Topic: Libertarianism
An Open Letter to the Libertarian National Committee Libertarian Party Founder David F. Nolan expresses his concerns about the current direction of the LP in a letter distributed to the members of the Libertarian National Committee.by David F. Nolan
(libertarian)
Friday, July 17, 2009
The following letter has been distributed to the members of the Libertarian National Committee, which is meeting in St. Louis the weekend of July 18-19. If you share my concerns, please contact the officers and at-large members of the LNC, along with the member representing your region of the country. And if you like what I've said here, please give this article a "thumbs up."
Herewith, my best wishes to the members of Libertarian National Committee as it convenes for business in St. Louis, Missouri. You are voluntarily spending your own time and resources to advance the cause of liberty in America, and I commend you all for your commitment.
I hope that you will proceed in a spirit of amity, and urge you to use your time productively. Do not waste it on internal bickering, attempts to censure or expel other Libertarians, and other such trivia. Our country is in deep trouble. Now, more than ever before, the Libertarian Party must offer a coherent and compelling alternative to the stale policies of statism. People are ready to hear our message -- ifthat message is stated clearly and boldly. The success of Ron Paul's 2008 campaign and its outgrowth, the Campaign for Liberty, show that millions of Americans are hungry for real change.
And there is an important lesson to be learned from the success of the Paul campaign and the C4L. That lesson is that it pays to be bold. Notice that the grassroots uprising sparked by the Ron Paul campaign calls itself the Ron Paul REVOLUTION. Not the "Ron Paul gradual reform movement." They're calling for ending the Federal personal income tax, not just mouthing empty platitudes about "lower taxes" or "more freedom." (Compared to what? What we have now? Obama's proposals?) And they are gaining adherents far more rapidly than the Libertarian Party is; the C4L currently has five to ten times as many members as we do!
As I see it, the Libertarian Party has gone far astray from its original mission. Somewhere along the way, our commitment to being The Party of Principle was replaced by a shallow, opportunistic goal of "winning elections now" -- any election, anywhere. Principles be damned, according to the proponents of this vision. We should back off from "scary" positions, tone down our rhetoric, find out "what voters want," and tailor our message to what they want to hear.
The nadir of this mindset was reached in a "Monday Message" dated March 9, 2009. It carried the heading "The most important principle is winning."
I would be hard-put to come up with a statement more antithetical to our beliefs and purpose. Just for starters, "winning" is not a principle at all; it might be a goal, or a strategy for achieving our goals, but it's not a principle. And if it were, it's not our principle. This is pure opportunistic rubbish -- exactly what you'd expect from a Republican or Democratic party hack.
No, the most important principle, for libertarians, is the principle of self-ownership, as set forth in the Preamble to our Platform, and our Statement of Principles. These are the standards by which every policy statement and every campaign must be judged. Anyone who is uncomfortable with this yardstick probably ought to be in another party -- one where "the most important principle is winning."
My fellow Libertarians, our party is at a crossroads. Either we stand up boldly for liberty, or we lose all relevance. The voters who want real, meaningful, substantive change will direct their energies elsewhere, while opportunists who seek short-term electoral victories will support the Republican and Democratic politicians who offer a far better chance of "winning now."
I urge each of you to bear these thoughts in mind during your upcoming meeting.
Yours in Liberty, David F. Nolan July 17, 2009
Preamble to the Libertarian Party Platform
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.
These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.
Libertarian Party Statement of Principles
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 109 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of David F. Nolan only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. David F. Nolan 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.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-07-17 03:35:46
Well done, David. I second your motion. It is incomprehensible to me that the LP has not been all over the financial crisis and its root causes with press releases, public statements, appearances on talk shows, etc. Instead, they settle for preaching to the choir in order to do fundraising. What a waste!
Winning elections is certainly an important goal, but the LP will never get there using the current strategy. The notion that the LP can somehow replace the Reps or the Dems by being moderate is insanity. The task of acquiring precinct captains (Donny Ferguson's latest push) would be far more successful if the LP was taking the bold slant you outline.
