Sigh, it's a bit true. If the party wants to take off it needs to ensure all it's candidates are serious. Still, they're the largest third party and they have the most people in office compared to the other third parties.
"Libertarians, God love 'em, always seem to have a hard time getting the attention and respect their ideas deserve – which is doubly a shame since they're the only party with ideas that actually deserve attention and respect."
I'll agree to that.
The ferret legalization guy - nothing wrong with that I don't think, at least he's not blue. Ferrets are actually good pets, and I can't think of any reason not to legalize them.
Libertarians look good until the first hundred or so kids die from tainted meat (since FDA guidelines no longer exist), a few babies die (as child safety seat laws no longe apply), and as thousands of uninsured motorists plow into living rooms (oh wait, that already happens). They do have some excellent ideas, but in the end, most of them just want to smoke pot and raise ferrets, or is that raise pot and smoke ferrets?
Another for the list: Kenneth Curtis, convicted urine salesman who ran for Lt. Governor of South Carolina in 2002. I considered voting for him, but I don't think I want someone who won't obey the laws making them.
They oughta get a load of me with a full-auto Thompson at one of our gun matches. On the other hand, all I do is sports marksmanship shooting. Don't paint my skin blue. Don't lobby for protection of ferrets. Don't ride the streets on an all-terrain vehicle. But I sure as hell don't think anyone would elect me to public office.
We had this guy running for governor in Wisconsin two years ago. "Mad Ed" Thompson. Brother of former Wisconsin governor and now US Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G Thompson. Mad Ed ran on the Libertarian ticket. Got just far enough to rob Republican acting governor Scott McCallum of his chance to beat the Democrat, James Doyle.
You are right. The Libertarians who actually run for public office sometimes come across as screwballs.
"The 2003 Tax Act will do little to help the economy, because very little of the benefits thereof go to people whose spending would help the economy—i.e. lower and middle income taxpayers."
Why John Dibble, you actually posted something I agree with! This candidate is definately legit, and he's from Georgia!
I've never once met a card-carrying Libertarian (big-ell) who wasn't a complete wingnut.
Which really infuriates me, because I consider myself a libertarian (small ell), and I would like to see our ideas taken seriously.
I concluded the way to do this is not to waste time on a third party, but to become a powerful lobby within one of the major parties. The Republican Leadership Caucus and the Democratic Freedom Caucus are two such organizations.
If the LP really wanted to help see their ideas take root, they'd dissolve, and channel all that energy, money, and in-fighting to one of these two groups--or both.
Tim, don't be such an idiot. You are confusing "libertarian" with "anarchist."
Libertarians don't want to abolish government; they believe that, all else being equal, private citizens are better suited to making decisions about their lives than are government organizations.
But then, it's fairly difficult to define an American field of political thought succinctly. Imagine defining "liberal" or "conservative" in once sentance.
But Timmy is just too darn happy tossing out straw men which he can demolish with his rapier wit. Not.
The intellectual level of discourse has really gone downhill the past year here... :((
Blue? Isn't it racism to be prejudiced against a man because of the color of his skin? What would Martin Luther King have said about that? Anyway...
The Libertarian party has been around for more than 30 years now. By the time the Republican party was as old as the Libertarian party is now, they had already fought and won the Civil War. In the 2000 election, the Libertarians were behind Nader and Buchanan. I wonder why?...
There's a fellow in Hawaii who wants to abolish traffic laws. There's a Libertarian party official I read about whose litmus test for who is a true Libertarian or not is whether or not they would allow cocaine to be sold in vending machines in schools. Still...
Considering the alternatives this year... Hmmm....
I'm a card carrying member. If more moderate libertarians would join the party it might be helpful. I think the national party is respectable enough, but the local parties vary and that's where the problem is. In states where you have few registered Libertarians, you have a higher chance of getting blue guys and crazies. Of course, these guys stand out so you judge the group by them.
Here's another seemingly respectable Libertarian candidate: http://www.mtlp.org/jones/
The problem with Libertarians is that they either get kooks, or they get people who are entirely too committed to one particular point of view...
In a nation of 300 million people, any political party which manages to garner for itself a majority of votes will of necessity be a bit of a mish-mash of ideologies. And this is a good thing.
A Libertarian, if he's sensible, will realise that along with the poor, the Department of Education will always be with ye; then you settle down and try to figure out how to make that bureaucratic monstrosity actually do some good - ie, you become a Republican because they give you the best chance of doing things like that.
If you have only met Libertarians who are loons then you aren't really trying very hard. I attended their national convention in 2000 and it was remarkably loon free. Maine has had several good libertarian candidates who aren't the slightest bit mad.
