The Moderate Libertarian

Karl Marx: Eligible for LP Membership

2010-06-05T19:03:00.000-07:00

Karl Marx predicted the "withering away of the state", a condition in which people would be able to act any way they wanted without any constraint from a state. And Marx did not favor the prohibition of private property; he merely stated that in the future society, people would have no desire to have private property. Therefore, assuming that the LP's oath or pledge is to be interpreted as ideological rather than procedural, Karl Marx would be eligible for LP membership. The only way to challenge this assertion would be to point out that Marxism in theory is libertarian, but in practice it is not. But the only way to compare theory to practice is to study economics and engage in public policy analysis, two things that are forbidden or irrelevant to LP members. So Karl Marx' membership could not be challenged by any other LP member.

The Party of Principle

2009-03-29T09:04:00.000-07:00

The Libertarian Party prides itself on being "the party of principle". What does this mean? Apparently, one thing this means is that in order to pass muster with the LP, any ideas expressed by an advocate of individual freedom must have (1) been expressed by a founding father prior to 1800, and (2) have been made aware to LP members when they were in the 7th Grade. No post-1800 legal, political, or economic concepts are acceptable, and even pre-1800 concepts are unacceptable if they do not comply with the aforementioned requirements. To the LP member, political evolution, if not technological and cultural evolution, stopped in 1800.

The Initiation of Force (Nonaggression axiom) and Private Property

2008-12-21T19:49:00.000-08:00

The cornerstone of radical libertarian thinking is the idea that private property does not initiate force. Consequently, the radical libertarian believes that he or she can simultaneously believe in private property while opposing the initiation of force. But since private property does in fact initiate force, radical libertarianism must either be rejected or at least be grounded on some other principle.

Nancy Pelosi favors "trickle down" economics

2008-10-01T19:32:00.000-07:00

One interesting revelation of the recent banking crisis is that Nancy Pelosi and most Congressional Democrats favor "trickle down" economics. Ronald Reagan believed that the good fortune of Wall Street "trickled down" to Main Street. Similarly, Nancy Pelosi and most Congressional Democrats warn us that the bad fortune of Wall Street will "trickle down" to Main Street.

Radical Libertarianism: Another Fatal Conceit?

2008-07-20T15:34:00.000-07:00

Friedrich Hayek called belief in socialism the “fatal conceit” because it supposes that all wisdom and knowledge about how society should be ordered can be known all at one time and apply to all eras. Radical libertarians believe the same thing. So can radical libertarianism be considered another “fatal conceit”?

Ron Paul: Not Eligible for an LP Candidacy

2008-05-18T21:08:00.000-07:00

On May 7, 2008, in a speech before the American Conservative Defense Alliance, Ron Paul stated: "My goal is to try to get people to accept the transition gradually and gracefully - cut back, balanced budget. . . Quite frankly, I think its going to be very, very difficult." Gradually and gracefully? The task will be "very, very difficult?" Needless to say, Ron Paul would certainly not get the LP's nomination for any candidacy after saying things like that!

Doing Business with Radical Libertarians

2008-03-05T14:03:00.000-08:00

Radical libertarians are very headstrong, certain people. So they can be very difficult to associate with. I do not recommend that you enter into a business relationship with a radical libertarian. After a few months, a dispute will develop. If you sue him for breach of contract, he will accuse you of "initiating force". He will reason that he, being perfect, could not possibly be in breach of contract. Therefore, he is right and you are wrong. So by bringing suit, you are "initiating force".

May LP Members Kill Government Employees?

2008-01-05T18:20:00.000-08:00

The Libertarian Party, through it oath or pledge, takes the position that the initiation of force is bad, but the use of force to retaliate or defend is good. But what does this mean? The LP has yet to explain. What if an LP member enters a federal building and kills several employees of the Internal Revenue Service? If the oath or pledge means that the LP rejects political violence, then the act can be condemned and the the perpetrator expelled from the party. But if the oath or pledge means that violence is permissible to retaliate or defend against another who has initiated force, then the LP would have to defend the actions of the perpetrator. After all, the IRS initiates force when it enforces the collection of the income tax and other taxes. So the perpetrator is engaging in retaliatory or defensive action whey he kills the IRS employees. Please note: the two aforementioned interpretations of the oath are not complementary; they are diametrically opposed to one another. Yet LP members claim that political action and personal action can be judged according to the same principle.

