Libertarianism is a great idea, and I'm a registered Libertarian, but they (we) are our own worst enemies.

I've really longed for libertarians and Libertarians interested less in ideological purity than in real change to modern governemnt and politics to take over the remnants of the Reform party. Leave the Libertarian Party Debating Society to the ideologists and purists.

America's been crying out since the late Seventies for a real third party. Look at how successful Commoner, Anderson and Nader have been; look at the success of Perot's Reform. The need is there. Who will answer it?

For now, I'll settle for simply changing the current regime, but I, like you, think we need a real change.

Once we get rid of the current Head Honcho and about two dozen neocons, we can start on Congress - man, does that need work!

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism and the modern, industrial nation-state developed hand in hand. It's almost impossible to conceive what one would look like without the other. Global capitalism couldn't exist without some degree of coercion.

Another reason libertarians will never gain ground or inspire anyone outside of lonely, single white males:

Using milquetoast language like "the absence of injustice equals liberty" rather than offering an affirmative imperative for justice and referring to your deeply held beliefs about the state and liberty as being "amoral" is very telling. Minarchists? You've got to be kidding me. Even the Indiana chapter of the Dungeons and Dragons club would blush at that akward, contrived term.

I think people who would want to consider archaic, abstract ideas like libertarianism would be better off putting down their D & D manuals and even more worthless Ayn Rand books and picking up Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia or perhaps go back and read some Mill, Locke, or Rousseau.
I know that's not fashionable, but perhaps then you wouldn't be confused.

The only traditional defense of libertarianism is grounded in philosophy and ethics, not in a poor man's delight over capitalism or dismantling the government just cuz you're a weirdo.

Al Barger: still waiting for your criticisms of the Bush administration, you huge military-industrial complex national security libertarian, you.

That is all.

I think people who would want to consider archaic, abstract ideas like libertarianism would be better off putting down their D & D manuals

Libertoids are the D&D players who always insist on playing Chaotic Evil characters....

I still have no clarity (Al, where are you?) on this, so went to the official Libertarian Party site.

In their Nationnal Platform I found this:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

If a libertarian is one who believes in a strong America that takes, as opposed to asks for (from the international "community"), the right to protect its citizens against terrorism, then you are most assuredly not one, Hal.

As I've said before, the libertarian movement as expressed by its representatives in the blogosphere, and online in general, is mainly an embarrassment to the existence of the human brain. Its main contradiction can be summed up simply: Liberatarians claim to be in favor of increasing the freedom of the individual, while in fact often intending to be more intrusive than other conservatives. For example, many libertarians oppose the right to abortion. One would be hard put to think of a greater intrusion into personal liberty than forcing women to bear unwanted children.

Back to that in a moment. A second giveaway is that libertarians favor freedom for only some groups. Their close alliance with the neo-Confederate and other racist movements reflects that belief. The major proponent of libertarianism at Blogcritics has said Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant, the South was right in regard to the Civil War and that the civil rights movement was a mistake. All these are typical neo-Confederate beliefs. Yet, such libertarians would have us believe they support freedom for the individual. What they support is freedom for white, male, property owners who share their beliefs.

But, one can easily see through these people on a pragmatic basis. They inevitably are consumers of the largesse of society who do not want to pay their way. Their major issue, repealing all taxes, screams 'freeloaders.' I believe that is the main reason libertarianism will never catch on with a general audience. Most people believe they owe some support to the apparatus of government, though they may not believe their contributions are always spent wisely.

Back to abortion. I believe the intention to enslave half of the population to biology the largely male libertarian movement expresses is particularly troubling. Sure, they would disenfranchise most of the minority and working-class populations given the opportunity. But, women, are again, half the population. An intention to pursue freedom for the individual while denying half of American individuals the right to control their fertility doesn't say liberty, it says 'fascism.'

And, that, I submit, is what most libertarians in the blogosphere and online, are. Fascists.