While many Libertarians seem smart, many are actually pretty dumb when it comes to politics.
Anyone who takes a serious, hard look at the American political system, and who understands basic Game Theory, realizes that America is a two-party system not due to tradition or inertia but because that is the inevitable, unavoidable result of the way the Constitution (and most state governments) are designed. Not on purpose, but it's the inevitable result.
Thus, unlike parliamentary systems, you CAN'T have a viable third party in the U.S. Unless one of the two major parties is so dysfunctional it's about to collapse, anyway. That's only been even close to happening twice in the last 100 years, and it's only actually happened once in the last 200 years.
If Libertarians (or Greens) were really smart, they would hold a convention every year to determine, for each and every office, whether they would run a candidate for that office, or leave the seat open. Then they would let Democratic and Republican candidates come in and try to convince them NOT to run a candidate. This would have the effect of pulling one of the major party toward their ideas. Otherwise, all voting Green or Libertarian does now is let you lodge a protest vote, or maybe very occasionally get a wildcard shot at a minor public office.
Sorry, I just can't become a Republican. They won't make the Dept. of Education work because it can't. Saying you can get federal education control to work is almost like saying you can get communism to work. The only way it could work is if it kept some extremely simple ground rules and enforced those. Republicans aren't gonna do that, and you damn well know the Dems aren't gonna do that.
I read an interesting Chapter for my government class on the U.S. party system. Indeed it really has been only a 2 major party system. I think if one of the major parties collapses it will probably be either the Libertarians or the Greens who take their place(or possibly a new party). I'd think the Dems would be the ones to collapse, of course it could go to the Greens in that case. The voting system here also doesn't really allow for more than two parties to be effective on the ballot. For example, in the presidential race you just need to get the most votes in a state and you get every member of the electoral college, rather than a percentage based on how many you received. I suppose all I can do is hope, but I'm somewhat optimistic, and it won't happen if everyone just quits, right? Work for it and it might happen, quit and it definitely won't.
A letter to the editor in my local newspaper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution:
Attending the Libertarian Party's recent national convention, my wife and I found Atlanta one of the friendliest cities we had ever visited.
A Georgia state trooper was so concerned about our safety that he stopped us to cite me for not wearing a seat belt. I don't think he was a Libertarian, though.
I've heard talk regarding the implosion of either the Dems or the GOP. You are right - some speculate that if the Dems take a beating in 2004 and again in 2008 (a big IF), they will splinter off but many don't see the Greens or the Libertarians as the heir to the next major party. The remnants of the old party will most likely coalesce into some as yet undetermined new political philosophy. I don't claim to be any kind of seer or expert on this subject but I heard a little of this on some TV program or another.
Here's a classic nutcase. Tom Alciere was elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives, but he resigned when the word got out about his Usenet posts supporting cop-killing. Alciere was elected as a Republican, but he was (and presumably still is) a Libertarian Party member. Here is a sample of his Usenet ravings; a search should turn up more of the same. Here is the man's website.
This looney lives a couple streets down from me. At least the cops
know where he is, I'm sure.
Mark Noonan wrote:
"A Libertarian, if he's sensible, will realise that along with the poor, the Department of Education will always be with ye; then you settle down and try to figure out how to make that bureaucratic monstrosity actually do some good - ie, you become a Republican because they give you the best chance of doing things like that."
This is very unfortunate that you wrote that. I'm very disappointed. You should be more conservative.
The poor will always be with us because: 1) Poverty, like ignorance, is man's natural, default, state. We are born into it and must climb out of it though our own efforts, i.e., create wealth in a free economy. We don't have wings, so we have to invent the airplance. 2) Poverty is relative in the sense that, as long as there is freedom, some will always be richer than others, and, therefore, conversely, some will always be poorer than others, so there will always be poor in at least that sense.
The Department of Education was created by Jimmy Carter. Not even FDR. If we can't defeat Carter, then we're reduced to wrestling rabbits. And losing. We would still have hostages in Iran by that logic. President Reagan tried to abolish Carter's Department of Education but the Democrats had a lock on Congress. Now, with the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, Bush doesn't have that excuse.
The Tenth Amendment clearly states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment, is far older than anything Jimmy Carter did, and is the supreme law of the land.
The Department of Education is clearly un-Constitutional. The federal government has no legitimate role in education, which must be left to the states and localities. If American conservatives are not trying to conserve the Cons titution, then they stand for nothing, there is nothing left to conserve. We must abolish un-Constitutional monstrosities, not use them to "do good", which is precisely what got us into this mess in the first place. I'm a Constitutional conservative.
