Topic: Political Parties
Why the Libertarian Party Doesn't Work (at getting someone elected president) If we were to one day elect a Libertarian president who successfully dismantled many government programs and cut taxes dramatically that would be a wonderful break for a few years. But if that Libertarian president left the government structure as a whole intact it would then do what governments naturally do: grow.by Jeremy West
(Libertarian)
Monday, May 26, 2008
Harry Browne wrote a wonderful book on liberty entitled, Why Government Doesn't Work which lays out beautifully the reasons behind government failure.
Note, the book is not called "Why Big Government Doesn't Work", "Why Republican Governments Don't Work", or "Why Democrat Governments Don't Work", it is about why government doesn't work, period.
If we were to one day elect a Libertarian president who successfully dismantled many government programs and cut taxes dramatically that would be a wonderful break for a few years. But if that Libertarian president left the government structure as a whole intact it would then do what governments naturally do: grow.
What would even be the point of a small government anyway? If government were good at what it did, wouldn't we want it to be as big as possible so that it could fix as many of life's problems as possible? But if government is bad at everything it does, and only makes problems it sets out to solve worse, then what programs would you want a small government to run? Certainly not the most important ones?
I was once very excited by the fact that the Libertarian Party was there to vote for. And I am still at a point in my libertarian development where I will most likely vote for Bob Barr this fall.
However, I have come to see why the party will most likely never get anyone elected. As you learn about liberty and the philosophy grows on you, it becomes clearer and clearer everyday that it is not a small government we need but no government at all. The Libertarian Party pledge itself says, "I hereby pledge that I do not believe in nor advocate the initiation of force or fraud as a means of achieving political or social goals." The more you study the philosophy of liberty, the more you realize that governments cannot do anything without being funded by tax (gained by force in the form of the threat of imprisonment) and backed up by guns in the hands of police.
This means in practice that the Libertarian Party is therefore the last political step for those who end up becoming apolitical. People who leave the Republican or Democrat parties and join the Libertarian Party are on a philosophical path towards anarchy. Being that it is the last step, they often don't stay long. So while the Libertarian Party has been and I hope will continue to be immensely helpful in leading people toward the ideas of freedom, it doesn't hold them long enough to grow. Nor should it logically be able to, as it is only a stepping stone.
So while I believe I will vote for the Libertarian candidate this year (can I claim I am doing it in self defense?) I can see myself (like so many before me) within four years having philosophically moved past politics altogether and not giving the system any legitimacy by casting my vote for leader of the gang, even if my candidate claims he only wants the position to make the gang as small as possible. The gang only exists legitimately by our belief in it. I'm almost ready to stop believing.
If you enjoyed this article, please use the buttons above to digg it and subscribe to The Jeremy West Column. Then enjoy my other articles below:
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jeremy West only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jeremy West is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I assume that I must be older than you, because I moved on quite a few years ago. Although I am remotely interested in what the Libertarians are up to these days, actually registering and voting for the Libertarian party would be somewhat of a philosophical oxymoron to me.
That's one of the big problems I had with Harry Browne. His writings polluted Libertarian thought with anarchist messages. The LP is about limited government that does work, not about no government. You should be looking to define yourself as an anarchist, not a Libertarian, because that's exactly what you're arguing for in this article.
The very thought that government doesn't work at all rests on a pollyanna/new age view of the world that assumes that if you leave people free with no controls, they will naturally leave each other free and not attempt to control out of the religious/idealistic notion of "enlightened self interest".
The problem is, while human beings in general have self interest down to an artform, the enlightened part is lacking. Furthermore, what you think is enlightened, others might not. Judicial systems arose in our human cultures precisely because of this. All around the world, we have found that if there is a government judicial system that is more or less fair, equitable, and consistent in the administration of justice, society is much happier, safer, AND MORE FREE than when such a system does not exist. Government judicial systems combined with law enforcement DO work, the alternative is the wild west.
The wild west eventually degenerated into being NOT FREE for most. A handful of jerkoffs with guns willing to trample other people's rights took power in the form of being tyranical mayors, sheriffs, even outlaws. Those types of people still exist and you will not win them over with your pollyanna arguments. If you do not create a government to keep those type of people in check, they will create a government that will keep you in check. That's how it is.
The reason a libertarian is a libertarian and not an anarchist who believes that governments don't work at all, is because we recognize that governments do work. Government is a tool, like a gun, that can either be used to serve the public good, or to do the public harm. Libertarians are SUPPOSED to be the ones demanding that the use of the tool be restrained to those cases in which it is absolutely neccesary to safeguard the rights of the individual from other individuals. This is in contrast to the democrats and republicans who look at every problem in society and see only nails that need to be hit with the hammer of government.
Harry Browne polluted a lot of young minds with nice sounding but unrealistic idealistic pollyanna ideas that make their adherents worthless allies in the battle for limited government. You want to be a potent force for freedom in the world, burn his books and study what the founding fathers had to say about freedom and governments. They founded a nation on the principles of individual liberty. Harry Browne sold a lot of books.
Quite the melodrama, if I may say so. It seems just another form of political death, another brand of apathy that is killing you off. But honestly, how do you suppose you're going to reach anarchy one day? Through non-participation?
What the Libertarian party needs to realize what is keeping it back from actually demonstrating that freedom works is a more minarchic view of things in the first place.
Even Ayn Rand knew it was rational that we would need minarchy, to confer the objective powers of arbitration. Can you fathom what would happen if we actually had private courts where they could randomly spin their own unique set of rules against you to send you to a private prison?
Unlimited freedom would only work in a pacifist society. You must realize that Libertarians are not a lost cause, merely aiming in the wrong direction, as a testament to their existence for 37 years. If people dropped out and retired from political life as often as you suggested, there would be no change.