My Advice to Libertarians: Relax

2007-11-18T14:19:00.000-08:00

Radicals of all political persuasions try to impose on people a degree of certainty that reality will not accomodate. The voters know this. They are skeptical of politicians who claim that there is a final solution to the problem of human disagreement. People who favor revolution must necessarily believe in such a final solution. And the voters will reject them.

A Libertarian Party Member’s Worst Nightmare

2007-10-23T14:32:00.000-07:00

A Libertarian Party member’s worst nightmare would be if Social Security were to be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Why? Because if this were to happen, the American people, who strongly support this system, would simply amend the Constitution to allow (or perhaps even mandate) such a system. The amendment would probably even mandate all kinds of transfer payments to individuals. My point is: talking about the Constitution is of limited usefulness when engaging in politics, since if a policy is extremely popular, the Constitution can always be amended. If you want smaller government, you must convince people to vote for it. Nothing beats having a good majority.

The Initiation of Force (Nonaggression axiom) and Private Property

2007-07-22T12:14:00.000-07:00

Radical versus Moderate Libertarians

2007-07-22T12:06:00.000-07:00

At least for now, the main differences between radical and moderate libertarians appear to be:
1. Moderate libertarians believe that the average American is not a libertarian (whereas radical libertarians believe that the masses are seething with libertarian revolutionary fervor), and
2. Moderate libertarians believe that the best reason to vote for a libertarian candidate is because a voter agrees with the candidate's views (whereas radical libertarians believe that voting for a libertarian candidate is not a "choice" but rather a moral obligation.)

How to Get Away with Polygamy

2007-07-01T12:18:00.000-07:00

To get away with polygamy, here's what you do: don't call any of the women you are living with your "wives". Hugh Hefner is currently living with 3 women. He calls none of them his "wife". Therefore, he is safe. In Utah, some men have been prosecuted for violating the anti-polygamy statute. Their mistake: they claimed to be "married" to more than one woman. Some Utah men have been prosecuted, and deservedly so, but not for claiming to be married to more than one woman, but because one or more of these women were underage.

Deal-Breakers

2007-05-10T14:15:00.000-07:00

LP members tend to believe certain things which to the voters are deal-breakers:
1. No individual can be forced to pay a tax.
2. No individual can be forced to obey a law that he believes "initiates force" against him
3. The U.S. Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of whether a law is constitutional; rather, the individual, acting alone, determines this.
4. The debts run up by the U.S. government should be repudiated; people cannot be taxed to pay off the national debt.
5. The government represents no one; hence, no individual is responsible for the damages inflicted on others by the government.
These beliefs constitute anarchism, and since the average voter disapproves of this, the LP never gained any popularity, even among people favoring smaller government.

A Proposition

2007-05-10T14:11:00.000-07:00

If you were living in North Korea, and the slavemaster government gave you the opportunity to move to a libertarian Utopia, would you choose to move to the libertarian Utopia, even if a government required you to live for the first 5 years in France? If you choose yes, then you are an unprincipled, sell-out gradualist.

What Harry Never Asked

2007-03-25T14:14:00.000-07:00

During his two Presidential campaigns, Harry Browne asked the voters, “Would you give up your favorite federal program if it meant you never had to pay federal income tax again?” But he never got around to asking, “Would you be willing to sacrifice in order to give the younger generation a better future?” He never asked, “Would you be willing to do your neighbor a favor and give him more freedom?” “Would you be willing to sacrifice in order to build an America that is more prosperous and more secure?” This is because LP members insisted that people are motivated by one thing only – selfishness – and never by compassion, a sense of responsibility, a sense of order, a desire for general prosperity, or a desire for security. And this belief prevented the LP from progressing.

