I consider myself a proud supporter of basic libertarian tenets: a small government, a balanced budget, an elimination of wasteful government programs, and a commitment to protecting civil liberties. Why, then, won’t I ever vote for the Libertarian Party? Because their cabal of leaders and foot-soldiers are typically off-the-deep-end wackos who do a disservice to the libertarian ideology.
Over the past several years I’ve seen the Republican Party eliminate core “conservative” values from its platform. Republican politicians started campaigning on useless fluff they termed “social conservatism,” but ignored important issues like fiscal responsibility and border security. When I stumbled upon the U.S. national debt clock, I was horrified to see it hovering around $7 trillion (as you can see it has since grown). I learned of how we’re indebting ourselves to foreign countries, of how the Republicans are borrowing against our future. I decided these weren’t true conservatives after all.
Times are indeed scary when you can’t even trust the GOP with your money. The Democrats, of course, make no secret about wanting to piss away federal funds on endless social programs. Who am I to support?
That’s when I stumbled upon libertarianism and in turn the Libertarian Party. I consider myself to be a “moderate libertarian,” insofar that I utterly disagree with the extremists and view libertarianism as a counterbalance to the established parties. Even I can see how dangerous it would be if libertarians controlled the government…
The L.P. talks a good talk and presents itself quite nicely in its introductory literature. Finally, I thought, a party that won’t ignore border security or our the national debt!
My outlook changed when I again visited their website only to see them campaigning for U.S. census reform. According to the L.P., the only constitutional function of the census is to count the population; anything else is an unconstitutional expansion of government. Even if, from a literal standpoint, that assertion is true, who honestly cares? We have bigger problems to tackle here.
And that’s just it: libertarians are stereotyped as being “out there” because the party tries to fight an ideological battle on every front, making causes out of trivial issues middleclass America couldn’t give a hoot in hell about.
Article comments
1 - Sister Ray
I agree with you, but I don't see the LP gaining any ground soon. Too many candidates are more interested in making speeches than actually getting elected.
2 - Dave Nalle
After 30 years with the LP, including time as a paid activist, I recently gave up on them. I had known how feckless and self-absorbed the party and its members were for years, but only recently when I started getting more politically active again did I realize that there was just nowhere to go with the LP as your party. Their principles are laudable, but pure principle without reasonable and pragmatic policies and a willingness to make some compromises is an impossible position to take in politics.
So, I join you in the 'moderate libertarian' camp. My solution has been to join those trying to subvert the Republican party with libertarian values. The Democrats are too incompatible with basic values of individual liberty, but Republicans at least have a tradition of some libertarianism, and that's something that can be built on. It requires overcoming the Neocons and Theocons - perhaps we should call ourselves Freeocons. Anyway, there is an organization trying to reawaken liberty in the GOP. Check out the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Dave
3 - Dave Nalle
After 30 years with the LP, including time as a paid activist, I recently gave up on them. I had known how feckless and self-absorbed the party and its members were for years, but only recently when I started getting more politically active again did I realize that there was just nowhere to go with the LP as your party. Their principles are laudable, but pure principle without reasonable and pragmatic policies and a willingness to make some compromises is an impossible position to take in politics.
So, I join you in the 'moderate libertarian' camp. My solution has been to join those trying to subvert the Republican party with libertarian values. The Democrats are too incompatible with basic values of individual liberty, but Republicans at least have a tradition of some libertarianism, and that's something that can be built on. It requires overcoming the Neocons and Theocons - perhaps we should call ourselves Freeocons. Anyway, there is an organization trying to reawaken liberty in the GOP. Check out the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Dave
4 - Preston Parkhurst
Mr. Powers, it would seem that petty bickering over the most ridiculous of issues is a problem in politics in general. At current I feel there are many people who are in this very situation, both from the LP and the more traditional Republican's.
Dave, I looked briefly over that link, looks promising. Do they have any connections with the Pat Buchanan crowd that you know of? btw. kudo's on the "freecons".
5 - Dave Nalle
Pat Buchanan and the Liberty Republicans are pretty diametrically opposed to each other. I think most people in the RLC thing Buchanan is some sort of confused Democrat.
Dave
6 - M.Gilson-de Lemos
I appreciate the comments.
