Replies

I liked this article even though it came from LewRockwell.com, because it predates Lew by about twenty years. I am a Libertarian and a libertarian. The strongest criticism of the LP comes from within. I vote for Republicans and for Libertarians, depending on the circumstances.

For people who wonder what small-L or big-L means, it's a way of identifying yourself as having that political leaning, without buying it hook line and sinker. How many Republicans or Democrats agree with every platform plank down to the letter? Some things go too far, other things don't go far enough. Everyone has their pet issues and divergance from party orthodoxy. The problems with the Libertarian Party is that there is intolerance for moderates.

This is why the Libertarian Party is self defeating. I consider myself a moderate by Libertarian standards. I don't agree with all of the platform planks of the LP platform, though I agree with good portions of it. For my heresy, I am told that I am not a "real" libertarian. Poppycock. Blaming the LP's failure on election law and media inclusion only goes so far. Ultimately you have to take responsibility for your success and failures. My point goes like this: If we are all individuals, aren't we all going to be different? Why have a litmus test to make us conform. It's hypocritical and self-defeating. It's hypocritical because the political philosophy demands tolerance, but many in the party are intolerant of people who aren't "pure." It's self-defeating because the party is not going to grow if people aren't encouraged to join, and people aren't encouraged to join if you tell them they aren't "pure" enough to be a "real" libertarian.

Now, not everybody is like this, but enough people are this way to be a turn off. I am taking a long, hard look at the Republican Liberty Caucus, and might even drive to La Grange to see what they're about.

Ping!

You have nailed many of my own positions quite well. I still support the LP because most Republicans seem unwilling to get serious about reducing the size and scope of government other than in small, cosmetic ways (such as Bush's tax cut). But the party is lost on many organizational issues, and their foreign policy positions are tainted by anti-Vietnam isolationism. (Many of the founders of the party came from the anti-Vietnam War movement).

I just wish we had better choices. I would gladly support Republicans like Phil Gramm, if there were any around my area to support. Instead we have a "Republican" governor, elected on a no-income-tax pledge, that is on a three-year jihad to impose a state income tax on us. At least Democrats are usually honest that they want the government and taxes to be bigger.

I agree, the Libertarian Party is an oxymoron. Libertarian thought needs to influence government and the two party system by presenting principles of governmental policy. This can be done by think tanks like the Cato Institute, and by lobbyists like the Republican Liberty Caucus.