Again, I am addressing Internet libertarians. But, I have researched the current standard bearer for the Libertarian Party, Michael Badnarik, and he holds the beliefs I've described here. So, maybe there is a convergence between Internet libertarians and libertarians in general.

As usual, MEM: irrelevant and gratuitously insulting.

Don't you have a life?

Wow MacDiva peddling her normal lot of slanderous and libelous tripe. The [edited]Do you really believe the crap you are spout?

[edited]

Checking the IP address link for "MacDick" I see that this is the one and only entry.

It seems like a very strong entry from someone who has never posted before, so I wonder if that's because some regular poster is hiding behind some anonymous IP address?

Is there any way to find out, Phillip?

And Justene or Eric, it's just a personal attack so probably should be removed anyhow, don't you think?

It's gone now, Hal. Sometimes I leave the house.

Back from Denmark and I find this. As usual, I'll take stock in the Oscar Wilde quote and try to clean up the muck, such as I can.

To speak of libertarians is to speak of both a philosophy (small 'l') and a political party (capital 'L'). As with any philosophy, there are going to be variations of interpretations. I wouldn't think that this should be so bewildering, Hal. Just as with any other philosophy or belief system, there are extremists and moderate libertarians, idealists and pragmatics, etc. Actually, libertarians are less varied and easier to get a handle on than the adherents of the mixed economy (capitalism/socialism) such as the overwhelming majority of the readers/posters on blogcritics are. In this regard, MacDiva and RJ are identical in the way Al Barger and I am: We differ in degree. Mac and RJ accept capitalism, but to varying degrees; they accept social programs, but to varying degrees, with different favored recipients. The obvious gulf between them in the degrees and the recipients of largesse is at least 100x greater than the difference between two average libertarians. We may differ on issues, of course, in the same way as there are Log Cabin Republicans, pro-war Democrats, a la carte Catholics, etc.

Hal did approach the major themes, that virtually all libertarians believe:

1. You own yourself.
2. You have the right to do what you like with your life, so long as you do not initiate force or fraud against another human being.
3. You have the right to make the decisions that impact your life; others do not have the right to do this.

You cannot take Democrats or Republicans and make such a distillation. The adherents of these parties are wildly varying, with no solid philosophy, with platforms that shift with the sands and the polls. The difference between JFKennedy's and JFKerry's Democratic platforms are staggering, likewise the differences between Goldwater's and Bush's. Some say this makes the older parties more nuanced. However, those nuances allow yesterday's Dixiecrat to be today's Republican, and yesterday's communist to be today's Democrat. A philosophical libertarian would be equally at home with the LP today as at it's founding in 1971 for the consistent adherence to core principles.

That said, I don't like the LP platform. It is an awful document. I would rather use the three items I used above or some sort of mission statement than the verbose, air castle building hunk of crap we have. This platform gives credence to the criticisms Hal, Booey, and others who read it invariable come to. The LPIN has distanced itself from the national party's platform, much to the consternation of the purist element of the party. There is a reason the other parties' platforms shift with the sand, though. It allows people to accept them at some point, and cling to what they accepted, even if the party has moved from the tenet.

It is easy for non-libertarians to confuse libertarianism with anarchism, because by degrees, the two are very close. However, anarchists are ldeological purisists who reject any government. Libertarians are not anarchists, however, because they accept the necessity of government as a best means to solve some societal problems. The anarchist wants no police force. The libertarian wants a fully adequate police force. The anarchist has no answer at all for how to convey sewage. The libertarian accepts the same solution that is in place now, that any Democrat or Republican accepts. The libertarians, however, wants a government that is at least 50% smaller than it is today. Republicans talk about wanting a smaller government, but would never quantify that desire because in reality, they have expanded the government as fast as or faster than the Democrats, who make no secret of their desire to expand.

MacDiva has taken the liberty of taking a handful her disagreements with Al Barger and making them the libertarian philosophy as a whole. The ignorance of such an approach is a stunning myopia. Not to dodge the Bargerisms she sites, I will say that there is some fringe element of our fringe movement who believes things as Mac states them. However, those are not mainstream views within the movement, no matter how many times she asserts that they are. I'll address two: abortion, and Lincoln.

