Libertarians as a party don't win elections because they limit their diversity, which in turn limits their numbers. That needs to change. by Dale Husband
(liberal)
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
I first became interested in the Libertarian Party because of its strong anti-war stance. In my opinion, it's the one thing that definitely makes libertarians better than the Republicans or even many Democrats:
But most of their positions against governmental intervention seem too extreme and unrealistic. If they would moderate their platform to support smaller government in general instead of taking any absolute positions, then they could gain a larger and more diverse membership and start winning elections at the federal level, which they never have before. Their reluctance to be more moderate is their first mistake. As the Nolan Chart shows, the Libertarian Party needs to be open to all those that would score as "Libertarians", not just those purists who would be at the uppermost tip of the chart, and perhaps even Liberals, Centrists, and Conservatives well away from the lower (Statist) part of the chart.
Their second mistake is to ally themselves with the Republicans against the Democrats. If the Republicans ever regain power, what's to stop them from throwing the Libertarians under the bus later to persue power for themselves once more?
A group that is ideologically pure can never take power in a pluralistic democracy. It can only do so by force, which libertarianism does not allow. Therefore, the Libertarians may never take power, though they should. Fortunately, there are some who see this and are working to make the Libertarian Party a more diverse one:
Assuming that they ultimately fail, however, there is another possibility. It would involve libertarians taking over the Republican Party and getting rid of the most hard-core Conservative elements in it. The best example of a libertarian who is also a Republican is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who ran for President last year.
Either possibility will be fine with me. The status quo of a weak Libertarian Party, a stronger Republican Party still dominated by neo-Conservatism, and a Democratic Party with total power and no accountablity is not!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Dale Husband only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Dale Husband 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 don't believe any true Libertarian allies himself with the Republicans against the demos. There are many neo-cons who pose as Libertarians who may do that, but the ideals of the repub party are so far removed from the ideals of libertarians, it is not even funny.
Many libertarians are for a small or mini government, but it is impossible in my own view for a libertarian to "moderate" their basic views. For this, the idea of a "bubble" libertarian society has come about. the idea that libertarian views only exist in an utopia.
i think many libertarians work towards their principles rather than holding to strict, no compromise stands. for instance many are involved in "reforming" tax issues rather than total removal of taxes.
In my own case, even though I firmly oppose income tax, I believe across the board implementation of a consistent rate [rather than special interest breaks and rates] is a good alternative. better yet would be replacement with the "single tax" which I think you would be very interested in.
perhaps the most important concept Libertarians share and part of what you mentioned, is to abstain from the use of force. This is something that cannot be compromised and applies to all the principles. It is a continual struggle to apply this basic principle and not be hypocritical.
I would like to see the Libertarians oust both the Republicans and the Democrats. But that isn't going to happen unless the American people open their eyes and realize what's going on. Right now very few people have any understanding of the constitution or the constitutional role of government. There seems to be two camps; one camp wants free stuff from the government. The other camp wants the military to beat the hell out of some other country. It doesn't matter who or why just so long as the marines are kicking somebody's butt.
Dale, you would be interested in Carl Milsted's work.:http://holisticpolitics.org
He composed several suggestions for the LP and tried to sell it to them under the Reform Caucus. The result was that a large chunk of libertarians felt threatened that they would become a party without principle, and therefore he quit the party out of sheer frustration.
The problem with the Libertarian Party, IMO, is that not enough people in it understand what a political party is meant to do. If you want to educate people, then you can form an organization like Campaign for Liberty or so. You don't have to moderate your views, as Gene said. The dream of a free society is not one that will happen overnight- so just accept the fact that we will have to get there gradually.
My understanding is that the LP's structure for membership alone is so radically different than the two major parties that the problem is a perpetual one. For example, a membership pledge that requires you to be against any transitional phase to deregulation, legalization, etc..
This is counterproductive. And I also believe it's counterproductive to try to infiltrate the Republicans. A better target would, I think, be the Democrats. Their popularity is dying already in a timely fashion. And contrary to what others have said, the Republicans were actually the current Democrats, and vice'a'versa. That's where the phrase "modern liberal" was born from.
If libertarians wanted to effectualize public policy, then they could move in on the Democrats and get started on a rebound. Public approval for both parties is about the same now, and short of a viable new party rapidly emerging from the ashes anytime soon, soon the Republicans will be back in power and like you said, toss Libertarians out under the bridge- but I digress.