When it comes to education, I'm conservative there, too. I'm against "progressive", permissive, regressive education, and for going back to the basic "3 R's" (plus history and geography) and old-fashioned discipline. But, if a local school board wants Deweyism instead, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to interfere.
"The Department of Education is clearly un-Constitutional. The federal government has no legitimate role in education, which must be left to the states and localities."
Actually Steven, there's also this thing called the elastic clause. It could be used to interpret the DoE as constitutional. You could argue either way I suppose. However, I think we agree it's just a plain bad idea.
When I moved to AZ 20 years ago, the head of the Libertarian Party lived in the same complex as I and had a newspaper column that was actually pretty sensible--talked about private toll roads and pot legalization and interesting concepts like that. At the time I was still uncomfortable with the Republican party, even though I voted for Reagan that year. So I struck up a conversation with the guy at the pool about his philosophy, and to my great good fortune discovered that the National Convention of the Libertarian Party was coming to Phoenix (my guess is this was 1985). So I went.
It was an absolute zoo. Your stuff highlights the fringe positions on local issues, but they had positions on everything, and much like the Marxists, they liked to point it out very carefully, with step by step logic.
One of the seminars was entitled something like, "When a Libertarian Falls In Love". From the looks of the convention-goers it appeared to be a fairly rare occurence.
And of course, where they lost me completely was with their treatment of defense. One of the reasons I'd left the Democrats by the 1980s was their complete unwillingness to face the communist threat. The Libertarians were worse.
I'm unsure if the LP has changed their war policy since 1985, but I have to agree that if they held the one they have now during the Cold War I would have not registered with them. I suppose it's a difference of the times. What they want to do now is withdraw troops from most of the military bases we have in the world, which I partially agree with(I don't feel we need bases in Germany, but in South Korea where there's a lunatic to the north I would prefer to have some troops stationed), and their foreign policy is pretty much non-intervention in other nation's affairs(ex. let Israel and Palestine do whatever, and don't interfere except in the extreme case of a full scale invasion of Israel), which I also somewhat agree with. I also disagree with many of their positions on Iraq, but as long as their candidates call for a responsible handling of Iraq I'll vote for them, but if they want an irresponsible, immediate withdrawal I can't bring myself to vote for them.
John their military policy does seem to have changed; they at least acknowledge the need for defense in their platform at lp.org. However, the platform seems to consist of pulling in all troops from abroad, negotiating arms reduction deals to reduce the threat of nuclear attack, and they're in favor of gays in the military and repealing the UCMJ.
I've never liked the non-interventionist and quasi-pacifist foreign policy of most of those calling themselves libertarians (largely the influence of Murray Rothbard, who blamed America for the Cold War), which is why I haven't called myself a libertarian. I call myself an individualist instead. My position on foreign policy is closer to that of Objectivists like Leonard Peikoff. Libertarians make a false equation between military intervention against tyrannical governments abroad and government intervention in the individual's private life here at home. There is no similarity whatsoever. Dictators like Saddamn [sic] have no rights. I agree with Ayn Rand that a free country has a moral right, if not duty, to invade and free an enslaved country. Example: our War against Nazi Germany.
I oppose any nuclear disarmament. We must keep our military and nuclear forces strong and alert at all times. I oppose any negotiations toward arms reductions. Disarmament is suicidal folly, if nnot treason.
I support homosexuals in the military -- and so does the military when it needs soldiers, as, e.g., after 9/11/2001 and during the Iraq War. At that time, the military called off its witch-hunt against homosexuals. I notice that there seems to be increased support among the general public for homosexual men and women serving in the military. Good! I agree squarely with Barry Goldwater.
Repealing the UCMJ is nonsense and it's not going to happen. The military must maintain strict discipline regardless of sexual orientation.
As I said, I only agree somewhat with the party on non-interference. I just also believe in "picking your battles". If there were just one or two tyrants in the world I would support just ridding ourselves of them, but there are too many to oust all of them. With Saddam, there was a feeling that he had crossed a line and we couldn't afford to ignore him anymore, whether we were right or not, so we did. If a dictator crosses a line(like his borders) then I'm all for getting rid of him. Otherwise, I can just hope that the people of that country will oust him themselves, as is their right to oust an oppressive government. Also, I wouldn't use our war with Germany as an example, I believe war was declared on us first(shortly after Japan declared war on us as well, and if I'm wrong please do correct me), and so we were really defending ourselves.