Posted By: Chris Spangle
Date: 2009-07-17 08:05:00
In many respects, I agree wholeheartedly with your letter to the Libertarian National Committee. Far too much time is wasted on small, petty issues within this body. The bickering in the meetings, at the convention, and on internet venues does a great disservice to our effort to recruit new volunteers to organize for liberty. As we stand between the chasm of Republic and Empire, our philosophy and the organizations that spring from it, including this political mechanism called the Libertarian Party, are the last credible defense we have in this struggle. Childish bickering should be set aside, and work should be done.
I do not believe that political theorists and political scientists should be at odds within this party. Without the Statement of Principles, what purpose does a County Chair in Indiana really serve? But without that County Chair, the philosophy sits in a notebook, never to be expressed in a meaningful way.Personally, I am fascinated with the way a grassroots organization is built. I spend my days organizing information to help volunteers work at county fairs, evangelize at tea parties, and yes, work on and win campaigns.
We are a political party, not a think tank. Without the proper application of political science, what is the purpose of this organization? The think tanks such as Mises, Cato, and Reason serve to articulate the philosophy’s view on modern day issues at length. They serve local volunteers with the message. Our political party should serve local volunteers with information on how to organize their community. How does one write a press release? How does one start and run a successful petition drive? How is a Freedom of Information Act filed? How can one effectively lobby an elected official? How does a candidate start a campaign? How do organizations fundraise? How do you buy advertisements for events and candidates? What election laws will put you into prison? Libertarian Parties across this nation should be organizing not only to develop the philosophy, but to effectively spread it!
With all due respect, Mr. Nolan, are you interested in the LP moving in the direction of the think tank, and spending less time on organizing our community? If the Libertarian Party cannot begin to organize at the precinct level, and then the county level, and then the state level, and eventually the national level, then should we end this experiment you began? Our entire organization from the Chairs to the volunteers working booths at a 4h Fairs, tea parties, and parades must not only have a basic, and eventually developed, sense of our basic message and principles, but also the proper way to deliver this message.
Our Libertarian Parties should be functional tools to deliver the message of a radical liberty, personal freedom, and that government is an instrument of force designed to limit our rights. Without basic political science being practiced in this party, we are reduced to 3 people on a corner with bull horns, or worse, sitting in a library, talking to no one. In my view, our county, state, and national business meetings should no longer be philosophical discussions. They should be discussions on upcoming opportunities to make an impact on the local political conversation.
With the proper application of political science, we can have 130 candidates in Indiana walking precincts, and their volunteers walking in townships, door to door, spreading our message. Politics isn’t a dishonorable practice. It is the way you practice it.
Ironically, the Campaign for Liberty was used as an example of where we should go as a party. The C4L was started by a high profile Presidential Candidate with the ability to deliver his message on a much wider platform than our party has access to. This is because Ron Paul has worked to win campaigns, and won them repeatedly. But I believe the biggest reason for its success is not it’s cult of personality, or radicalism… It is that the leadership of C4L gives its membership something to do. They hold petition drives, tea parties, membership drives, fundraise, and walk door to door at the request of leadership both local and national. Radicalism is not the lesson. Action and Leadership are.
Chris Spangle
Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Indiana
The last National Convention I attended, the Statement of Principles barely had the 1/8 support it needed to stay in place. In other words, almost 7/8 of the party's membership opposes the Statement of Principles. I doubt you'll sway the LNC by quoting it.
I agree that we do have to keep the bold vision of a free society clearly in mind (I was one of the 1/8 to vote to keep the SoP). However that does not preclude realizing that it will take time to dismantle the state.
Gradual reform is not the enemy. The enemy are those who organize these party purges. I do realize a lot of these people claim to support gradual change, but their actions show all they really support is puffing up their ego and feeling like they the big fish in the little pond.
Finally, I've all but given up on the LP. Groups like C4L have a much better chance of influencing public policy. At least that's where my time and money will be spent.
Posted By: David F. Nolan
Date: 2009-07-17 08:36:37
Carl: All articles on nolanchart.com are automatically copyrighted. To spread this essay, simply post a link to it.
Chris: Nobody is proposing that the LP become a "think tank." My point is that winning means nothing unless we stand firmly for libertarian principles. If we dilute and distort what we stand for in order to win elections, there's no point to having a Libertarian Party. We might as well run as Demos or Repos.
L.T.: The vote in Denver was not to scrap or materially alter the SoP. It was an attempt to remove a few words - "cult of the omnipotent state" - that many people find confusing and distrasting. The great majority of Libertarians I know support the SoP.