The Libertarian Party and the Constitution

2007-02-21T18:46:00.000-08:00

Beginning in the 1990's, it became fashionable for Libertarian Party members to speak of themselves as being Constitutionalists. They were quite enraged when I showed a lack of interest in or scoffed at the idea. They considered the Constitution of 1787 to be sacred writ, handed down from on high, a solemn restatement of libertarian doctrine. But back at the time the Constitution was being debated, opponents were known as anti-federalists. Anti-federalists essentially warned that there really is no such thing as federalism; there is no effective way for member states to retain most of their autonomy. History has proven this to be the case. From their graves, the anti-federalists are saying, "We told you so." Advocates of increasing individual freedom do no real good by reminding people, correctly or not, of the supposedly "federal" nature of the Constitution. So to increase individual freedom, whether through the devolution of power to the states or to individuals directly, an individualist must 1. take control of the federal government, and 2. implement policies which will devolve power. This process is called politics. Learn to love it.

Private Property Initiates Force

2006-12-18T18:06:00.000-08:00

Are Libertarian Ideas Popular?

2006-12-18T18:03:00.000-08:00

Most Libertarian Party members are populists. A populist is a person who believes that his ideas are popular - the masses agree with him. I have never been able to figure out why an LP member believes this, and why LP members believe this to be important. But it appears to be a critical article of faith in the LP. If you express doubt or disagreement with it, you are labeled unprincipled or "not a libertarian". But the fact is, most people do not agree with libertarian ideas. In my opinion, it would be better if libertarians would accept the fact that their ideas are unpopular, and design their strategy accordingly.

The Socialist Party: Mission Accomplished?

2006-12-15T14:42:00.000-08:00

Sometimes libertarians say that it is necessary for the LP to remain radical, since the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs remained radical, thus forcing the mainstream elected officials to adopt its policies, and once its policies had been adopted it could disband, mission accomplished. This is an urban myth. It was the Progressives, who were selective interventionists and single-issue activists, not the socialists, who more than likely influenced the political debate. But even the Progressives were joined by many other people who advocated change. And the Socialists favored government ownership, and not merely government regulation, of industry, something that did not come about. I kindly request that people stop insulting my intelligence by continuing to spread this urban myth.

The Paradox of Radical Libertarianism

2006-12-03T13:41:00.000-08:00

The radical libertarianism favored by may LP members bears an eerie similarity to . . . Communism! Remember, Communism was, in theory, a society of unanimity where the state had “withered away”; this is precisely what many LP members favor. And the fact that there was to be no private property in the Communist society is of no consequence, since the failure of any individual to establish a claim to property is in no way at variance with libertarian teaching. And the fact that Communism in practice varied greatly with Communism in theory is also of no consequence; idealism in practice frequently deviates from idealism in theory. Which makes one wonder whether a type of “pure” libertarianism in practice would result in the same type of repression as what occurred under Communism.

Increasing the Minimum Wage

2006-12-01T19:36:00.000-08:00

The State of Illinois recently raised its minimum wage. I submitted the following comment to my local newspaper: "Unless there is also imposed a maximum wage, then an increase in the minimum wage will bid up all other wages, and there will then be no net benefit for the minimum wage earners. Unless the government can prevent prices for goods and services from rising, then an increase in the minimum wage will bid up prices for goods and services, and there will then be no net benefit for the minimum wage earners." An increase in the minimum wage is therefore nothing more than empty symbolism. No one attempted to rebut my contention.

Only that Which is Natural is Permitted

2006-11-06T18:24:00.000-08:00

Libertarians frequently point to the illegitimacy of government due to its unnatural quality; since it is an artificial creation, it is illegitimate. But what they fail to realize is that property is unnatural - nature does not dictate or care which human being controls which piece of land or any other thing that humans value. So if a person is going to reject anything that is not natural, then they must reject property.