"I oppose any nuclear disarmament. We must keep our military and nuclear forces strong and alert at all times. I oppose any negotiations toward arms reductions. Disarmament is suicidal folly, if nnot treason."
I don't think this is too different from what the party believes, they just want our troops out of other countries when we aren't at war with said countries, especially if those countries have the resources to defend themselves without our help. I've never heard them calling for disarmament or anything, but I could be wrong.
And the Libertarians aren't completely inept at defense, here's an article from their website:
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0406/libertarian_solution.html
The article concerns using statistics when deciding who to search at the airports. If you don't have time to read it, I'll paste the conclusion here for you:
"There is a difference between what some have termed 'statistical discrimination' and racial prejudice, as Gene Callahan and William Anderson wrote in a 2001 article in Reason magazine.
Searching a vehicle on the highway or a passenger in an airport for simple racist reasons is objectionable; searching the same airline passenger because of a defined statistical propensity for a specific crime is arguably -- while perhaps still objectionable -- a necessity.
Metal detectors, shoe swabs to test for explosive material, X-ray machines and other airport security devices are here to stay. We'll continue being required to not carry pocket knives onto planes.
But it only makes sense also to apply statistical knowledge when trying to stop would-be terrorists."
The term "blue-blood" came from the old days of Europe, when the royal families were the few who could afford silver tableware.
Many of my libertarian friends say "don't vote. It only encourages them". With voters like that, who needs opposition?
Dean said: "... you CAN'T have a viable third party in the U.S. Unless one of the two major parties is so dysfunctional it's about to collapse, anyway." Sounds like a good description of the Democratic Party.
They've been around for quite a few years now. You'd think that with such a sound philosophy they'd be able to attract more voters.
I agree with you. Thank you for the link. I don't say we have a duty to overthrow tyrants. I only say that they have no rights against us if we decide to do so.
Mike:
The philosophy of the Democrats is bankrupt (or non-existent), but they have done very well in attracting voters by promising government handouts. The Libertarians and the old-style Republicans have a much harder row to hoe. They offer only freedom.
"I don't say we have a duty to overthrow tyrants. I only say that they have no rights against us if we decide to do so."
Agreed. I don't care if you are a tyrant or a street thug, when you infringe upon the rights of others(especially the right to life) I believe you forfeit those rights yourself. By killing someone without just cause, you show that you do not value human life(outside of your own), so there should be no reason that I should have to value your life anymore. If you don't value me in particular, but you don't kill others without just cause, then I will grant you the same - you don't try to kill me, I won't try to kill you. Tyrants don't value life, so their lives are therefore not to be valued.
"? my first reaction to which was 'Oh great. If this guy gets elected, every time a decision is just beyond his grasp, instead of asking political consultants, he'll kill a white bullock on the capitol steps and study the entrails.'" - Joel Miller
I'm really trying to figure out where that'd be a step down from the way a lot of our representaives determine where to stand on issues, and failing miserably. ;) At least the white bullock would make for fascinating C-Span coverage.
Looks like Steve Malcolm Anderson is doing a bangup job on rebutting the various "libertarians have idiotic ideas" BS being bandied about. I'll leave him to it - go Steve! ;]
I will say that my biggest split with the LP is their stance on defense and the military: that's one of the sole reasons I'm no longer a registered libertarian. That, and I'm not a Randite, and I think the randian wing has taken over too much of the parties hierachy in the past decade.
If the main party ever determines to moderate its moonbat wing, and to formualte a sensible and workable military/defense platform based on Jacksonian Libertarian principles, then I'm back in - the LP is still the only party we have that is even making an attempt to stay true to the political vision of the founders and the constitution. I won't vote Democrat because I detest everything they stand for, and I can't quite force myself to vote Republican because they're too close to being the "Democrat Right Wing" for my tastes. Too anti-liberty, and too pro-social engineering.
Nothing wrong with not having a party - you seem to have a good stance. Pick and choose your candidates. I may be a registered Libertarian, but I'll always vote for the guy who'll do the best job, Libertarian or not.
Sigh, it's a bit true. If the party wants to take off it needs to ensure all it's candidates are serious. Still, they're the largest third party and they have the most people in office compared to the other third parties.
"Libertarians, God love 'em, always seem to have a hard time getting the attention and respect their ideas deserve – which is doubly a shame since they're the only party with ideas that actually deserve attention and respect."
I'll agree to that.
The ferret legalization guy - nothing wrong with that I don't think, at least he's not blue. Ferrets are actually good pets, and I can't think of any reason not to legalize them.