Posted By: John Buttrick
Date: 2009-07-17 10:16:11
David, as usual you have succinctly summarized what needs to be done. Hopefully your words will be heeded now, at the 2010 convention and, most importantly, at the 2012 convention. If the LP fails to become an overtly radical organization again by 2012 I am afraid it is doomed.
Posted By: Stephen Carter
Date: 2009-07-17 10:28:48
You can have your principles all you want but you're not going to do diddly squat for society if you don't win elections. You won't win elections unless you move towards less radical positions and then slowly work your way to where you want to be.
are you interested in the LP moving in the direction of the think tank, and spending less time on organizing our community
The LNC today spends almost no time "organizing our community." Some local parties and mostly caucuses within the LP do that, and usually encounter flak from LNC members for doing so.
If the defense of the current LNC situation is going to be "but if we change, we'll be less effective at politics," that's a weak defense -- the LNC is already close to 0 in the efficacy department, so going "down" further isn't really possible.
I often hear the canard that "the LP exists to win elections." The people who advanced the Bob Barr candidacy (and who are promoting the Wayne Root candidacy for 2012) often repeat it most often. However, they have failed utterly in that department as well. Watering down the platform, running statist Republicans, and ignoring issues that put the LP at odds with major parties on populist issues has been advanced as a "strategy" for the better part of five years yet has delivered not one iota of "victory" or even a meaningful increase in popular support in federal and state elections.
you're not going to do diddly squat for society if you don't win elections. You won't win elections unless you move towards less radical positions and then slowly work your way to where you want to be.
A great example of the Reform Caucus ethos in action.
The Reform Caucus candidate, former GOP Congressman Bob Barr, was the "move towards less radical positions" that they called for. His running mate, Wayne Root, is arguably their spiritual leader.
The result of that election? They got about the same percentage of the vote in the presidential election as super-radical dark-horse Michael Badnarik.
The most successful Libertarian presidential candidate in history by both total votes and percentage of votes was Ed Clark -- whose candidacy was considerably more "radical" than the Reform Caucus candidacies that failed to deliver anywhere near the same level of votes.
So now that their strategy failed in 2006's mid-term elections and 2008's presidential elections, the RCers are determined to prove that repeating a failed strategy over and over and over will actually one day pay off. In this, they're quite similar to advocates for government health care who argue that no matter how many times it's failed in the past, for the same reasons, this time it will work "just because." :)
What is the thought process on joining the Republican Party as Ron Paul did to gain easy access to debates and all the other amenities of the 2 party system. If Socialists like Obama can join the Democratic party in order to become electable, it only seems fair that we should employ the same tactics (as Ron Paul did) and run under the Republican Ticket simply as a means to an end.
Throughout the history of this country, we have been ruled by 2 parties, only on very rare occasions did a third party even make a dent in the polls and never has it carried a state. The way I see it, we can either wait for the Republican Party to disintegrate or carry our message as Rep. Paul did by basically infiltrating the Republican Party and getting our message out to the national audience. Otherwise, the LP is simply going to be an underground party that gathers at best 2% each election.
Yes, Dave Nolan continues to add to the noise level in the libertarian movement, this time showing that he again didn't understand that Monday Message.
Let me clarify the point of it for the clueless: the libertarian cause is not advanced by losing.
Posted By: t fairweather
Date: 2009-07-17 11:04:09
Never comprimise our own principles but I think we need to consider the possibility of collaberating with certain libertarian leaning republicans for example: If a libertarian were to run for senate in South Carolina winning 8% of the vote and lets say Jim DeMint wound up with 44% and James Clybern were the Dem and he got 46% would the cause of liberty be any better off? There are some realities in vote splitting that we cannot ignore. Thoughts?
Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2009-07-17 11:23:45
Reformers continue to compare false alternatives. Reformers say that the radicals had their way and failed, and the reform agenda is the alternative. As was stated by Brian Miller earlier, Barr/W.A.R. got 0.4% of the presidential vote, just like Michael Badnarik did 4 years earlier. By comparison, Barr's name recognition of 30%+ to Badnarik's 5% made no difference, as did Barr's "mainstream" platform made no difference.