While the LP per se has no statement on bestiality, some guy uses it as an example, so what? maybe this is telling us YOU're way out of touch with young people or even current policy. Bestiality is legal in many states, including where I am. The Republican Party fought an attempt to make it illegal, wisely pointing out that interfering with lonely rednecks and curious teens only made things worse. The local college uses it in classes on moral philosophy as an example, broadcast on TV for high school students. This is D & R stuff. This Lib is crazy because he does the same? Huh? Whose the lunatic--or might people be forgiven for thinking that's another name for 'Hi, I'm an Ignoramus'--those who call lunatics all those that do anything they don't know about in their little neighborhood, which of course should be how everyone should be?
Folks: this writer is political amateur hour. Consider this.
The LP is a very viable party. It's hyper-viable; 95% of the people who vote Libertarian are Republicans, Democrats, and others. And starting from 5 people in a living room, you today have a world movement. The question is is the USA viable without Libertarian leadership, clinging to government failure?
As for you alleged 30 year veterans, c'mon. LP viability arises from empowering individuals, but I admit it's turning off people who wait for a viable i.e. 'do it for me, I have a welfare mentality' attitude. The LP is not for passive people. It's for people willing to take a voluntary option and get out there to make it work. And people are making it work, so people who say it can't haven't, at best, been paying attention or are making assumptions instead of waking up and learning. If the LP didn't work for you, it's because you didn't do basic research or take personal action to kick bippy or realize it's there so you can get results. instead this writer, like many (and I say this in sympathy) others, makes assumptions without being informed on what's happening.
In Florida last year 1 million people voted Libertarian--up from a 1/2 million in 2002. This is in a universe of maybe 5 million active voters. Duh.
There we get regularly 1/6th of the vote, participate in coalitions with all parties (see www.ERCPinellas.org) to great public interest and effectiveness; and a leader of the State House made the comment he believes the US will be a two party system in 2 generations, but he's not sure which will be the other Party besides the Libertarian.
However--the purpose of the elections is to create a sense of public support; at this point actual election is secondary, since we focus on getting people right now to key advisory or elected positions on the local level or State level. Have any of the know-it-all critics ever read a page of a Libertarian strategic plan? This week we doubled the number of Libertarians in office ion my area. basically it's time for the critics to wake up and realize what's going on. More to the point, at a recent local board meeting, a board ,member stated: "Libertarians are not just a party but a larger cultural group in this country than any other, they're still organizing: but any policy we make that does not engage Libertarians will fail."
There is nothing unacceptable or weird about the LP platform: it advocates the right of people to use voluntary, non-governmental alternatives, ALL of which are either essentially functioning somewhere among the 100 countries with Libertarian groups, or have an historical example. people who talk about something being unacceptable obsess about something others find quite acceptable or may already be US national policy (such as Open Borders or abolition of the military) just the Libertarians are the only one's championing consistent voluntary action.
For many part of the value of the LP Platform is it gets you aware of your ignorance about your own Constitution, country's history, and major party laws and polices already underway. Always ask: what is the past and present ACTUAL policy before getting huffy about the LP which is trying to advance non coercive, non-centralized thinking. For example, the US operated until about 1900 with no passports and open borders, especially with Latin countries, as specified in the treaty of San Lorenzo where the US is presently in default. Non-citizens were allowed to vote in elections to 'get acquainted' with the US process.
In contrast, please consider the lunacy of the D & R's proposals, who favor rich immigrants of doubtful loyalty and want to make Arnold President! Open borders will work because Libertarians are prepared to turn immigrants into militant, freedom loving Americans--and it seems crazy to people accustomed to parties essentially engaged in national destruction, such as the D & R's and Constitutionalist leaders, Indeed, 2/3 rds of the major party platforms reflect Libertarian influence and ideas.
Libertarians are quite aware that there are transitional and baby-step needs. Over 20,000 articles have been written on them. The Platform is meant as a summary (Executive Summary Key Idea) and introductory discussion of project items (Issue, Principle, Solution, Transition). For a project that's summarizing Libertarian practice in a format to help grow affiliates, see www.Libertarian-Program.org.
Over and over one must ask these ant-LP pundits: compared to what? I do understand that naive people like the writer who think politics is all abiout one BIG issue become impatient with LP focus on a particular item. has this guy read the D & R documents? Has he read legislation? The LP Summary Platform is a model of simplicity--3 pages showing introducing how human rights and voluntary action operate. The LP has limited resources and does not waste time on things that have no payback or constituency and basically don't accomplish several things at once, at least at the leadership level. For example, anti-census seems a bit out there for people who've never thought about it but it's big with a lot of contributors, brings in volunteers and new members, and forges alliances with the right who remember that Christ was born where he was in response to an unpopular and equally intrusive census. The government is considering a census simplification in response to Libertarian pressure. We should stop?