Luckily, there are some people out there who are trying to reform the LP and actually facilitate grounds for a philosophical revolution. I hope you may someday contribute.
You whined and cried at the tactics of the infamous three letter acronym MSM and their tactics against Ron Paul yet you are an expert in utilizing those same tactics against the Libertarian Party.
Attack the basics...assert an unprovable scenario...then attack the object itself.
Listen if Ron Paul means being immune to logic then I no longer identify with him....or should I just pull up all the articles urging Ron Paul to run Libertarian.
Barr is doing what Ron Paul is too skeemish to do and that is run. His argument that running third party means you don't have ballot access is obvious bull crap and you are left supporting the party of Bush Rove and Chaney.
Let me ask you a question...if you came home and saw two random people you later found out was a hooker and a john who broke into your house to have sex...having sex in your bedroom on the sheets would you
a) wash the sheets and put them back on the bed or
b) throw them out and get new ones
Well same question, if the Republican party as a majority has been criminally libel for the destruction of our country's wealth, stature, Constitution, and human lives in the form of an illegal war should you
I hear that sort of argument from a lot of "libertarians", and find it laking in a number of ways. First, there is the issue of semantics-generally the extension of this argument to investigations of damages, murder, etc, involves privately contracted defense companies, that would investigate your death on your behalf-so long as you paid enough for the service, and nobody paid them more(like the killer, for instance). Not only is this a police force by another name, it is literally for hire, and not accountable-a semantic juggle and a naive view of people frankly.
The rhetorical hoops that Rothbard went through to ensure that government was totally unnecessary are illustrative.
Then of course is the second, and more obscure issue-Anarchy exists now. It is the very thing that keeps you from the freedom that you claim to covet. Those who are in charge, our Masters in many cases, blatantly disregard written law and do as they damn well please. Why? They have the guns, it's as simple as that. Guess what, someone will always have the guns-it will always be so, and has always been so. All anarchy would do is do away with the quaint idea that it is wrong for those with the guns to do as they please. That "gang" exists by force, not because people believe in it, wishing it away won't change that any more than pretending a mugger doesn't exist will let you keep your wallet without being stabbed.
Government is good when it works to secure liberty-such as prosecuting a murderer(without being paid-for or off)-and horrid when it works against liberty-like jailing a pot smoker(or stealing children in Texas).
It is us against them in many cases, and by buying into the idea that politics is pointless, because they should not be there in the first place, you support them.
Keep thinking and evolving-you might realize how desperate it really is at some point-and continue to try to keep the bastards at bay as long as possible.
Posted By: Jeremy West (author)
Date: 2008-05-26 17:57:12
Mike—you say that what we have now is anarchy. I agree. This is why I said the government only exists legitimately due to our belief in it. Therefore, everything is anarchy, and it is the people with the biggest guns who rule.
In reality, government is an organization that has a monopoly on force. And they use monies gained by force to protect their monopoly.
I absolutely agree that we need defensive forces to restrain “governments” from forming and taking away our freedoms. However, we must never give these defensive forces the very monopoly that makes them a government themselves ready to take away our freedoms.
I agree that this is partly semantics. The difference between what you want (a small government funded by what if not taxes?) and what I want (competing defense agencies funded by voluntary marketplace transactions—call it competing governments if you wish) is simply a matter of who pays for it and whether or not those payments are truly voluntary.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-05-27 05:31:37
I can't help but notice that those who criticize this columnist's view don't address the real question he raises...how to make big government small and then keep it small. That's the 800 lb gorrilla in this particular room.
Let's be brutally honest: the Constitution has many holes in it, and over the years the big government types have driven tanks through those holes in their never-ending quest to expand Federal power. I favor limiting the Federal government to what the Constitution permits, but what's to stop the Feds from ignoring the Constitution when it suits them? Nothing! After all, they make and enforce the laws, and they also select the judges. They are an inner circle of one party claiming to be two parties, which effectively prevents third parties from having a realistic chance. They have the money and the power, and they use both effectively to their own advantage (and to a net loss for most other Americans, because politics is a zero-sum game). That's been the #1 lesson of American History.
I'd like to see the critics talk about how to realistically make government small and then KEEP it small. That's a much more difficult task than to sit back and poke holes in anarcho-capitalist theory.
"I can't help but notice that those who criticize this columnist's view don't address the real question he raises...how to make big government small and then keep it small. That's the 800 lb gorrilla in this particular room."
It's very simple, really. The people need to be active and vigilant in pursuing a common justice. Beyond that, there are a myriad of solutions.
If, as they suggested, government ceases to be and turns to anarchy the moment it starts to grow, then it is anarchy to blame. Naturally, we all know power corrupts, but the only way to check that power is remain vigilant. Our founders tried to do that in a way that itself was non-coercive, but it's still just one of the accepted dichotomies of life.
"I'd like to see the critics talk about how to realistically make government small and then KEEP it small. That's a much more difficult task than to sit back and poke holes in anarcho-capitalist theory."
I still don't know what critics you mean, but honestly, since anarchy and statism come full circle, and while the factors are interlinked, it can't be done, if only for a lack of trying. There's your answer.
I believe your point is true for the Libertarian paty today represents only the extremist view of libertarianism. There is a wide spectrum to chose from in the libertarian portion of the nolan chart, and there are different degrees of libertarianism. Myself, I believe in a smaller government. One that encourages self growth, but is available when neede to help solve problems.
No government is not a philosophy of most libertarian minded people, it is the repesentation of the fringe element of our party. Most logical people can see that some government is need, but that government should not impose its will on our personal freedoms and liberties.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