The TRUE alternatives are, A-) the reformer's agenda which will blend into nothingnesss as it is a essentially a lesser known Republican Party agenda, OR, B-) a radical agenda, which is distinctive, and will continue to work slowly toward moving the political discourse toward libertarian solutions.
I agree completely, but to do that we need to get votes. In order to get votes you have to have access to the national audience (ie the national televised debates). This entails swallowing our pride and running in the Republican primaries, just as Rep. Ron Paul did last year. Put aside stupid party pride, and run on the principles and policy which is what matters ultimately. 0.4% is just embarassing.
Let me clarify the point of it for the clueless: the libertarian cause is not advanced by losing....
... your principles.
I thought I'd finish your thought for you.
Posted By: Susan Hogarth
Date: 2009-07-17 12:19:04
Ben Kalafut: "Let me clarify the point of it for the clueless: the libertarian cause is not advanced by losing."
Tell that to the victims of Amritsar. Sometimes losing a battle falls well within the purview of winning the war, and this is true in politics as well as in actual battle.
Would you say, Ben, that an LP candidate for governor who gets Libertarian policy proposals and ideas in the news, gains hundreds of new Party members, and gains ballot access for the Party, is not 'advancing the libertarian cause' if he does not gains the governor's mansion?
Thise seems like an exceedingly narrow view of politics, if you ask me, *especially* third-party politics. It dooms Libertarians to conceding that we are almost entirely a failure as a political party - and I, for one, do not beleive that, having seen the LP influence many indivdiuals and groups.
I think it is pertinent that the most important principle is identified as self-ownership, not non-aggression or non-initiation of force.
I certainly agree we need to keep our eyes on our overall goal; increasing liberty. I think, however, that Mr. Nolan is mis-characterizing what many people are advocating for the LP to do.
Despite what that unfortunate Monday Message said, I don't believe I have ever heard any LP members seriously propose the Party abandon its principles. If we want to advance our mission to increase liberty, a good way for a political party to do that is to contest and win elections.
That doesn't mean the public education component of our mission is thrown out the window. In fact, campaigns for elected office are often a very good way to reach a lot of people who otherwise would not be reached. Clearly having libertarian people in decision-making elected offices would help our mission.
Taking reasonable policy positions that both increase liberty and the likelihood of short-term implementation, or of winning an election, is not the same as abandoning principles.
The LP put forth its radical, bold message for over over thirty years with virtually no effect on the political process or the erosion of liberty. It should be noted also that the Ron Paul C4L is not a political party, and that the Ron Paul Revolution is named after an individual.
It is one thing to call for the elimination of the income tax. It is another to comprehensively address the scope and authority of government. We cannot be a one-issue political party and accomplish our mission.
It is a little disheartening to once again hear someone so intimately involved with the LP invite those who would like to take an other-than-completely-radical approach to leave the Party.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-07-17 15:50:05
Mik, you've got it all wrong. People aren't leaving the party because David Nolan told them to. To the contrary, I thought his article was quite positive and unifying on that point. No, people like me have already left the party because we figured out on our own that the current leadership was leading the party nowhere. It turns out that undermining principle is a counter-productive idea after all. Don't blame David Nolan for the diaspora moving away from the LP. That blame falls squarely on the current and recent LP leadership.
As for the rest of you reformers and apologists, I can't help but notice that none of you have said a word in this discussion about the LP's almost complete lack of participation in the noise being made about the financial crisis. Anyone who thinks it's a bad idea to argue for principle in the middle of the biggest state-driven economic storm in a generation that has almost uniformly angered the entire population just plain does not know what he's talking about when it comes to politics.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-07-17 16:03:56
Hi David,
Well said. Of course I diverge from your assessment of the consequences continuous pressure to lure conservatives with conscience and integrity away from the GOP. I can't see any way in 40 years the LP has advanced the cause of liberty. In my view they have only opened the door and whipped the neocons on the ass, spurring them forward with no restraint.
There is no way the LP has done anything significant to counter that run-away horse of empire. If Ron Paul had not been a Republican the world would have forgotten about him already and everything he has accomplished would have been consumed by the LP inherent tendency toward self-marginalization.
The political process encompasses a wide range of activities.
Politics is moving people. Voting and elections are only a part, an expression or even only a result of: politics. Education, community, demonstration, and fellowshipping are also VERY large parts of any political process. "People" is the root of the word "politic", not "government" nor the word "election".