I do agree the LP will be a party of a minority for some time. but that minority will, and already in many areas is, leading the country. State Governors are attending LP state conventions, appointing Libertarian advisors and blue ribbon committees to suggest Libertarian tools, and local LP's are turning down offers of money from D & R leaders to run libertarian candidates because they don't have enough trained people to meet the demand. They know what's up. The Lp is moving from 30 years of education to a increasing demand for Libertarians. Pundits: Get a Clue.
For LP News in my affiliate: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&edition=us&q=Libertarian+pinellas
Wake Up you Libertarians. They know we're winning, but they also know many Libertarians don't fully grasp that and we have a long way to go in terms of training and manpower of people capable of carrying out Libertarian programs. Nonetheless, some of you stop apologizing for success.
M. Gilson,
Platform Committee
Program Group
LP USA
7 - Rich Powers
I was not trying to debate the legality or morality of bestiality and I won't do so now. But I find it ironic that you would call me a "political amateur" when it’s one of your own people who thinks it’s smart to make his reputation off of using bestiality to promote your party’s platform. That’s not how you win voters over, period. He just reinforced the audience’s preconceived notion that the LP is full of wackos. What I failed to mention was that three of my friends and I approached said spokesmen ASKING to volunteer for your party. He never returned our calls and we just gave up. So much for that.
You might hold some trivial local offices, but until you make an effort to win significant positions you’ll be laughed at. Believe me, I was ridiculed for my support of your party (while it lasted anyway).
As my opinion says, the LP is too involved in insignificant issues that the vast majority of America fails to care about or even grasp. You start by tackling the most important issues, then moving onto pet projects like US census reform; you don’t put that front and center. I’m no fan of the drug war, but anyone with an ounce of political sense knows that you don’t advocate the complete legalization of all drugs. To middle America, that one element alone turns them off from the LP " they don’t even bother to explore it further.
Americans think of the L.P. as nothing but a bastion of extremists who hold unconventional beliefs. I agree with a lot of your positions " like I said " but you guys need to make a serious effort to absolve yourselves from that stereotype.
Until then you’ll just be “another third party."
8 - Al Barger
As a lifelong LP member and sometimes candidate, I understand your frustrations. Sometimes our people have more principles than good sense.
However, you lose me with "The L.P. needs to ditch its more extreme views " complete laissez-faire economics, drug legalization " and reconstruct itself with the times in mind." So I shouldn't advocate what I actually believe, but lie and "connive" to get elected, leaving NO ONE to make the case for constitutionally limited government.
"Ideological parties get so caught up in their principles that they lose sight of the important thing: winning."
Yeah, and this will lead you rapidly right back to George W Bush and this worthless batch of 2005 Republicans.
9 - Rich Powers
I'm not fan of the GOP, but at least they won something...
This country tried complete laissez-faire economics and the people demanded reform. I think you understand the history. Easing regulations and elimination of all regulations are two very different things, and only a small minority supports the latter.
No, you don't have to compromise your beliefs. But don't expect to ever win any powerful positions in this government. I’m a realist; I understand the only way to win in American politics is to get dirty and pander to certain groups. The LP is naive to think that they can win without doing so.
And even if you hold laissez-faire economics close to your heart, you don't run for office threatening to throw the entire system out. That scares voters off. Instead, you should approach the issue more gradually.
10 - Al Barger
OK now Rich, sure "I'm not fan of the GOP, but at least they won something..." But what frickin' good has it done? The worst pinko Democrats in the land never dreamt of throwing money away like these Republicans.
And this one, this is just looney, "This country tried complete laissez-faire economics and the people demanded reform." When was this?
Also, you hold too narrow a viewpoint on progress. It might be that we never, ever win much in the way of major offices ourselves- but that we re-set the goal posts.
For example, I might only get a percent or two running on the complete privatization of Social Security. However, after hearing my pure bred ideas, maybe some better Republicans than the current ones will come along with more moderate but major reforms because they don't sound so radical by comparison.