Read Milsted's articles. You won't regret it. You may even garner an idea or inspiration for a new column.
Its not just the Neoconservatives we have to worry about there is also the Religious Right (who have no problem with a militaristic forieng policy as long as they get their morality legilsation) and the Paleoconsertaves (with their backwards protectionism) as well. 2010 is going to be a quiz for the Campaign for Liberty movement to gague its effectivness.
There seems to be two camps; one camp wants free stuff from the government. The other camp wants the military to beat the hell out of some other country.
I would interpret the two camps this way: One camp wants the government to serve the welfare of the people, while the other wants the people to serve the government and the corporations that back that government.
Adrian, a party should have definite principles, but they should include willingness to compromise, desire for diverse perspectives, and seeking common ground with opponents. Narrow-mindedness is not a principle, it is a character flaw!
Bill G, I think the Religious Right is dying out as more and more people wake up and realize their claims about America's nature and history were mostly lies. As for "backwards protectionism", I'm not sure what that's all about, unless it also has to do with the military.
Um...I don't think you understood what I wrote at all. I was agreeing with you, saying that this hardline stance is exactly what's hurt the libertarian movement. But suit yourself...
People always point to Libertarians and say "why don't you compromise?". but, how can you compromise on "force"?
If you look at the two camps that have been mentioned which are basically the left and right, the left wants to force everyone to give to those who they think need giving at the level they believe needs giving. this is indentured servitude.
the right wants young lives to die for their military "missions" and wants the corporate economy highly subsidized. this is also indentured servitude and physical slavery [military service}.
gene, if you think force by government is bad, try the force that results from anarchy, in which every man lives only for himself and there is no government to enforce laws, including human rights. Then no one is safe, except by using force to protect themselves. I'd rather deal with the force of government.
If you look at the two camps that have been mentioned which are basically the left and right, the left wants to force everyone to give to those who they think need giving at the level they believe needs giving. this is indentured servitude.
It is also justice, in my opinion. Would you rather people who are poor and out of work starve or turn to crime to survive? Not me!
And are you forgetting that we do not have a draft for the military?
@Dale, ah ok. I was merely trying to get some clarity. It's always confusing when someone's reply to you is sandwiched in between two retorts and it seems they've done nothing but restate what you said. That's all.
@Gene-
The false premise here is that compromise of force is longterm sacrifice. It's not.
The left and right do it all the time, but I'll focus on the left. The very concept of liberal policy is to create compromise because the philosophy of modern liberalism, itself, by definition is principally bankrupt. The only longterm goal is more force. This is how you're looking at it.
Ayn Rand was apt to discover this. She put it like this: consider who always frames the debate in Congress over public policy. Well, the minority party, if it is Republicans, can only say no. We are especially seeing that now. They don't move policy towards the right, because they are standing still while the debate moves in a vacuum. It is no coincidence why the Republicans never take dominant stances on issues of the free market, even when they're in power. They are the status-quo. Once you have added some new entitlement or program to the system, that is it. It's a sacred cow, and after 4 more years, it's cemented in place. It'll become a third rail to even mention removing the program.
Now on the left, whether or not the Democrats are the majority or not, they're always demanding more use of government. More positive rights.
I mentioned the relatively unknown brilliance of Carl Milsted before. Well, Milsted also discovered this phenonemon of Congressional policy and formulated a way that we might use it to move issues in a libertarian direction, rather than a liberal one.
In order to do this, however, we must stop looking at compromise as a simple dichotomy of liberty versus force. Part of this understanding must stem from the fact that the Nolan Chart is flawed in its alignment.
The LP, as I said earlier, has a quite alien structure to party politics that would not normally be the basis of forming new parties. I guess why this truth is unpopular in the first place is because the whole idea of the LP is based on the notion of the Nolan Chart.
But once you understand that the traditional right and left paradigm is flawed, you'll see that the Nolan Chart is also flawed. It lumps communists in with fascists, which for all intents and purposes, are not the same.
These and many other flaws limit libertarians' views of themselves in relation to other ideologies, as well as their success in spreading their influence.
My statement had little to do with anarchy. i was assuming the basic force necessary to contol aggression. the force I was referring to goes far beyond control of aggression, it is control of every facet of our lives and I was making no preference from which side this was done on, right or left.