The abortion plank was voted on at the LP's National Convention in May (as all planks are), and it passed by about a 75-25 margin. In 2002, it passed by a much closer margin, 53-47, as I recall. The explanation for this is that the 2004 convention was better attended than the 2002 convention, with the obvious interpretation being that the more libertarians there are in one room, the greater the chances are that there will be broad support for female reproductive rights.

Re: Lincoln, a libertarian purist is just as capable of missing the forest for the trees as Mac is because everything is a matter of strict principle, where the ends do not justify the means. It absolutely rankles some libertarian purists that Lincoln suspended habeous corpus. Such a purist will have accepted at some point that only a tyrant is capable of suspending habeous corpus, and upon finding that Lincoln did so, they conclude that Lincoln must have been a tyrant. This extraction from the entire context of Lincoln's great deeds in unfortunate, but a product of absolutism.

The same kind of libertarian absolutism leads to some other purists to decry Thomas Jefferson as a wholly reprehensible person, due to his ownership of slaves. This doesn't interest Mac, of course, because it flies in the face of her narrow anti-libertarian prejudices, but it makes the same error: it fails to accept that human beings are fallible. Humans screw up. They do good and ill. On the balance, Lincoln and Jefferson were greats. Purists of any stripe have a hard time with this, slagging it off as mere reletivism. This is where I part company with Ayn Rand and the Objectivists, who demand this sort of judgment and black/white good/evil assessment on a continuous basis, leading to the witch hunts their adherents are known for.

The Indiana LP is easily the most pragmatic and least dogmatic of the LP state affiliates in the US. (This will surprise Mac, Booey and others, because Al seems way out there to them, and he is the depth of their exposure to libertarians. Al *is* out there relative to most of our candidates. That's okay, though. His campaign is designed to reach Indiana voters, and he has done an admirable job in presenting a reasonable message to them. He is under no such responsibilty here at blogcritics or on his own Culpepper Blog, where he has no fiduciary duty to fulfill with regards to message, where in fact, his duty may well be to be a loose cannon. And you wonder why most politicians say as little as possible! Most dream of being able to be as fully self-expressed as Al.) As a political party, (not a supper club, debate society, or D&D chapter) the LPIN offers policy alternatives that are relevant to the issues faced by the people of our state. As a result, our candidates now average better than 4% returns, while most LP affiliates tend to average 1% or less. We expect these returns to continue to trend upward, as they have continually here since 1994.

We are obviously far from perfect, and I won't hide from our flaws. Libertarians have done an extremely poor job of communicating the desire to make the world a better, more satisfying place. Because we harp on taxes as a personal affront, we are seen as selfish. That's fair criticism. We should be saying that we support the reduction of taxes because of our belief that doing so will make people's lives better. For instance, it will allow poor people to keep more of what they earn so that they can address their immediate needs. What good is being coerced to set aside for retirement when there is an immediate need of food and clothing? We believe it, but we tend to take life too personally. It's a shame, because we can take the moral high ground on this. Our approach to taxes would benefit the poor just as surely as the redistribution of wealth can. However, we do not require the stealing from others thatn is inherent in redistribution. Our bad.

Thanks for the post, Hal. I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss libertarianism at any turn.

If only it were true.

The most popular libertarian sites online are, as I said above, dominated by persons with neo-Confederate, or as Hal observed, 'patriot' type agendas. The Rockford Institute, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell, the Patriotist, etc., speak for themselves -- ad nauseum. And, what they speak of is a fascist agenda in which their 'liberty' would be in the hands of the few, while the majority would be disenfranchised. If you don't like the word 'fascist,' substitute 'anti-democratic' or 'elitist.' All describe Internet libertarians well.