11 - Rich Powers
That's what I'm saying: in spite of horrible leadership and fiscal recklessness, the GOP continues to win. This is because they're brilliant political tacticians, if nothing else. The Democrats, LP, et al should take lessons from how well they can mobilize voters.
Ever read The Jungle? Regardless of Sinclair’s political motives (the end of the book is nothing more than a cheap plug for socialism), he did show what happens when you let business run wild. There are plenty more examples, but his work is undoubtedly the most famous. Laissez-faire economics didn't work for the common people during the "Gilded Age" and early 20th century, so they demanded regulation and reform…and got it.
Just because regulation in many instances has gone too far doesn’t mean the country needs a revert back to those days.
12 - Daryl Sawyer
"Laissez-faire" economics worked better for the "common people" than most people believe. In the early times, everybody worked, whether in a shop, a farm, or, worst of all, a mine. From the oldest grandpas down to the youngest apprentices, everybody worked very hard.
Industrialization lead to a wealth boom that put people in a position where outlawing child labor did *not* lead to abject poverty.
The problem is that Laissez-faire economics has never truly existed, nor will it ever. I can't remember his name, but one fellow put it well. He said, "Libertarianism seems to completely lack the concept that business becomes indistinguishable from government when it becomes sufficiently large."
Very simply put, government needs money to function. Businessmen are very good at accumulating and distributing money. Since the paycheck comes from them, they control the government. The best environment for both business and labor is Laissez-faire, but if either side becomes sufficiently wealthy and powerful, both sides come to believe that their cause could be advanced yet further if they could *force* some changes, via taxation policies and regulation--the power of the State.
In effect, the more successful Laissez-faire policies are, the greater danger they are in. For while great differences in wealth level aren't necessarily bad for anyone at the top or at the bottom, they are *very* bad for Democracy.
13 - jhaven
This new forum may be of interest to this group, sorry if its not:
14 - zhubajie
"...illegal immigrants" actually do all the work in America. The old Americans sit around, connive, reminisce about some 'good old days' that never existed. If they had to prove they deserved to be citizens, what would most point to? Not much. If the immigrants stop coming, the USA will dry up, blow away.
Me, I've emigrated from the USA to China.
15 - Alessandro
At least you guys have a libertarian party - or at least one that attempts to challenge the Big Two. Here in Canada we have a decent libertarian culture but it has yet to transmit into a party - that I am aware of anyway. The Greens have one and not libertarians.
16 - Alan Mercer
Just a quick correction about libertarian politics in Canada. There definitely is a Libertarian Party of Canada
We are rebuilding RIGHT NOW after the government crushed smaller parties with their constant shifting of the election law.
There are a couple of provincial parties The Ontario Libertarian Party is running a provincial election ***right now*** Contact the candidates and help them out.
Also, we are based on principles, but we're not at all against trying to change society and make a difference. As long as those changes are in the right direction.
The basic principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle.
The Libertarian Party in Canada has a future as a *libertarian* party - not as another conservative party which has been done to death. Because people who understand the idea of liberty - like Ron Paul - are concerned about the principles and how consistent they are.
Alan Mercer
President, Libertarian Party of Canada
Ontario LP Candidate, Scarborough-Rouge River
Canadian Liberty
17 - Gölök
I myself, am a centrist Libertarian; a Voltairian; a Rhineo-Libertarian; sense of humor an a little neo and a little paleo; I don't dogmatically von Mises the point. I own myself anyway, at least this is the idea. The LP in Canada, has trouble with Liberty in allowing contesting of nominations. Guaranteed by philosophical principle, Elections Canada, and the Rights and Freedoms act. None the less, there are attempts made, I only joined to clean up what has become a stigma about us being an 'us' who are anarchistic drug obsessed consumption tax lovers; in fact many on top oppose the GST and PST I agree with this. The voting principles make sense, the debate is some times, "what is fraud and force." None the less, locally in some cases, in BC esp. sometimes you run into that Reform-Perot Systems situation where many are too comfortable with party power and use arbitrary and despotic power to control the individual with a partisan rabble, however it won't work if Libertarians are to fight the greatest evil of them all, apathy, well the greatest of evil's enabling.
Best
Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday contact
A: Yes, yes. There is a natural law, and it does not consist either in doing harm to others or in rejoicing thereat. -- [FMA] Voltaire; Phil. Dict. -- Natural Law.
More quotes