The purges in the LNC are very disturbing. It is my mind that we may do well to replace every member we can at the next convention. I have seen little productive out of the LNC in years and far too much that is divisive and destructive. It may be time to give some new faces a chance.
The Libertarian Party might do better to be way out there, especially now that the Republican Party has become essentially Libertarian Lite.
Let the Republican Liberty Caucus worry about winning elections for the libertarian movement. Then the LP will be free to go way out on the extreme as the Party's Founder wishes.
Posted By: David F. Nolan
Date: 2009-07-17 18:16:45
While I suspect that Eric Dondero's comment is intended as sarcasm, he has a point. If someone wants to run as a sorta-kinda libertarian, and cares about immediate electoral victory more than remaining true to libertarian principles, then running as a Republican could well make sense in many situations. Ironically, however, Mr. Dondero vehemently opposed Ron Paul's effort to do just that in 2008 because Dr.Paul was too libertarian for Dondero's taste.
Posted By: John Jay Myers
Date: 2009-07-17 22:52:22
I found my way to the Libertarian Party because I saw Ron Paul on television, and said "I like that guy!" When I learned his values I stacked them up and realized that they were almost identical to the Libertarian principles. So it was simple for me to decide I have to do whatever it takes to help.
The Republican Party is corrupt to the core, and their ties to Religion and War make them an unacceptable alternative. I have just begun to fight for this party, and Dallas is making considerable headway.
Mr. Nolan is right, we cannot be halfsies on this, it doesn't make sense with our philosophy. You can't understand that we spend too much money... without understanding that most of that is on War. I say this because some will get on TV and talk about the financial crisis and never mention a Trillion dollar foreign policy.
I probably couldn't go on Fox news without getting in a fist fight (working on it).
We need to keep pushing on the Fed, and the war, and FREEDOM for all! Our problem is NOT the message it is the Marketing!
And ladies and gentlemen I am here to tell you ....these times they are a changing. Hang in there guys we have the right message we will get it out there.
Besides abandoning the principles of self-ownership and the non-initiation of force, libertarians also seem to be clueless in regards to the state of the union and in regards to what it takes to win elections.
America is rapidly becoming a totalitarian dystopia. No amount of happy talk, wishful thinking or flag waving changes the fact that America is essentially insolvent, a police/surveillance state, a rogue warfare state, etc. - the hideous truth is plain to see.
The Republican/Democrat machine does not allow third party candidates participate in elections in any meaningful way. Media coverage of third party candidates must be "earned" while media coverage of Republicans and Democrats is rarely earned.
Running LP candidates is an opportunity to reach out to those interested in politics and spread the libertarian message. To abandon the libertarian message and tell voters what an unexperienced LP hack thinks they want to hear will never move society in a libertarian direction.
Baby steps in the direction of liberty while the nation is moving in leaps and bounds away from liberty is a bullshit strategy. Running candidates on shoe-string budgets with little media coverage and no participation in debates while thinking there is any chance of winning is delusional.
Posted By: John Jay Myers
Date: 2009-07-17 23:31:07
You know I typed out that email and never got to the real point. The point is simply this...The Libertarian Party is growing, here in Dallas we have grown 5 times in the last year.
Most people are voting for Obama because they have had enough of War, but not because they feel a need for Welfare, they just think anything is better than Bush... for the most part they are right.
Unfortunately the alternative is no better. So we are seeing massive waves of people coming to see our point of view. What do we want them to see when they arrive? Now is the time to not weaken due to a small influx if you are unable to communicate our message to new people... practice. Because our message is not crazy, our principles are not "whacko" they are common sense, we represent the only true philosophy that can last.
Ron Pauls straight talk about what were considered "crazy" issues two years ago are now mainstream.
That being said, in Dallas we are now focused on Grass roots precinct by precinct, gettting the message out. It's not about winning.. it's about getting the message out. And if by chance we win along the way.... FANTASTIC. But we are equipping ourselves with the same grass roots tools.
Michael Badnarik was my roommate for Freedom Fest in Vegas, he has some good thoughts on issues we need to pursue while were waiting for more and more people to join our cause, like legitimatizing voting machines.... etc.