Sigh. And this is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
Libertarians look good until the first hundred or so kids die from tainted meat (since FDA guidelines no longer exist), a few babies die (as child safety seat laws no longe apply), and as thousands of uninsured motorists plow into living rooms (oh wait, that already happens). They do have some excellent ideas, but in the end, most of them just want to smoke pot and raise ferrets, or is that raise pot and smoke ferrets?
Here's more.
ha! ha! ha! ha!
I'll probably vote for them anyway, even so, because of what Bush and Kerry are advocating.
Another for the list: Kenneth Curtis, convicted urine salesman who ran for Lt. Governor of South Carolina in 2002. I considered voting for him, but I don't think I want someone who won't obey the laws making them.
I don't think I want someone who won't obey the laws making them.
Funny, I would prefer to see someone in the legislature who treats the laws he makes with the contempt they deserve.
They oughta get a load of me with a full-auto Thompson at one of our gun matches. On the other hand, all I do is sports marksmanship shooting. Don't paint my skin blue. Don't lobby for protection of ferrets. Don't ride the streets on an all-terrain vehicle. But I sure as hell don't think anyone would elect me to public office.
We had this guy running for governor in Wisconsin two years ago. "Mad Ed" Thompson. Brother of former Wisconsin governor and now US Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G Thompson. Mad Ed ran on the Libertarian ticket. Got just far enough to rob Republican acting governor Scott McCallum of his chance to beat the Democrat, James Doyle.
You are right. The Libertarians who actually run for public office sometimes come across as screwballs.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Fortunately for us libertarians, not all of the party's candidates are loonies. Here's one that is at least somewhat respectable:
http://www.buckleyforsenate.org/
"The 2003 Tax Act will do little to help the economy, because very little of the benefits thereof go to people whose spending would help the economy—i.e. lower and middle income taxpayers."
Why John Dibble, you actually posted something I agree with! This candidate is definately legit, and he's from Georgia!
But...
"Consideration should be given to decriminalization of marijuana use by adults, in the same manner that alcohol use is tolerated."
See!! He wants to smoke pot!!!
I've never once met a card-carrying Libertarian (big-ell) who wasn't a complete wingnut.
Which really infuriates me, because I consider myself a libertarian (small ell), and I would like to see our ideas taken seriously.
I concluded the way to do this is not to waste time on a third party, but to become a powerful lobby within one of the major parties. The Republican Leadership Caucus and the Democratic Freedom Caucus are two such organizations.
If the LP really wanted to help see their ideas take root, they'd dissolve, and channel all that energy, money, and in-fighting to one of these two groups--or both.
Tim, don't be such an idiot. You are confusing "libertarian" with "anarchist."
Libertarians don't want to abolish government; they believe that, all else being equal, private citizens are better suited to making decisions about their lives than are government organizations.
But then, it's fairly difficult to define an American field of political thought succinctly. Imagine defining "liberal" or "conservative" in once sentance.
But Timmy is just too darn happy tossing out straw men which he can demolish with his rapier wit. Not.
The intellectual level of discourse has really gone downhill the past year here... :((
Blue? Isn't it racism to be prejudiced against a man because of the color of his skin? What would Martin Luther King have said about that? Anyway...
The Libertarian party has been around for more than 30 years now. By the time the Republican party was as old as the Libertarian party is now, they had already fought and won the Civil War. In the 2000 election, the Libertarians were behind Nader and Buchanan. I wonder why?...
There's a fellow in Hawaii who wants to abolish traffic laws. There's a Libertarian party official I read about whose litmus test for who is a true Libertarian or not is whether or not they would allow cocaine to be sold in vending machines in schools. Still...
Considering the alternatives this year... Hmmm....
"The intellectual level of discourse has really gone downhill the past year here... :(("
What in the holy hell are you talking about? If you are concerned about it then stop posting.
...."A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away from you everything you have."
-Barry Goldwater
stevel,
I'm a card carrying member. If more moderate libertarians would join the party it might be helpful. I think the national party is respectable enough, but the local parties vary and that's where the problem is. In states where you have few registered Libertarians, you have a higher chance of getting blue guys and crazies. Of course, these guys stand out so you judge the group by them.
Here's another seemingly respectable Libertarian candidate: http://www.mtlp.org/jones/
John,
The problem with Libertarians is that they either get kooks, or they get people who are entirely too committed to one particular point of view...
In a nation of 300 million people, any political party which manages to garner for itself a majority of votes will of necessity be a bit of a mish-mash of ideologies. And this is a good thing.
