Topic: Libertarianism
Does the Nolan Chart Properly Identify Libertarians? The Nolan Chart definition of the word "libertarian" is at odds with several other definitions. Which definition should prevail?by C.S. Milsted, Jr.
(libertarian)
Sunday, August 30, 2009
I was an anarchist before I became a Libertarian. It started with Heinlein. "Between Planets" had the cops as the bad guys! Then there were the incompetent Carter years. Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" documentary. High school debate: socialized medicine, energy, trade policy... And then, back to Heinlein: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" did the trick. I declared myself an anarchist. Only later, during my freshman year at college, did I make contact with and join the Libertarian Party. I was an easy sell.
I was sold on the non-aggression principle and on the works of Murray Rothbard. The former was in the outreach literature and the latter promoted on the pages of LP News. There was no Nolan Chart promotion in those days. The Libertarian Party was truly "The Party of Principle" and sold that principle openly.
Thousands of hours of debate and futile outreach later, it slowly dawned on me that the principle was a tough sell. People don't like being called thieves for believing in some government, and they find the idea of doing without completely to be silly and/or terrifying. Pushing the principle was a poor way of getting votes. It appeared that the Libertarian Party had come to a similar realization. Enter the Advocates for Self-Government to teach libertarians to be less bad at communication and how to distance themselves from the "A" word in public. Enter the Nolan Chart, which puts the libertarian set of positions on a political map — as part of a continuum.
The Libertarian Party was growing up, and so was I. With maturity came the realization that I lost so many debates defending anarchy because I was wrong. Libertarian philosophers had not broken the is-ought barrier, and the viability of complete anarchy was unproven at best. But the Libertarian Party appeared to have broadened its base so I assumed I still belonged. I was up near the top of the Nolan Chart, just not quite at the peak. I wanted government smaller and the LP billed itself as the tool to do just that. So I got truly active in the 1990s and made significant donations. I was in it to win.
Winning electoral battles requires the help of more than just those who categorically accept the Zero Aggression Principle. I thought my fellow activists understood this. They were out manning booths giving people the World's Smallest Political Quiz. When someone scored 70-70, they were asked: "Did you know that you are a libertarian?"
The World's Smallest Political Quiz is necessarily a crude tool, so in 1999 I developed a higher precision political quiz . Originally, it was a simple Windows program, to run on obsolete x486 machines at fair booths, gun shows and the like. It was an interesting experiment, and we gathered some useful data, but the computerized version was too long for most booth events, and the computers heavy to lug around. The web version proved far more useful.
But here is the key point: the primary objection I got to the new quiz was its length. At no time did any radical Libertarians complain about false-positives and recruiting the wrong people into the party. This, despite the fact that the quiz was blatantly designed to recruit people who are less radical than I am. Once again, I assumed the party was growing up and trying to be a real political party, to mobilize those who are in the upper quadrant of the Nolan Chart.
A few years later, after much work and experimentation in the field, I decided it was time to open up the remaining bottlenecks to recruiting from the full upper quadrant of the Nolan Chart: the borderline anarchist LP platform and the completely anarchist LP membership oath. I thought I was carrying out parts of the Strategic Plan generated during the 2000-2002 LNC term. I was on the Strategic Planning Team and I thought there was a general consensus that we needed to rethink our brand and widen our membership base. So I helped launch the Libertarian Reform Caucus , to rewrite the platform and repeal the oath.
I gave it my all, spending hundreds of hours building the reformthelp.org web site, recruiting members, coordinating activists, buying ads and serving on the LP bylaws committee to get the oath put on the ballot — and to defend the retention vote provision for one last try. I wanted to turn the LP into a real political force or prove that it was a dead end and find a more effective way of working for liberty. I was tired of wasting time and losing.
And we lost, but not badly enough. We lost the vote for the membership oath. It was roughly a 50-50 vote. Half of the party was ready to open and grow; the other half wanted to keep doing things the old way. I was ready to walk out then, and left the floor to go tour Portland with my wife. When we got back, we were told the news: most of the old platform had been voted out. The LP platform, though incomplete, was no longer an albatross around the neck of Libertarian candidates trying to win public office. Bummer. The cognitive dissonance which cursed the party continued, and I was sucked back in for a time.
Acrimony raged. Radicals wrote insults. They bemoaned the loss of principle. I, who had been a dues paying member for a quarter century was labeled a Republican infiltrator. So be it. I quit for real. I do favor some initiation of force for the public good. In bitterness I removed the Moderate Libertarian designation from my online political quiz and replaced it with Left-Leaning Freedom Lover and Right-Leaning Freedom Lover . I wrote: "I guess calling you a moderate libertarian is akin to calling a liberal Democrat a 'Moderate Communist.'"