I for one look at this as a 10-12 year war, because I no longer see a difference between Republicans and Democrats and refuse to waste my time helping either.... we need to focus on the message, and within a short period of time we will achieve 34 percent.
Posted By: Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-07-18 14:04:35
Dear David -
Fantastic letter, and I do hope it is warmly received and acted upon. I myself am beyond frustration, which is why I am running for US Congress - as a private citizen.
Although I have never been an LP member, the LP statement of principles was one of the documents I've reviewed while building my list of campaign principles, and if you want to take a look at distilling them down, take a look.
I wish the best of luck to the LP and any other third party in focusing on their message and principles. We need to save our country. I look forward to meeting promising LP candidates and members in my area.
Would you say, Ben, that an LP candidate for governor who gets Libertarian policy proposals and ideas in the news, gains hundreds of new Party members, and gains ballot access for the Party, is not 'advancing the libertarian cause' if he does not gains the governor's mansion?
Such a candidate becomes newsworthy insofar as he's "in the race" meaningfully.
And the act of losing does not advance the cause, especially not relative to the act of winning. The hypothetical candidate you mentioned advances the cause despite losing, not because he lost.
Marc Montoni:
Let me clarify the point of it for the clueless: the libertarian cause is not advanced by losing....
... your principles.
"Principles" are for lesser men. "Principles" is the word old-fashioned libertarians use to refer to heuristics that they elevate over others, as a way to shut down discussion. "These heuristics are superduperheuristics. They're 'my heuristics right-or-wrong' kind of heuristics. They're Principles! They are unquestionable and inviolable and apply always and everywhere even when they don't and even when they're wrong!"
If a libertarian cannot come up with a way to run for office and meet the voter halfway that's true to his values or his personal morality, he ought to not run.
If you can't come up with ways to meet the voter halfway and cannot come up with realistic, socially responsible ways to make things better by application of libertarian ideas, cannot come up with libertarian solutions to the concerns of the day, if you find your "principles" getting in the way of sensible positions and sensible actions, you need to seriously think about why you are a libertarian and perhaps rethink your "principles". "I am a libertarian even though if I get what I want the city/county/state/country/world will be worse off?" If that's what your "principles" entail, you need to lose those "principles."
I don't have principles. I'm beyond that. I'm above that. "Principles" thinking is equivalent to self-imposed cognitive defecit. I'd rather be able to think clearly about problems individuall, and to have discussions with my fellows unhindered, to speak to and even persuade people who don't already agree with me.
My concerns are with bad, good, better policy, with effective and ineffective action, with scientific truth and falsehood, with human welfare, and with ethical right and wrong. Way, way beyond "principles."
What about people who disagree not with the moral sentiment but rather because they find the particulars or wording childish or stupid.
For example, if one must agree that there even is a "cult of the omnipotent state" to be in the Libertarian Party then only crackpots will be in the Libertarian Party. And "sole dominion" could be taken to be in opposition to the rule of law, which would put the LP at odds with most serious libertarian thinkers (meaning those respected even by those who disagree.) And the whole thing is full of categorical statements, about all and always and such, even where libertarian philosophers recognize subtlety and places where liberty itself conflicts with this.
An SOP which, when taken seriously, is something all or most thinking libertarians of conscience would disagree with is not an SOP worthy of what is supposed to be the political wing of the libertarian movement. It is thus not a good choice for a "bright line" test.
Posted By: David F. Nolan
Date: 2009-07-19 09:16:20
BK: I have supported the occasional moves to remove the "cult of the omnipotent state" language; I have no problem with "sole dominion." However, the notion that those phrases are what's keeping people from joining the LP is just silly. The prblem lies more with members (and especially candidates) who lack social skills (think IS, RK, etc. locally) and a perception that "third party csandidates can't win."
Posted By: David F. Nolan
Date: 2009-07-19 09:56:20
JJM: What would you be interviewing me ABOUT? The state of the USA and the world? The internal problems of the LP? Would you travel to Tucson, or would this be a phone interview?
Eric Dondero is not a libertarian. He worships war, death, violence, and destruction. His priority is the death of all Palestinians, Iranians, Afghans, and all those who oppose his beloved Israel.
Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2009-07-19 12:21:03
Ben Kalafut - "I don't have principles. I'm beyond that."