If you've read any of my articles you would have realized I don't want people to starve or be involve in crime because they have no resources. The government causes most of our problems with intervention and then turns around and attempts to solve them. Example, health care: we have no idea how many people the free market would serve in health care and what the costs would be, since we have never had one. if we worked toward a free market and then figured out what we had to do to serve those who couldn't serve themselves we would be much better off. Instead, the government health programs enable the controlled corporate health industry to profit and avoid competition. the liberal agenda enables the conservative status quo.
Does the lack of a draft make it "OK" for the State to carry on foreign wars at will? As long as people will volunteer, we can keep confiscating funds from the public and bombing foreigners?
Hi Adrian,
I agree with with your comment as far as I understand it.
I think taxes are a good example. To me, to move in a "libertarian" direction is not to fight every tax idea that ever comes across. that would seem to be the "conservative" method. "Stop all taxes, since they most usually are aimed by liberals at the rich, and everything will be all right."
To me, we should move toward instituting use taxes and reforming the income tax so that the rate is lowered yet applies equally to all. capital gains rate would be the exact same as labor tax, in other words all income taxed the same. this seems a practical libertarian reform, not perfect [income tax is wrong] but better than what we have. land fees are even a better direction.
but any suggestion like that and it is either "all taxes are evil" which is true but not real or "you can't tax the rich, they drive the economy" [the conservative mantra}. When I even mentioned the land fee to a local libertarian party official, he didn't even know what it was! So, we are back to square one.
And yes, I have heard many using socialism and fascism interchageably and at best it is amusing but really shows a lack of basic knowledge.
You said; "I would interpret the two camps this way: One camp wants the government to serve the welfare of the people, while the other wants the people to serve the government and the corporations that back that government."
Possibly I should have been more specific in my comment: In my view the people who want free stuff are the Democratic voters and the free stuff du jour is health care. The people who want perpetual war are the Republican voters.
In your comment you said one group wants the people to serve the government and the corporations. I think that would be the Democrats since they have frequently advocated mandatory service for Americans:
Currently there is a bill in the house HR 1444 sponsored by Democrat Jim McDermott. It would establish a commission to see if mandatory service can be imposed on the American people.
During his presidential bid John Kerry said; "For America now, service is not just an option, but an obligation of citizenship."
Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in his book that everyone should be required to perform 3 months of service.
Charles Rangel’s bill HR 363 introduced in the 110th congress says: "To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service , either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes." The bill includes women as well as men and the period of service is 2 years. BTW the number of people in that age bracket amounts to about 1/3 of the U.S. population. Welcome to slavery.
Apparently none of these Democrats ever heard of the 13th amendment.
It would only be slavery if the people being called for government service were not paid for their work. Even soldiers that were drafted were paid, weren't they. The 13th Amendment was passed right after the Civil War, but the military draft (which I oppose) wasn't ended until after the Vietnam War. These provisions aren't even calling for a draft, but allowing citizens to serve their country in some capacity as civilians too. I would call it payback for (government) services rendered.
Wasn't it John F Kennedy who said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
And you have a problem with that? I'd think that citizens who go on welfare or get any kind of government assistance should give something back to society later. What the hell do you Libertarians want?! I know what I want: For you to stop playing the slavery card! It's about as idiotic as blacks or other minorities playing the race card too much.
Once more, we agree Gene. ;) As you have seen before, I also advocate the use of taxes as tools, especially the Georgist policies of ground rents to neutralize the tax burden and spur development, as well as internalize waste as a cost of operation.
Those ideas have a lot of merit and would be a hellova lot better than the cap'n'tax we're getting thrown now.
The idea of a holistic libertarian is one that recognizes that certain political ideas synergize despite their placement on the political spectrum. In this case, we see that there is a large quadrant of left-leaning libertarians that the current party has insofar blatantly ignored.
Your anecdote does not surprise me, considering that the LP has a horrible outreach record to bat for them. We have our work cut out for us, indeed. I for one think it's time to look transpolitically, myself. Others would advocate for a new party, and that might work too. One's thing's clear. The libertarian movement is losing more momentum to the Republicans as we draw closer to 2010 every day.
Dale this is no hyperbole. Being forced to do something against your will is involuntary servitude and that is banned by the 13th amendment. Mandatory service and involuntary servitude are the same thing regardless of whether pay is provided or not.
The government is supposed to be the servant of the people, not the other way around. BTW Kennedy did not say the people should be forced to serve the government. He said they should ask themselves what they could do for their country.