One does not need to look far to see that the Libertarian Party is in loony land. The situation was so embarrassing to its members who still call home to Earth that much of what presidential candidate Michael Badnarik had posted to the Net was removed by it after he was nominated. Badnarik's beliefs -- anti-abortion, opposition to public education, assertion all taxes should be abolished, refusal to accept that drivers need to be licensed, support of uncontrolled ownership of weapons, etc. -- are the same as or worse than what I summarized in the brief examples above. Furthermore, like another libertarian running for office, Alan Keyes, the man is a longterm tax cheat. The citizens of the states where he has resided have been paying his way for years.

The alliance between bigots and libertarians? Just consider one of the participants on this thread. (Al Barger has absented himself and sent his 'children' instead.) I first became aware of libertarian Andrew Ian Dodge when he was going from blog to blog promoting the beliefs of Gene Expression. The members of that blog assert that people of color are geneticially inferior and need to be 'fixed' or eliminated. Somehow, the 'liberty' of much of the world's population doesn't count. Some belief in the freedom of the individual, eh?

Mike Kole is playing shell games. There are 'good' libertarians somewhere, he says. We are supposed to figure out where they are hiding. 'Good libertarian, come out, come out, wherever you are!' I refuse to play. If a significant number of libertarians did not hold the views so widely espoused, then those views are not what one would find when looking into libertarianism.

Shell games? Tell you what, Diva. Let's play a very straightforward game. Let's leave it to the readers of this site to determine who is more credible, me or you.

Game on?

More lies, I have never promoted the ideas from Gene Expression on another blog...even though I linked to them. In fact if you do a search on my blog you will never find Gene Expressions mentioned.

Secondly, I notice you don't mention Samizdata.net, one of the primo libertarian sites on the net with a very high number of hits. They are an international blog with contributors from all over the world. They would not recognise the lies you peddle about libertarians. (My blog and several other libertarian blogs are off-shots of Samizdata.net)

MacDiva, none of what you mention of the Libertarian Party's Presidential candidate could be the slightest bit considered fascist. Do you have any idea what fascist means? If you do, I see no sign of it.

Come on MacDiva, its time to put up or shut up. Gives us proof of your assertions.

Let's leave it to common sense, Mike. Not your strong point as a libertarian, unfortunately.

People who were around the blogosphere in 2002-2003 already know about AID. Pretends to be a Brit. 'Writer' with a vanity publisher 'book' so unreadable virtually no one will buy it. Blog entries that consist of verbatim stealing from other sites. His occassional attempt at writing an entry reads as if it is by a sixth-grader in special ed. Pathetic. Just the kind of person who needs to believe he is genetically superior to others. The last time this matter arose, a few months ago, he lied about his connection to Gene Expression while still promoting it on his blog. (Folks were not supposed to look, I guess.)

Anyway, I'm not going to get bogged down with these people.

As Hal said in his entry, 'libertarian' has become either meaningless or been taken over by some of the most retrograde people in contemporary society. It seems to me that people who do not support their reactionary libertarian fellow travelers should be confronting them for ruining the name of the movement, instead attacking those of us who become aware of the contradictions and craziness.

...many libertarians oppose the right to abortion. One would be hard put to think of a greater intrusion into personal liberty than forcing women to bear unwanted children.

Wow. Where to start on that statement? In my mind the only situations in which the statement above applies would be in the case of rape or incest.

That's it.

Beyond that:

A. Don't have sex.
B. Get your tubes tied or have your partner get a vasectomy.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the act of procreation starts with intercourse. Unless *that* is forced, your argument is invalid.

Vic

I'm glad libertarians are as meaningless as we are, so as to merit so little of Diva's attention.

Hmm... 5 posts on this thread (better than 20% so far), the anti-Barger fanatacism... Yep, Diva. You've really proved your point. Credibility.

Anyhow, I do not attack my fellow travellers, as you suggest I should, for the 5% difference we might have. I build a bridge with them on the 95% agreement we have. That's what *I* call common sense. But hey- have your negativity. Everyone has to have a forte.

Yeah MacDiva better you never read the book have you? You belittle and lie about people left and right, but never ever provide any proof I wonder why?