When born, a person has no principles. As he or she matures, it becomes clear that having principles not only serves many positive/productive purposes, they are, IMHO natural to adopt because that is the essence of the human, perceptive, cognitive mind.
Apparently, Mr. Kalafut has moved beyond "productive" and being humanly "mindful". Moving "beyond" in Mr. Kalafut's case is a clear indication of severe regression.
Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2009-07-19 12:37:14
Randy said, "This entails swallowing our pride and running in the Republican primaries, just as Rep. Ron Paul did last year".
OK by me, but the LP's purpose will almost undoubtedly never become one of winning elections.
As in the physics of motion and force, resultant force will never be altered by sticking close to the current climate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force). Only by positioning itself way out at the principled position (far, far from current circumstances) can the LP's limited "pull" have an effect on the "result".
Posted By: John Jay Myers
Date: 2009-07-19 13:06:57
Mr. Nolan,
I just drove through Arizona on my way to Freedom Fest, I should have stopped.
Next time I am out that way I can do it, or if you ever happen to be travelling through Dallas, I prefer to make videos, though I really should come up with a way to record phone calls.
Anyway, it would be about: Iran, Iraq, Israel and War, The future of the LP. The Federal Reserve, Healthcare, Who do you think speaks best for the Lp. What do you think of Wayne Allyn.... that type of thing. Believe me I can keep them coming.
BK: I have supported the occasional moves to remove the "cult of the omnipotent state" language; I have no problem with "sole dominion." However, the notion that those phrases are what's keeping people from joining the LP is just silly. The prblem lies more with members (and especially candidates) who lack social skills (think IS, RK, etc. locally) and a perception that "third party csandidates can't win."
I didn't claim the SOP keeps people out. I claim that it and the Platform preamble would make a lousy bright-line test because applied in such a way they would keep people out. You claim in your "open letter", and correct me if my paraphrasing gets you wrong, that they are the minimum with which a libertarian should be expected to agree to be worthy of consideration by the LNC.
A libertarian shouldn't be expected to believe in sovereignty of the individual or total lack of government and law to participate in what's supposed to be the Party for Libertarians. I'm not saying that that's what the people in the room intended that language to mean, either. A good text, or at least one worthy of my agreement, doesn't require an "original intent" exegesis of the "by Q they really meant to say P" sort.
Depending on where you are at, the social awkwardness is compounded by two things: right-wing conspiracist nuttery and an attitude toward unapologetic minarchists that's the opposite of welcoming.
Steve LaBlanca:
In the eighteenth century we believed that Man was born with no innate heuristics, heuristics being that which many libertarians call "principles." 20th and 21st century research has shown that the humans are full of innate heuristics. See The Blank Slate, by Steven Pinker (coincidentally, a libertarian) for exposition and references.
Heuristic thinking is natural and human, but it only gets one so far. To elevate certain heuristics to the status of inviolable "principles" sets up roadblocks where there were formally speed bumps. For example, much science education research shows that our innate physics, while extremely suited for hunter-gatherer life, conflicts with scientific physics to the point of yielding a wrong answer.
Similarly economists, especially those with libertarian leanings, lament that popular heuristics often yield a wrong answer. See Bryan Caplan's book for starters.
As far as I know, philosophers don't lament this as frequently. (Perhaps they do and I have missed it; I'm not an expert.) But crack open a good philosophy book--David Schmidtz's Elements of Justice is a libertarian choice that is especially appropriate--and you will find that principles-thinking is not a methodology that is even compatible with what philosophers do. We can't get at the question of what it means e.g. to deserve something by saying "here is my plain-language heuristic. I elevate it to the status of Principle. It is inviolable. The end."
Heuristics are great. I wouldn't want to drive my car or bat a baseball using any method but heuristic thinking. But many problems require deeper thought than heuristics. This is why we have philosophers and economists.
To elevate heuristics to the status of "principle", however, is to refuse deep thought.
Don't blame David Nolan for the diaspora moving away from the LP.
No, blame Dave Nolan for enabling and encouraging the ideologues who in turn for years in many places made most libertarians unwelcome in the Libertarian Party, and for promoting a strategy--demand utopia now!--that made the LP, whatever its early promise, effete.
Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2009-07-19 14:57:28
Not surprising that Mr. Kalafut references Caplan.