You said; "These provisions aren't even calling for a draft, but allowing citizens to serve their country in some capacity as civilians too." Did you read the section I posted from Rangel's bill? If that isn't a draft I don't know what is. And your word "allowing" is absolutely not what Rangel's bill would do. Rangel's bill says "require" not allow.
I'd like to weigh on this 13th amendment issue. The way the "involuntary servitude" clause was formulated was carefully worded to address private labor, and this interpretation has been held up in court several times. Otherwise, such a radical interpretation of all "involuntary servitude" would mean no draft... jury duty, etc.
Now whether or not I agree with the interpretation, that is the one the courts have upheld, and they have numerous other citations in the Constitution of raising "militias" and legal leeway through tricks like just compensation to counter a stronger claim.
There is nothing you and I can do about it. The case that affirmed this- Perry v. Butler (1916) was a conservative court, and it has since survived WW2, the Korean War, and Vietnam. So I think if they felt it needed a revise, that might have happened by now.
The only reason Congress gets away with the laws they pass is because of previous Court decisions in their favor. Hence, the real problem is not in Rangel's bill (he's a fool anyway and constantly re-introduces that bill every single year, his logic being that draft armies would neutralize the effect of the "poor going off to war"). It's in the highest Court of the land, and the judicial activists that allow them to flaunt basic protections.
Adrian I agree that the SCOTUS has not been strong on defending our rights. But we should not allow things like Rangel's bill or Rahm Emanuel's service plan or HR-1444 to create legislation that makes the people be slaves of the government. As soon as that happens America stops being the land of the free.
Some folks might say well it's only 3 months per Emanuel's plan or only two years per Rangels plan. But make no mistake, once the government establishes the precedent that they can demand service of the citizens then the sky is the limit. The duration can be 2 years or 4 years or life. Remember when the income tax was created the top rate was only 7% and most people didn't have to pay anything. But only 31 years later the top rate had risen to 94% and even the lowest rate was 23%. [link edited for length]
Yeah Rangel is a nut but he's not the only Democrat who is talking about mandatory service. As I pointed out above other prominent Democrats have called for it too. While they haven't enacted any mandatory service bill yet it still shows how they're thinking.
Adrian I agree that the SCOTUS has not been strong on defending our rights. But we should not allow things like Rangel's bill or Rahm Emanuel's service plan or HR-1444 to create legislation that makes the people be slaves of the government. As soon as that happens America stops being the land of the free.
Is this the same sort of rediculous scaremongering as Sarah Palin's reference to "death panels" a few weeks ago, or will we get to that later?
Libertarians seem to celebrate selfishness (freedom without responsibility) almost as virture, and in the case of Ayn Rand style Objectivists, they actually DO make it a virture! That sort of attitude is just as dangerous as any possible government tyranny. Can we PLEASE have some realistic standards?!
The 13th Amendment says:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
You can interpret it any number of ways. I interpret it as forbidding a military draft even in wartime, but not forbidding the state from offering service to the military, or various possible civilian duties, as options to a citizen for him or her to freely choose from in order to benefit society as whole. As long as the person has a choice on what to do, where is the involuntary servitude?
I think Dale is correct in that as long as there is choice, there certainly isn't involuntary servitude.
It could be argued that "paying" for that choice may require "involuntary servitude" on the backs of the taxpayer's, if it requires taxpayer funds.
So, the method of collecting funds for the government is extremely important. did I mention the "land fee"? If the money collected does not require labor but simply the "return" of land rent back to where it was originally created [society], then it is not "involuntary servitude". A bit of a geo libertarian tangent!
Dale you said; "You can interpret it any number of ways." Interpret? Who needs interpretation? The language of the 13th amendment is quite clear: No slavery. No involuntary servitude. And except for punishment of a crime it doesn't say it's ok if government does it.
You said: "As long as the person has a choice on what to do, where is the involuntary servitude?" That's nice but that's not what Rangel's bill says. It says in section 103"
"(d) Selection for Induction-
(1) RANDOM SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service."
Adrian I agree that the SCOTUS has not been strong on defending our rights. But we should not allow things like Rangel\'s bill or Rahm Emanuel\'s service plan or HR-1444 to create legislation that makes the people be slaves of the government. As soon as that happens America stops being the land of the free.