There Ain’t No Such Thing As a Free Lunch

2006-10-31T14:58:00.000-08:00

This is a useless statement because it is uncommunicative - it says nothing. Can you imagine being at a party and a libertarian comes up to you and says, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!" You would probably think the libertarian was a little loony. It would be better if, during a political discussion, the libertarian would word this sentiment this way: "There is no way the government can give a dollar to one person unless it takes a dollar from another person." "If the government takes a dollar from me and gives it to you, and if the government takes a dollar from you and gives it to me, the result is a wash; there is no net benefit." It is true that the government can take a dollar from you and give it to a poor person, and since the government does not take a dollar from the poor person, the net benefit to the poor person is one dollar. But the people you speak to at parties are generally not poor people. And the big problem today is not welfare for the poor; it's the delusional belief by the middle class that the government can give the middle class free services without anybody having to pay for them.

Libertarianism: "An" ideology" or "The" ideology?

2006-10-11T14:49:00.000-07:00

I always advocated that libertarians attempt to position the libertarian ideology as a "hybrid" or "combination" ideology, one which combines positions associated with modern "liberalism" and conservatism, as a way of enabling people to understand, as a way a making the ideology seem less unusual. But radical libertarians would have none of this, because this would make libertarianism appear to be AN ideology, one of just several competing schools of thought, rather than THE ideology, the only school of thought permissible.

Private Property Initiates Force

2006-06-28T14:35:00.000-07:00

Democracy is the Better Way to Go

2006-06-27T14:02:00.000-07:00

The events of the Twentieth Century taught humankind a valuable lesson: that one-party rule leads to torture and mass killing. Assuming that torture and mass killing are things to be avoided, then libertarians must reject the view espoused by many LP members that the Constitution of 1787 did not set up a democracy, but rather what amounts to a dictatorship of one party, a party that could appropriately be called the White Male Landowner Party. The founders may have sincerely felt that factionalism was to be avoided, but they naively failed to realize that they themselves constituted a faction, and the prohibition of competing factions in the interest of living in harmonious, unitary bliss is something that humankind has found to be far worse than multi-party democracy.

Are Americans Innocent Victims?

2006-06-27T13:58:00.000-07:00

Libertarian Party members tend to believe that once upon a time, Americans were living in libertarian bliss, but then some evil statists seized power and imposed Big Government. This occurred against the will of Americans; hence they are not to blame for this. Consequently, Americans deserve a huge tax cut, especially an income tax cut. But is this belief true? If Big Government exists because Americans support this idea and vote for it, then do they really deserve a tax cut? If a person murders someone, do they deserve to be punished or rewarded? If Americans vote to decrease the size of government, then, and only then, do they deserve a tax cut.

LP Members and Arrogance

2006-05-20T20:24:00.000-07:00

Libertarian Party members tended to claim that they had all of the answers to life's questions and to regard any doubts expressed by others as bordering on stupidity. The voters tend to respond to any politician who acts like this by avoiding them like the plague. This is one of the pitfalls of acting like a rebel - revolutionary stances, while seeming so gallant and brave to the believer, appear arrogant and reckless to the average person.

LP Members Tend to be Populists

2006-04-09T21:14:00.000-07:00

LP members tend to be populists and, in my view, populism is a psychological condition. A populist tends to believe:
1. that his ideas are true and popular; the vast, vast majority of the people have his ideas written into their DNA
2. that society is not in the form it should be, against the will of the vast, vast majority of the people, due to a small but powerful minority who hold society in an out-of-kilter position. This constitutes a "conspiracy".
3. that the presentation of the true ideas at the right time will awaken the sleeping masses and cause a sudden uprising which will overthrow the small but powerful minority
4. that the revolution will result in a new type of society, one in keeping with people's DNA and the natural order, one in which the people never disagree with each other, one in which there is unanimity as to what the social order should be
5. democracy is unnecessary because it is a way of dealing with disagreement, and since there will be no disagreement in the society of the future, there will be no need for democracy
6. any belief in gradual change represents a betrayal of the truth and of the masses and is an act of cowardice in the face of the small but powerful minority. And besides, why have gradual change when you can have revolution?

