'s foreign policy is supported by the public (notwithstanding the LP). Changing a policy with wide public support in response to an attack amounts to appeasement, whether you think of it in those terms or not. (The LP typically argues that the government's domestic policies are un-Constitutional and therefore illegitimate, but I don't think you can make that claim for our foreign policy in general. There's not a very good libertarian argument for the LP's foreign policy position.)
Moreover, a position that says we can only defend ourselves at our borders is naive and unworkable. The LP believes in domestic police forces, why should it not support the use of force to defend against the initiation of force abroad?
The LP's position on this reinforces the general public view that libertarianism is impractical and unrealistic; whereas the truth is that libertarianism itself is quite practical, but the Libertarian Party taints the public perception of libertarianism by insisting on impractically naive (and arguably non-libertarian) positions.
On top of this, it's not true that switching to the LP's foreign policy would result in "less danger". What's happening right now is that some people in the world are gambling that there has been a change in the balance of power, that great nations are susceptible to terrorist attacks. We must prove that this is not the case, or we will be at the whim of these people for the foreseeable future. And, in case you haven't noticed, the Islamic radicals of the world do not favor libertarianism; allowing them to run free would do the cause of freedom irreparable harm.
There is a fairly libertarian wing of the GOP. I would agree that it's not a majority of the party. However, there is no libertarian wing of the Democratic Party.
This is of great concern, and I don't have what you will consider a satisfactory answer. The Libertarian Party looked like it was starting to have at least a slim shot at success, but its position after 9/11 has destroyed its potential for mainstream growth and electoral success. It's true that the Republican Party has a history of waffling on limited government. But they're what we have.
The real reason we don't have a libertarian government is that the American people are not libertarians. They have a distaste for intrusive government, and they may well take be taking a turn toward libertarianism, but they aren't there right now. If public views toward libertarianism become more favorable, the libertarian wing of the Republican Party will start winning more elections and will grow.
You replied: You're "basically happy" that between 25% and 40% of your income goes to government of one level or another? Even though U.S. history has demonstrated that a country gets along just fine (is the best country in the world) with less than 10% of a typical person's income going to government at all levels?
Why?
You're putting words in my mouth; I never said that I was happy about any of those things (and, in fact, I am not happy with them).
I said that most people are basically happy with our society, and that is true. They live happy lives, they're prospering, they have a multitude of opportunities. People are not desperate, they are not hungry, they don't feel generally oppressed.
I am opposed to large government, and I have voted for many libertarians in the past (although I will not be doing so again in the foreseeable future). But I am happy with my life. Politics isn't everything, you know.
Populations will not take a chance on sudden change, unless large numbers of people feel strongly that ordinary lives are being massively disrupted. You have to be experiencing desperation to want to live through a revolution.
People will take a chance on small incremental change. They are practical; they are willing to try something out to see how it works.
If you want a libertarian society, try to convince people to make a small change here and a small change there. If they like the result, they may want to try another small step. If they don't like the result, they can undo the change. What people aren't willing to do is to dismantle large parts of our society wholesale until they have direct experience with the institutions that will replace them. And this can only be done step by step.
Societies that have chosen to (or been forced to) make sudden changes have rarely fared well. Look at France in the years after the French Revolution, or Russia after the Communist Revolution.
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.