No no, you got it right. I don\'t think that these bills should be allowed to stand either, and what\'s scary is that Obama has called for just this kind of civil service and many of the WW2-generation believe it has merit.
They have good intentions, but as the old adage says, the road to hell is paved with those. Therefore, I believe that the long-term solution is to require an \"infotarian\" perspective on the Supreme Court. Sort of a hybrid of originalist and libertarian judicial philosophy. This would not only affect the grounds that the government has on mandatory service, but a variety of other issues as well.
Gene you said; "I think Dale is correct in that as long as there is choice, there certainly isn't involuntary servitude."
Having the ability to choose the form of your servitude does not free you from slavery. Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose you were a slave during the civil war. One day the plantation owner comes to you and says; "I've going to give you a choice. You can stay here and pick cotton or you can you can go with the troops and fight for the confederacy. Which do you want?" Would that choice make you free? No it wouldn't. You would still be a slave either way.
Having the ability to choose the form of your servitude does not free you from slavery. Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose you were a slave during the civil war. One day the plantation owner comes to you and says; "I've going to give you a choice. You can stay here and pick cotton or you can you can go with the troops and fight for the confederacy. Which do you want?" Would that choice make you free? No it wouldn't. You would still be a slave either way.
Except a plantation owner wouldn't do any such thing, since a slave joining the Confederate army would represent a loss to the plantation, plus an armed slave is a threat to slavery itself. Desertions and mutinies among the confederate troops would also be more likely. Boy, did you mess up!
Your rationale for selfishness and laziness is simply that, and nothing more. The 13th Amendment does not bar society from requiring people to give back to it in some way, as long as it does not limit their options. "Slavery" would be working without pay, while "involuntary servitude" would be working a specific job with pay but against one's will. Then again, one could reject that option and be denied welfare or other assistance from the state, right? That's a choice too.
Dale earlier you said "One camp wants the government to serve the welfare of the people, while the other wants the people to serve the government and the corporations that back that government." Well I'm guessing you were accusing the neo-cons of wanting to make the people serve the government and you didn't like that idea. But when I prove to you that it's the Democrats who want the people to serve the government then you embrace it. What hypocrisy.
And who do you think you are calling me lazy and selfish. What gives you that authority? BTW your liberal pals want laws against hate speech. Maybe "lazy and selfish" qualifies as hate speech. Anyway you seem to be unable to make arguments based on facts, reason or logic, so you resort to name calling. How old are you 13?
David S, I said:"One camp wants the government to serve the welfare of the people, while the other wants the people to serve the government and the corporations that back that government." I was responding to this statement, which YOU made "There seems to be two camps; one camp wants free stuff from the government. The other camp wants the military to beat the hell out of some other country," thus implying that both camps were equally bad, but in different ways. My reply was indicating that one camp was actually better morally than the other.
Well I'm guessing you were accusing the neo-cons of wanting to make the people serve the government and you didn't like that idea.
Which is why I oppose a military draft. Even Republicans under Bush Jr knew better to instutute a draft to fuel their war efforts, for they knew it was political suicide, and they still lost in 2006 and 2008.
But when I prove to you that it's the Democrats who want the people to serve the government then you embrace it.
Have you ever heard the proverb, "There is no such thing as a free lunch"? If people are granted some sort of assistance from the government, how can it be wrong for them to give something back to society later? I also said, "The 13th Amendment does not bar society from requiring people to give back to it in some way, as long as it does not limit their options." and then I added, "Then again, one could reject that option and be denied welfare or other assistance from the state, right? That's a choice too." I guess you missed that.
BTW your liberal pals want laws against hate speech. Maybe "lazy and selfish" qualifies as hate speech.
No, don't be silly. Hate speech would be if I called you a racist, sexist, or homophobic remark. "Lazy and selfish" is none of those, but refer to character flaws. Like when you accused me of hypocrisy.
Anyway you seem to be unable to make arguments based on facts, reason or logic, so you resort to name calling.
How so? You failed first with your "thought experiment" about the plantation owner and his slave. I actually didn't call YOU "lazy and selfish", I said, "Your rationale for selfishness and laziness is simply that, and nothing more."
How old are you 13?
No, I'm 40.
I know, it's frustrating to employ scare tactics that refer to the long dead issue of slavery and find they do not have desired effect on your opponents. The smart thing to do would be to agree that a military draft is a form of involuntary servitude banned by the 13th Amendment and leave it at that.
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.