When the Libertarian Party Became Useless

2006-03-19T08:29:00.000-08:00

Three historical events occurred during the last 20 years which took the wind out of the LP’s sails.
1. The 1986 federal income tax reform, which substituted a flatter rate income tax for the steeply graduated income tax.
2. The 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall and 1991 demise of the Soviet Union, which ended the idea of a centrally-planned economy as an ideal.
3. The 1996 welfare reform, which ended some practices which the average American had perceived as being abuses (generational welfare, raising children on welfare).
These events could be considered good from the standpoint of individual liberty. But nevertheless, they rendered the old, radical LP totally useless.

Two Different Worldviews

2006-02-22T14:16:00.000-08:00

The difference between radical and moderate libertarians may originate in their worldviews. A worldview is a broad overview of where the individual stands in the world. Does the libertarian believe that the predicament of the individual in the U.S. is similar to that of:
1. French citizens fighting against Nazi occupation during World War II, or
2. The village eccentric asking other village residents for understanding and toleration.
If you choose the first worldview, then you are more likely to take a radical libertarian position. If you favor the second worldview, then you are more likely to take a moderate libertarian position.

Private Property Initiates Force

2006-02-12T14:15:00.000-08:00

The Miracle of Re-Labeling

2006-02-06T17:26:00.000-08:00

Regarding the high cost of employer-provided health insurance, it has been reported that the annual health insurance premium for single coverage is $4,024, with the employer paying $3,414 and the individual paying $610. This represents an unacceptable burden on the employer and puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage when competing against foreign companies. I have an idea: the government should charge every employer $4,024 per employee for health insurance, but instead of calling it a "premium", it will be called a "tax". Voila! U.S. employers will thereby be relieved of the burden of paying health insurance "premiums" for their employees.

The Ideal Wife

2006-02-05T17:13:00.000-08:00

Suppose a 16-year-old boy claims that he plans to marry a woman who looks like a Playboy centerfold, a woman who will never age, never gain weight, will always agree with him, and will always put his interests above hers. If I were the boy’s counselor, I would advise him to set his sights lower. Such a conception of marriage is simply too ideal. Where is he going to find a woman who will agree to enter into such a marriage? I know that to accept anything less than the ideal is a violation of “principle”, but a person who adheres to such purity of principle will probably never marry.

Romanticizing the Past

2006-01-29T13:08:00.000-08:00

It is unwise for advocates of individual liberty to romanticize the past as if it had been some kind of "Golden Age of Individual Liberty", at least not when speaking before women and blacks. And come to think of it, not when speaking before white males, either. And gays. It is true that Americans have less liberty today than in yesteryear with regard to taxation, but Americans have more freedom today than before in other areas, such as with regard to sexual freedom and rights for women and racial minorities. Freedom will never be there in some kind of "pure" form. A more prudent attititude to take would be to assume that there never has been and never will be a "Golden Age of Individual Liberty" and to advocate policies for their effect in the here and now.

Rush Limbaugh and Privacy

2006-01-25T17:26:00.000-08:00

Rush Limbaugh is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation involving his alleged "doctor-shopping." The prosecution would like to get his medical records to prove their case. To stop them, Rush Limbaugh has raised the issue of his “right to privacy”. For a conservative to talk about a “right to privacy”, especially with regard to alleged illegal drug use, is truly ironic.

Paradigms: Agreement/Disagreement versus Obedience/Disobedience

2006-01-22T12:42:00.000-08:00

A person is most likely to vote for a candidate whose ideas they agree with. Yet radical libertarians do not accept agreement as a rationale for voting for an LP candidate. For if a person accepts the idea that a person can agree with libertarian thought, then that person must also accept the idea that people can disagree with libertarian thought. This is something radical libertarians do not accept. To their way of thinking, the one true ideology is either to be obeyed or disobeyed, but it is never to be agreed or disagreed with. They do not approach politics within the agreement/disagreement paradigm. So radical libertarian write as if there existed unanimity amongst the people. The voters like having the freedom to disagree, so they respond to this attitude with a NO.