A Libertarian, if he's sensible, will realise that along with the poor, the Department of Education will always be with ye; then you settle down and try to figure out how to make that bureaucratic monstrosity actually do some good - ie, you become a Republican because they give you the best chance of doing things like that.
If you have only met Libertarians who are loons then you aren't really trying very hard. I attended their national convention in 2000 and it was remarkably loon free. Maine has had several good libertarian candidates who aren't the slightest bit mad.
While many Libertarians seem smart, many are actually pretty dumb when it comes to politics.
Anyone who takes a serious, hard look at the American political system, and who understands basic Game Theory, realizes that America is a two-party system not due to tradition or inertia but because that is the inevitable, unavoidable result of the way the Constitution (and most state governments) are designed. Not on purpose, but it's the inevitable result.
Thus, unlike parliamentary systems, you CAN'T have a viable third party in the U.S. Unless one of the two major parties is so dysfunctional it's about to collapse, anyway. That's only been even close to happening twice in the last 100 years, and it's only actually happened once in the last 200 years.
If Libertarians (or Greens) were really smart, they would hold a convention every year to determine, for each and every office, whether they would run a candidate for that office, or leave the seat open. Then they would let Democratic and Republican candidates come in and try to convince them NOT to run a candidate. This would have the effect of pulling one of the major party toward their ideas. Otherwise, all voting Green or Libertarian does now is let you lodge a protest vote, or maybe very occasionally get a wildcard shot at a minor public office.
Mark,
Sorry, I just can't become a Republican. They won't make the Dept. of Education work because it can't. Saying you can get federal education control to work is almost like saying you can get communism to work. The only way it could work is if it kept some extremely simple ground rules and enforced those. Republicans aren't gonna do that, and you damn well know the Dems aren't gonna do that.
I read an interesting Chapter for my government class on the U.S. party system. Indeed it really has been only a 2 major party system. I think if one of the major parties collapses it will probably be either the Libertarians or the Greens who take their place(or possibly a new party). I'd think the Dems would be the ones to collapse, of course it could go to the Greens in that case. The voting system here also doesn't really allow for more than two parties to be effective on the ballot. For example, in the presidential race you just need to get the most votes in a state and you get every member of the electoral college, rather than a percentage based on how many you received. I suppose all I can do is hope, but I'm somewhat optimistic, and it won't happen if everyone just quits, right? Work for it and it might happen, quit and it definitely won't.
A letter to the editor in my local newspaper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution:
Attending the Libertarian Party's recent national convention, my wife and I found Atlanta one of the friendliest cities we had ever visited.
A Georgia state trooper was so concerned about our safety that he stopped us to cite me for not wearing a seat belt. I don't think he was a Libertarian, though.
REX BELL
Hagerstown, Ind.
John Dibble
I've heard talk regarding the implosion of either the Dems or the GOP. You are right - some speculate that if the Dems take a beating in 2004 and again in 2008 (a big IF), they will splinter off but many don't see the Greens or the Libertarians as the heir to the next major party. The remnants of the old party will most likely coalesce into some as yet undetermined new political philosophy. I don't claim to be any kind of seer or expert on this subject but I heard a little of this on some TV program or another.
Here's a classic nutcase. Tom Alciere was elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives, but he resigned when the word got out about his Usenet posts supporting cop-killing. Alciere was elected as a Republican, but he was (and presumably still is) a Libertarian Party member. Here is a sample of his Usenet ravings; a search should turn up more of the same. Here is the man's website.
This looney lives a couple streets down from me. At least the cops
know where he is, I'm sure.
Tim: Deal. You win. Your mouth is bigger.
About Tom Alciere...
He was elected to the NH legislature as a Republican. He had been a Libertarian, but he was kicked out of the LP long before that election.
People from the NH LP I've talked to have had a good chuckle at the GOP's expense on this...
Mark Noonan wrote:
"A Libertarian, if he's sensible, will realise that along with the poor, the Department of Education will always be with ye; then you settle down and try to figure out how to make that bureaucratic monstrosity actually do some good - ie, you become a Republican because they give you the best chance of doing things like that."
This is very unfortunate that you wrote that. I'm very disappointed. You should be more conservative.
The poor will always be with us because: 1) Poverty, like ignorance, is man's natural, default, state. We are born into it and must climb out of it though our own efforts, i.e., create wealth in a free economy. We don't have wings, so we have to invent the airplance. 2) Poverty is relative in the sense that, as long as there is freedom, some will always be richer than others, and, therefore, conversely, some will always be poorer than others, so there will always be poor in at least that sense.