Apparently, economics is a forecasting discpline then, and validity of various economic thought becomes the ability to yield "right" and "wrong" answers. What the questions are, however, I guess are equally up to the deciders of "correct" and "incorrect" economic thought. Sounds potentially tautological to me.
Utopia as described by Kalafut is equaly misguided. Frankly, it is far more utopian to believe that having the state make and enforce law to make society "work".
Maybe Mr. Kalafut ought to define "liberty" first, and then decide what the proper way to promote and achieve it is. But, I suspect that THAT would take adhering to principle!
Apparently, economics is a forecasting discpline then, and validity of various economic thought becomes the ability to yield "right" and "wrong" answers. What the questions are, however, I guess are equally up to the deciders of "correct" and "incorrect" economic thought. Sounds potentially tautological to me.
No, I have not made any claim that economics is a forecasting disciplne nor any statement that could be interpreted that way, to the point where I say you are practicing a weasel tactic by having me make a stupid claim that is obviously, from the context, not what I said.
There are other ways in which an answer can be "wrong" than in the forecasting sense. If you go back to Caplan you'll find that his concern, in this context, is about the mismatch between the outcomes people desire and the policy they support. Common "principles" lead to the wrong answer.
Maybe Mr. Kalafut ought to define "liberty" first, and then decide what the proper way to promote and achieve it is. But, I suspect that THAT would take adhering to principle!
On the contrary, it would take more time than I have to do either quesiton complete justice. Defining liberty in a way that is not an insult to the philosopers (that is, in a way that isn't an intellectual embarassment to myself!) and figuring out the proper way to achieve it in a way that is not an insult to the political scientists entails quite a bit of heavy lifting. And someone who adheres to principle would not be able to meaningfully answer the question at all. Intellectual heavy lifting is not done by rules-of-thumb.
If you think that anyone here is capable of doing either of your questions justice, you are probably mistaken about the nature of this forum. This is not a scholarly website.
Thank YOU for the reminder, because it is, and always will be, principles.
As I unhappily but diligently point out to all my family, friends, and anyone else who will listen, the LP is already a lost cause. (Barr was my tipping point). The LP should take note: As I learned in sales, I am one of those customers who quietly left the store, but will eternally warn others not to shop there. My vote, and all the others I can persuade, will never be for compromise.
However, as you pointed out, the liberty revolution is now growing by leaps and bounds, and I believe we just might be witnessing history!
David, the American people - especially the vast middle - are not ideologues. The more ideologically pure you make your party, the smaller it becomes: those on the outside see it as useless, and those on the inside engage in Purity Witchunts.
Eric, there is no way you can call the GOP "Libertarian Light." Too many of those in the RLC are apparently intellectually unable to distinguish between being a small 'l' libertarian and a conservative, and if they can, they have sold their souls to the Social Statists on the Right in order to have a semblance of a base within the party.
There is, alas, no Pragmatic libertarian voice in American politics.
Somewhere between the Blue Dogs, the LP, and the paleocon "Campaign for Liberty" there is that pragmatic libertarian core.
The Libertarian Reform Caucus isn't seeking to kick the ideologues out but is seeking to make the LP the Party for All (Constructive) Libertarians. The LP--and I didn't realize this when I joined as a teenager--turned into a sort of haven for ideological "museum libertarianism" and thus the practically-oriented left, by law of group polarization. Having to deal with constant FUD campaigns from Nolan and his type became too much waste of time for too many people.
Have a look at the Reform Caucus, the haven for the constructive.
The Libertarian Party is a joke. And its not because there aren't that many people that are libertarian, they just aren't willing to throw away a countable vote for the sake of staying true to an ideology.
From a practical point of view, I can't understand why the Libertarian candidates don't run in the republican primaries. I doubt registered republicans even know what a republican is nowadays. What are you afraid of, angering a few idealogues and purists that make up the massive 0.4% voting block you currently have? Noone is asking the candidates to change their ideology, just to actually stand a chance at winning an election or at the very least a state. Atleast the Socialists have realized this advantage and they are taking full use of the Democratic Primaries.
I don't know about Mr. Nolan but I am sick of punching a vote for the "L" candidate knowing full well he has absolutely no chance in a 2 party system. It doesn't really matter talking about party stances when your party is barren of members.
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.