Sentiments and Temperament

2006-01-12T19:36:00.000-08:00

A moderate libertarian believes that life in the U.S. is not as good as it could be. A radical libertarian believes that life in the U.S. is awful. The voters will identify with the people whose sentiments and temperament most closely match theirs.

I Believe in Democracy. Do You?

2006-01-08T12:30:00.000-08:00

You are a democrat if you believe that people will always disagree as to what the law should be, that the violence that can come from this disagreement is undesirable, and that competitive elections are a peaceful way of managing this disagreement. You are an opponent of democracy if you believe either a) that the source of law is not from the minds of human beings such that what the law should be is not to be determined by human beings or b) that the law can be determined by human beings and that unanimous agreement as to what the law should be can be achieved by removing from society the source of disagreement thereby removing disagreement from society.

Private Property Initiates Force

2006-01-05T18:25:00.000-08:00

Radical Libertarians: Infantile

2006-01-05T18:18:00.000-08:00

Radical libertarians do not believe in converting people or winning votes; they just believe in fighting the state. They have the level of maturity of the toddler who stays at home each day with his stay-at-home mother. No complex interactions between humans are involved; therefore, no deep consideration of their coordination is necessary. The child's entire universe lies within the confines of the home. The thing the child is fighting is his mother (the state), who forces him to take naps and stay out of the curtains.

Faced with Failure . . .

2005-12-30T14:36:00.000-08:00

Faced with failure, radical libertarians tend to say, "Yell a little louder!" Moderate libertarians tend to say, "Speak a little softer." Moderate libertarians are focused on winning the support of the voters, whereas radical libertarians are focused on "opposing statism" (whatever that means) and opposing the Republicans and Democrats. When it comes to strategy, moderate libertarians take their marching orders from the voters, whereas radical libertarians take their marching orders from abstract concepts.

Underlying Belief of LP Members

2005-12-18T11:54:00.000-08:00

Having observed LP members over the years, I have concluded that LP members generally believed that Americans have libertarianism written into their DNA such that the average American is already a libertarian or can easily have the libertarianism deep inside them "awoken". Consequently, they believe conversion efforts are not necessary.

A Question for Radical Libertarians

2005-12-17T17:58:00.000-08:00

If gradualism doesn't work then let me ask you this: Do you consider Ron Paul (R-Texas) to be a libertarian?

A Message From Al Franken

2005-12-17T17:56:00.000-08:00

Al Franken, during a recent speech, responded to a question from a proponent of having a third party: "I certainly understand the impulse to want third parties, but I'm a Democrat - although I would encourage the very right-wing Republicans to join the Libertarian Party and vote for them."

Why a Moderate Libertarian Organization is Needed

2005-12-16T14:57:00.000-08:00

In September, then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas)said that there was nothing left in the federal budget to cut because "after 11 years of Republican majority, we've pared it down pretty good."

Radical libertarians: Bizarre

2005-12-14T15:05:00.000-08:00

The radical libertarian position is so bizarre, it makes one wonder as to what psychology leads to it. Do radical libertarians really believe that, absent an era of great crisis, the average American will vote to instantly abolish Social Security? Do they really believe that the average American hates taxation with the same passion as radical libertarians?

The Terms "Left" and "Right"

2005-12-08T17:04:00.000-08:00

I have always favored the abandonment of using the terms "left" and "right" to describe political stances. Such terms are inaccurate to describe political beliefs. After the demise of the Soviet Union, there was a brief shining moment when it appeared my dream might come true. My joy was short-lived. Today, virtually every single political stance and every single politician or commentator must necessarily be labeled as "left-wing" or "right-wing".