Lie 1: I have never said I was genetically superior to anyone. Prove your claim...

Lie 2: I steal from other sites. CMU is in fact a music news cutting service. The whole point is that you use their service for music news. All my reviews are in fact original.

Lie 3: Special Ed: so you are calling me a retard? How very nice...

Final point: have you published any books or do you merely sneer at others who do?

I don't pretend to be anything, I am what I am and don't need approval from vicious little oiks like you.

There is someone pathetic on this thread and it isn't me.

Hal's a fine fellow, but here he gets himself tangled up trying to beat the bushes around the fringe. You can always find a few people espousing stuff that doesn't fit.

For example, these supposed "libertarians" who deny property rights are not libertarians within any understanding that would be recognized by 99.9% of self-described libertarians. Nor have I ever met one. There are probably one or two of them somewhere, but they're inconsequential politically and intellectually.

Property rights and self-ownership are the main central pillars of the libertarian movement. If you deny the legitimacy of property rights, you're not in the same movement with me.

Likewise, I don't know of anyone in the Libertarian Party affiliated with any militia movement. I don't know much about these people, as there is little or no connection to any part of the libertarian movement, let alone the Libertarian Party. Support for 2nd Ammendment rights would be the only obvious point in common.

The minarchists vs anarchists thing is slightly more significant, largely on the basis that I've actually met a couple of such people. Also, there is some intellectual connection.

Libertarian politics generally can be summarized by the axiom that the government governs best which governs the least. A few people take that to the wall, as obviously the government that governs the least would be one that governs not at all.

This is well and good, but not very closely related to reality. It's the kind of thing that might sound good sitting around the bong in your college dorm room. It'd be NICE to be able to have NO government and pay NO taxes, but how would you then deal with the likes of Islamic terrorists?

It's the kind of belief system that tends to be somewhat reluctantly given up after graduation. The necessity of some government is much like the necessity of having bowels and bowel movements. You're best off to just accept it, and do what you can to minimize the inconvenience and unpleasantness.

Are you saying that The Libertarian Learning Center is a fringe organization, Al?

Looked as legit as anything else libertarian I found.

Where do they become "fringies?"

When is your graduation, by the way?

It's impossible to support a burgeoning war system, i.e., our current largest government in American history, under a truly libertarian worldview?

I think the Libertarian Party has lost a lot of potential to criticize the violations of civil liberties in the Patriot Act, by the way, and I'm disappointed that none of the Libertarians on this site talk much about civil liberties.

Mike ... get better candidates and you'll find that common ground. I respect your focus on local, grassroots organizing even if I don't think your ideology lends itself to much success.

Mac: don't worry so much about the wacky views of a few internet libertarians. It would be a mistake to condemn the philosophy of libertarianism based upon the pathological views of a few people who don't even know that philosophy. Notice how Mike Kole is quick to disassociate his party from the views of those same people. Now, the big problem is that no one's articulating the libertarian philosophy very well without referring to horrible fiction writers or free market ideas that the Republicans have monopolized politically. So I'm not even sure if it's worth getting worked up about.

That is all.

I've never heard of "The Libertarian Learning Center." Not to put too fine a point on it, I'm pretty knowledgeable about the Libertarian Party and the broader movement, and the intellectual and literary framework of this stuff.

A "libertarian" group that I haven't heard of probably isn't real significant- though I might have missed something. Also, not being familiar with this group, I have no idea what type of beliefs they espouse.

"Fringe" would be defined as being small in numbers and influence.

The word "libertarian" has come into prominent usage clearly because of the activities of the Libertarian Party. Therefore, the meaning of the word would best be understood by reference to the political party.

It might well be that some fringe group or person with ideas contradictory to typical Libertarian Party beliefs is perfectly legitimate, maybe even right. They just need to find another word for their beliefs, cause we're already using this one.

Dude, listen very carefully and get this through your Girl Scout beret:

YOU'RE the fringe element of your party. Did you miss how your own party chairman refuses to vouch for your views and calls you "out there"?