The Department of Education was created by Jimmy Carter. Not even FDR. If we can't defeat Carter, then we're reduced to wrestling rabbits. And losing. We would still have hostages in Iran by that logic. President Reagan tried to abolish Carter's Department of Education but the Democrats had a lock on Congress. Now, with the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, Bush doesn't have that excuse.
The Tenth Amendment clearly states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment, is far older than anything Jimmy Carter did, and is the supreme law of the land.
The Department of Education is clearly un-Constitutional. The federal government has no legitimate role in education, which must be left to the states and localities. If American conservatives are not trying to conserve the Cons titution, then they stand for nothing, there is nothing left to conserve. We must abolish un-Constitutional monstrosities, not use them to "do good", which is precisely what got us into this mess in the first place. I'm a Constitutional conservative.
When it comes to education, I'm conservative there, too. I'm against "progressive", permissive, regressive education, and for going back to the basic "3 R's" (plus history and geography) and old-fashioned discipline. But, if a local school board wants Deweyism instead, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to interfere.
"The Department of Education is clearly un-Constitutional. The federal government has no legitimate role in education, which must be left to the states and localities."
Actually Steven, there's also this thing called the elastic clause. It could be used to interpret the DoE as constitutional. You could argue either way I suppose. However, I think we agree it's just a plain bad idea.
When I moved to AZ 20 years ago, the head of the Libertarian Party lived in the same complex as I and had a newspaper column that was actually pretty sensible--talked about private toll roads and pot legalization and interesting concepts like that. At the time I was still uncomfortable with the Republican party, even though I voted for Reagan that year. So I struck up a conversation with the guy at the pool about his philosophy, and to my great good fortune discovered that the National Convention of the Libertarian Party was coming to Phoenix (my guess is this was 1985). So I went.
It was an absolute zoo. Your stuff highlights the fringe positions on local issues, but they had positions on everything, and much like the Marxists, they liked to point it out very carefully, with step by step logic.
One of the seminars was entitled something like, "When a Libertarian Falls In Love". From the looks of the convention-goers it appeared to be a fairly rare occurence.
And of course, where they lost me completely was with their treatment of defense. One of the reasons I'd left the Democrats by the 1980s was their complete unwillingness to face the communist threat. The Libertarians were worse.
Pat,
I'm unsure if the LP has changed their war policy since 1985, but I have to agree that if they held the one they have now during the Cold War I would have not registered with them. I suppose it's a difference of the times. What they want to do now is withdraw troops from most of the military bases we have in the world, which I partially agree with(I don't feel we need bases in Germany, but in South Korea where there's a lunatic to the north I would prefer to have some troops stationed), and their foreign policy is pretty much non-intervention in other nation's affairs(ex. let Israel and Palestine do whatever, and don't interfere except in the extreme case of a full scale invasion of Israel), which I also somewhat agree with. I also disagree with many of their positions on Iraq, but as long as their candidates call for a responsible handling of Iraq I'll vote for them, but if they want an irresponsible, immediate withdrawal I can't bring myself to vote for them.
John their military policy does seem to have changed; they at least acknowledge the need for defense in their platform at lp.org. However, the platform seems to consist of pulling in all troops from abroad, negotiating arms reduction deals to reduce the threat of nuclear attack, and they're in favor of gays in the military and repealing the UCMJ.
I've never liked the non-interventionist and quasi-pacifist foreign policy of most of those calling themselves libertarians (largely the influence of Murray Rothbard, who blamed America for the Cold War), which is why I haven't called myself a libertarian. I call myself an individualist instead. My position on foreign policy is closer to that of Objectivists like Leonard Peikoff. Libertarians make a false equation between military intervention against tyrannical governments abroad and government intervention in the individual's private life here at home. There is no similarity whatsoever. Dictators like Saddamn [sic] have no rights. I agree with Ayn Rand that a free country has a moral right, if not duty, to invade and free an enslaved country. Example: our War against Nazi Germany.
I oppose any nuclear disarmament. We must keep our military and nuclear forces strong and alert at all times. I oppose any negotiations toward arms reductions. Disarmament is suicidal folly, if nnot treason.
I support homosexuals in the military -- and so does the military when it needs soldiers, as, e.g., after 9/11/2001 and during the Iraq War. At that time, the military called off its witch-hunt against homosexuals. I notice that there seems to be increased support among the general public for homosexual men and women serving in the military. Good! I agree squarely with Barry Goldwater.
Repealing the UCMJ is nonsense and it's not going to happen. The military must maintain strict discipline regardless of sexual orientation.