Hypocrisy File: Democrats and Conscientious Objection

2005-12-07T14:49:00.000-08:00

In Illinois, Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich imposed a rule prohibiting pharmacists from refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception. Some Illinois pharmacists were refusing to do so on the grounds of conscientious objection because they believed the drugs induced an abortion and therefore took the life of an innocent human being. Conscientious objection as an exception to the duty to obey the law was used back in the Viet Nam era and back during the era of the underground railroad which assisted runaway slaves. I guess the idea of having such a legal exception has become outdated. Unless of course, the Democrats plan to defend this idea in the future concerning a different issue, such as protesting the war in Iraq. But that would be hypocrisy.

Private Property Initiates Force

2005-12-04T12:33:00.000-08:00

What is Fascism?

2005-12-02T13:55:00.000-08:00

Recently, some people staged a protest against the Minutemen, a group that patrols the U.S.-Mexican border to catch illegal aliens. The protesters held up signs, some of which said that what the Minutemen represented was "fascism". There have been other times when various people have been called "fascists" by protesters. But in my book, in order to be a fascist, at a minimum, a person must advocate two things: the abolition of democracy (competitive elections, freedom of speech) and the imposition of a military and/or labor draft. If a person does not advocate both of these things, then they cannot be characterized as a fascist. It would appear that for some people, a fascist is simply anyone who espouses a belief they disagree with.

Documentary: The Corporation

2005-12-01T17:10:00.000-08:00

I recently saw a documentary on DVD called "The Corporation". Its makers make the allegation that corporations occasionally break the law. Shocking! They could have just as easily made a documentary on "people whose last names start with G" and alleged that these people occasionally break the law. The makers obviously want everyone to believe that corporations always act badly, but I don't think this documentary will achieve that.

Average American: Brainwashed?

2005-11-29T11:53:00.000-08:00

Big government is popular in the U.S. When describing this phenomenon, radical Libertarians are fond of using rhetoric suggesting that the average American has been "brainwashed" or duped. This is an unwise thing to do, because it is being disrespectful of the average American voter. The average person does not like being told that they have been brainwashed or duped. It is also rather ridiculous to suggest that if the average person had not been brainwashed or duped, then they would necessarily be raving, radical libertarians.

Anarchists in Denial

2005-11-27T10:52:00.000-08:00

Libertarian Party members frequently rail against the state, yet most of them deny being anarchists. But if a person is hostile to “the state” and if a person cannot name a single useful purpose for the government, then that person is an anarchist. To deny this is either to be dishonest to the voters, or to be philosophically confused. I believe that these LP members suffer mainly from the latter.

American Civil Liberties Union

2005-11-22T14:49:00.000-08:00

Libertarians have a love-hate relationship with the ACLU. One reason to love the ACLU is because it defends rights necessary for the maintenance of democracy and the prevention of abuses of government power. One reason to hate the ACLU is because it defends other, unrelated legal principles under the banner of "civil liberties". For example: The New York Civil Liberties Union recently filed a federal discrimination complaint against a Catholic school, charging that it unjustly fired an unmarried teacher for being pregnant. Laws which restrict personal freedom have nothing to do with "civil liberties" as this term was originally defined. After all, the ACLU would probably not volunteer to represent plaintiffs in lawsuits alleging contract fraud, trespass to property, or defamation of character. With regard to anti-discrimination laws related to private situations, one gets the sneaking suspicion that the ACLU would like to trick people into believing that these are part of the Bill of Rights.

Is It All Goldwater's Fault?

2005-11-22T14:47:00.000-08:00

History Lesson: The Republican Party was always a socialist party. Unlike socialists who favored egalitarian socialism, Republicans favored inegalitarian socialism; the economy and culture were to be centralized, but the upper crust was to be preserved. In the early 1960's, Barry Goldwater presented an alternative image of the Republican Party, that of being America's party of small government. This misled many baby boomers. When later the Republican Party did not bring about small government, these baby boomers attributed this to a lack of adherence to principle - a false diagnosis. So when a small group of baby boomers formed the LP in 1971, they called it "the party of principle" and became obsessed with the idea of preserving adherence to principle. This false diagnosis prevents rational thinking when discussing strategy and public image. It leads to an irrational fear of the slippery slope, a total inability to think in terms of piecemeal reform, a refusal to take "yes" for an answer.