You're a human cartoon who's not a libertarian. I know the GOP won't have you, but you're not a libertarian despite your "extensive knowledge."

That is all.

Bob, Bob, Bob! You've said it. The problem isn't that we haven't seen far out libertarians, it is that is just about all we are seeing. Mike and Mike, I am going to partly retract what I said about the shell game. Bring us some libertarians who are not tainted by really ugly associations and who accept the necessity of government, including taxation. I, for one, will read what they have to say.

What Bob said, Al.

Re: comment #4, Libertoids are the D&D players who always insist on playing Chaotic Evil characters....

My main D&D character back lo those many years ago as a teenager was a chaotic neutral. Specifically, the Right Reverend Zap was a cleric of Dionysus.

Feel free to add this to your psychological profiles as you see fit.

Diva- I have said myself that I accept the necessity of government, and the necessity for taxation. I do not accept it in its' current bloated form. My blog has been available for you to read for longer than I have been posting here. Go there and check it out. As a reminder, though, I posted here at blogcritics a public proposal I made to convert an old rail corridor into a multi-purpose trail that would be managed by the parks system. No one bothered to comment on that. I guess good policy is met with deafening silence.

Booey- In the area of civil liberties, also see my blog for discussions of my 1st Amendment lawsuit against the town of Fishers, where I live, challenging their ordinance prohibiting the placement of political signs in one's own front yard. This was done not merely so that I could place a LP sign in my yard, but so my neighbor could re-place his Kerry/Edwards sign in his yard, and for the free speech benefit of all. I should probably post that material here, too. Last year, the LPIN challenged the City of Indianapolis on a similar ordinance, and defeated the City. Since returning from Denmark, I have learned that the ICLU (Indiana chapter of ACLU) has now begun to follow our lead, observing that many Indiana communities limit political speech illegally. The ICLU is acting against the City of Noblesville on exactly the same grounds against the same kind of ordinance. Noblesville is my county seat, by the way. But I had called out the Patriot Act in a post before I left town. Guess you missed that one.

I will say that many in our party take the role of the radical very seriously. I don't play that role myself, because I don't believe it is effective in actually winning office, and since I am a county chair, my primary goal is affecting local policies and getting candidates elected. I don't believe that extreme radicalism works at the local level. What radicalism is good for, though, is moving the policy conversation in our direction, and I think this works to some extent on the national level. Politics is all negotiation, like it or not. No absolutist ever wins without military coup. So, when an anti-tax radical is included in the discussion and the negotiating starts, all involved parties will meet somewhere in the middle. The radical no-tax, no-government libertarian should understand this (even if they often tend to lose sight of it), and takes these positions for the purpose of debate. Sure, some believe in it; most don't. I think that many of the internet commentators you both see and react to have become a bit intoxicated by their rhetoric and become earnest about their radical position. I, hoever, recognize it only as a negotiation tool.

As for Al- I'll vouch for the majority of his views, but not all of them. (I'm not his Chair, by the way.) There isn't a person alive that I've agreed with totally, on everything. I don't expect or even hope to find such a person. It's funny, a few months ago some of these same blogcritics were attacking the seeming lockstep agreement of some of their opponents, calling it a lack of nuance. Now they are calling for the same lockstep agreement they attacked as proof of virtue. Well? Which is it?

Mike, I'll look for the Patriot Act post. I check this site sporadically and irregularly (although the past few days I've been much more frequent), so I usually miss any post that's not in the recent comment list above the Leaderboard thing.

The parks idea seems like an interesting one, even if it would involve tax money :) Part of the success of the Greens as a third party is that they pick up on the environmental concerns that a majority of the electorate share. Good times.

I don't like universal agreement in doctrine by any means, but I dislike misapplied labels just as much.

That is all.

"the major themes, that virtually all libertarians believe:
1. You own yourself."

Not unless I own you and your bad ideas.

How's the campaign coming, Senator? Making any criticisms of Bush on the trail?

That is all.