Steven,
As I said, I only agree somewhat with the party on non-interference. I just also believe in "picking your battles". If there were just one or two tyrants in the world I would support just ridding ourselves of them, but there are too many to oust all of them. With Saddam, there was a feeling that he had crossed a line and we couldn't afford to ignore him anymore, whether we were right or not, so we did. If a dictator crosses a line(like his borders) then I'm all for getting rid of him. Otherwise, I can just hope that the people of that country will oust him themselves, as is their right to oust an oppressive government. Also, I wouldn't use our war with Germany as an example, I believe war was declared on us first(shortly after Japan declared war on us as well, and if I'm wrong please do correct me), and so we were really defending ourselves.
"I oppose any nuclear disarmament. We must keep our military and nuclear forces strong and alert at all times. I oppose any negotiations toward arms reductions. Disarmament is suicidal folly, if nnot treason."
I don't think this is too different from what the party believes, they just want our troops out of other countries when we aren't at war with said countries, especially if those countries have the resources to defend themselves without our help. I've never heard them calling for disarmament or anything, but I could be wrong.
And the Libertarians aren't completely inept at defense, here's an article from their website:
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0406/libertarian_solution.html
The article concerns using statistics when deciding who to search at the airports. If you don't have time to read it, I'll paste the conclusion here for you:
"There is a difference between what some have termed 'statistical discrimination' and racial prejudice, as Gene Callahan and William Anderson wrote in a 2001 article in Reason magazine.
Searching a vehicle on the highway or a passenger in an airport for simple racist reasons is objectionable; searching the same airline passenger because of a defined statistical propensity for a specific crime is arguably -- while perhaps still objectionable -- a necessity.
Metal detectors, shoe swabs to test for explosive material, X-ray machines and other airport security devices are here to stay. We'll continue being required to not carry pocket knives onto planes.
But it only makes sense also to apply statistical knowledge when trying to stop would-be terrorists."
The term "blue-blood" came from the old days of Europe, when the royal families were the few who could afford silver tableware.
Many of my libertarian friends say "don't vote. It only encourages them". With voters like that, who needs opposition?
Dean said: "... you CAN'T have a viable third party in the U.S. Unless one of the two major parties is so dysfunctional it's about to collapse, anyway." Sounds like a good description of the Democratic Party.
They've been around for quite a few years now. You'd think that with such a sound philosophy they'd be able to attract more voters.
John:
I agree with you. Thank you for the link. I don't say we have a duty to overthrow tyrants. I only say that they have no rights against us if we decide to do so.
Mike:
The philosophy of the Democrats is bankrupt (or non-existent), but they have done very well in attracting voters by promising government handouts. The Libertarians and the old-style Republicans have a much harder row to hoe. They offer only freedom.
"I don't say we have a duty to overthrow tyrants. I only say that they have no rights against us if we decide to do so."
Agreed. I don't care if you are a tyrant or a street thug, when you infringe upon the rights of others(especially the right to life) I believe you forfeit those rights yourself. By killing someone without just cause, you show that you do not value human life(outside of your own), so there should be no reason that I should have to value your life anymore. If you don't value me in particular, but you don't kill others without just cause, then I will grant you the same - you don't try to kill me, I won't try to kill you. Tyrants don't value life, so their lives are therefore not to be valued.
John:
Excellent!
Heh.
I'm really trying to figure out where that'd be a step down from the way a lot of our representaives determine where to stand on issues, and failing miserably. ;) At least the white bullock would make for fascinating C-Span coverage.
Looks like Steve Malcolm Anderson is doing a bangup job on rebutting the various "libertarians have idiotic ideas" BS being bandied about. I'll leave him to it - go Steve! ;]
I will say that my biggest split with the LP is their stance on defense and the military: that's one of the sole reasons I'm no longer a registered libertarian. That, and I'm not a Randite, and I think the randian wing has taken over too much of the parties hierachy in the past decade.
If the main party ever determines to moderate its moonbat wing, and to formualte a sensible and workable military/defense platform based on Jacksonian Libertarian principles, then I'm back in - the LP is still the only party we have that is even making an attempt to stay true to the political vision of the founders and the constitution. I won't vote Democrat because I detest everything they stand for, and I can't quite force myself to vote Republican because they're too close to being the "Democrat Right Wing" for my tastes. Too anti-liberty, and too pro-social engineering.
Color me a man without a Party.
Ironbear,
Nothing wrong with not having a party - you seem to have a good stance. Pick and choose your candidates. I may be a registered Libertarian, but I'll always vote for the guy who'll do the best job, Libertarian or not.