Prescription Drug Benefit

2005-11-22T14:44:00.000-08:00

The Republicans tried to buy the votes of retirees by giving them a prescription drug benefit. But they also wished to avoid socialism. But when you try to have socialism and non-socialism at the same time, you wind up with one big mess. The seniors hate the structure of the new benefit. So, consequently, the Republicans are going to pay big time during the elections of the next few years. And deservedly so.

The National Cranberry Growers Association

2005-11-21T11:40:00.000-08:00

The big difference between an organization such as the National Cranberry Growers Association and the Libertarian Party is that, unlike the LP members, the NCGA members, right from the beginning, accept the fact that they are a small minority, that they probably always will be a small minority, that their political strategy must take this into account, and that their primary reason for existence is not to convert the average person to an idealistic creed, but to GET WHAT THEY WANT.

I Remember The Libertarian Party

2005-11-13T10:58:00.000-08:00

The Libertarian Party demanded that everyone vote for its candidates and their revolutionary program all at once. The problem with this is that there are few, if any, voter blocs that are willing to vote for a revolutionary program led by a charismatic, revolutionary leader. An LP candidate, in order to advance even a little, would have to wins votes from several voter blocs: disaffected Republicans, certain Democrats, certain independents, certain non-voters, and certain moderate libertarians. These voter blocs demand modesty from the candidate and gradualism in the candidate’s proposals, things that LP candidates did not provide. LP candidates went off on a flight of fancy, believing that they would need to win the votes of the only voter bloc in existence, the American People, a bloc seething with libertarian beliefs and revolutionary fervor. The results were embarrassing, a one-way ticket to obscurity.

Is the Average Voter Libertarian?

2005-11-10T14:32:00.000-08:00

The Libertarian Party is dominated by radical libertarians. One belief they tend to have is that the average American is a libertarian. Consequently, they feel they have no need to persuade, only to proclaim. They believe that the average American is opposed to socialism; therefore, the only thing they have to do to oppose something is to point out that it is socialist. When LP candidates receive very few votes, they ascribe this to restrictive ballot access laws, or lack of coverage by the media; never to disagreement with libertarian ideas or the advocacy of rapid change.

Democracy versus Unanimous Rule

2005-11-09T16:19:00.000-08:00

A government will be based on one of three different types of rule: minority rule, majority rule ("democracy"), or unanimous rule. I support democracy. Please let me defend democracy against one criticism. Some people claim that democracy necessarily means “unlimited democracy”, something which, they believe, led to the mass killing of Stalin and Pol Pot. But these people are confusing democracy with an attempt to bring about unanimous rule. Unanimous rule is based on the idealistic, romantic notion that there can be created a social order in which nobody ever disagrees with or resents or hates any other person. Democracy, rather, is based on the belief that people will always disagree with each other or possibly resent or hate one another. Democracy is used as a way of coping peacefully with this.

A Natural Right to Property?

2005-11-08T13:57:00.000-08:00

With regard to property, radical libertarians tend to follow the teaching of John Locke according to which if a person goes to previously unclaimed land and clears or cultivates it, he acquires a "right" to control the land forever and ever. Even his descendants can possibly control the land for an indefinite period. It is intimated that by this "mixing of labor" with the land, a mystical bond is created between the person and the land that cannot be broken by any other person or governmental authority. As a matter of fact, according to this belief, one of the sole purposes of government is to enforce a person's claim to land. This "first user" justification for private property is presented as a "natural" right, i.e. one that is not created by human beings and which cannot be altered by human beings. A moderate libertarian would not share this belief concerning the nature of property.

You might be a moderate libertarian . . .

2005-11-07T12:29:00.000-08:00

You might be a moderate libertarian if you realize that the average person is not a libertarian, cannot be easily converted to libertarianism, and that this is a significant factor when choosing a political strategy.

Private Property Initiates Force

2005-11-06T10:18:00.000-08:00