Time passes. Wounds heal. Perhaps I was too strong in dissuading moderate freedom lovers from calling themselves libertarians. Or was I? I want to hear from you, especially those of you who defend the LP membership oath and bemoan the lost platform. The graphic on this web site says I am still a libertarian. The LP membership oath and many prominent activists say I am not. And what of those who merely want to scale back the welfare state to 1960 levels while legalizing marijuana. Do we call them libertarians or something else? Do I give them a link to the Libertarian Party website or just to the Modern Whig Party website and my own plans for starting a new political party ?
The Nolan Chart is a source of great confusion. It needs to be relabeled or the definition of the word "libertarian" broadened. Which shall it be?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of C.S. Milsted, Jr. only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. C.S. Milsted, Jr. 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: 2009-08-30 15:56:47
I don't know if you've noticed, but the Nolan Chart includes an entire quadrant that is labeled libertarian. It's not just the top corner.
The mistake you've made is believing that lack of progress is due to being firm on principle. You need to rethink your position. I'm curious about one thing, although I think I know the answer. Why do you think that being firm on principle is in conflict with organizing a political party? Here's a hint: they don't conflict.
I left the LP because it abandoned me, not the other way around. For the past few years, they've chosen to be embarrassed about standing on principle. Their timing is horrible. The country is in the middle of a major financial crisis which libertarianism has the perfect answer for. So who carries the libertarian banner on the issue? The LP? No, it turns out that the Campaign For Liberty is carrying the banner. Guess who's winning the recruits?
The LP is dead unless it does a 180 degree about-face and learns that political party building is not in direct conflict with standing on principle.
Walt: That's my whole point!! The Nolan Chart does have an entire quadrant labeled libertarian, but the LP membership oath defines as libertarian only those near the very top corner. (The definition of "initiation of force" allows some small wiggle room.) Your use of the word "principle" implies you have a rather narrow definition of the word "libertarian" but perhaps I am reading it wrong.
Staking out a position that only 0.5% of the population can stomach, much less agree with conflicts with being a political party -- unless you mean political party in the sense of the various communist parties which came to power by means other than electoral.
Staking out an unpopular position is fine for an organization which seeks liberty by means other than winning elections, such as the Seasteading Institute. It can also work well for a non-party political organization (cf. Greenpeace, PETA.)
The Campaign for Liberty has much fuzzier principles than the LP. CFL contains people from a much wider set of political views. Ditto for Ron Paul's run for president. When I launched a Ron Paul meetup I was pleasantly surprised at how well such a politically diverse [unprincipled??] set of people worked together.
The LP is indeed sick because it is conflicted. Does it "stand on principle" and represent only the apex of the Nolan Chart, or should it be a coalition of political factions which measure "libertarian" on the Nolan Chart? For years it has done some of each, and thus did neither well. Will the LP die from this sickness? Who knows? It is still far healthier than it was during much of the 1980s.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-08-30 17:45:36
I see. So because the non-aggression principle is only whole-heartedly supported by the apex of the libertarian quadrant, it should be abandoned. That's your prescription.
What you're proposing is that leadership should take the party toward the Centrist position. Hardly what I would call a winning strategy.
A better approach is to respect the whole quadrant but demand the top of the quadrant. Not possible to build, you say? Rubbish! The trick is to be firm without being offensive, something (I'll grant you) that many at the top of the quadrant need to learn how to do.
Notice your own observation: that the C4L is fuzzy on principle. Isn't that interesting! Yet, they manage to attract the top of the quadrant. How do they do it? They do it by emphasizing principle in the arena where they agree that the NAP should apply.
If the C4L emphasized positions that were anti-NAP, they would not grow. The C4L, it seems, has learned the lesson that the LP has failed to learn, despite their "fuzziness."
By the way, I strongly disagree with your assessment that the party is better off now than it was during the 1980s. At least during the 1980s, it was beginning the process (albeit a long one) of learning how to grow up. It showed a few (small) signs of doing so in the 1990s. Then, along came the reformers who claimed that the reason the party wasn't growing fast enough was that it stood on principle. They took over after the second Browne campaign. Since then, it's been all down hill. Just this year, they're having great difficulty meeting their budget with sufficient donations after they slashed it dramatically. If that's not a clear sign of the party's decline, I don't know what is. Meanwhile, the C4L continues to grow by publicly taking on the daring positions, while the LP continues to hide in a corner like a frightened child. Pathetic.
"Meanwhile, the C4L continues to grow by publicly taking on the daring positions, while the LP continues to hide in a corner like a frightened child. Pathetic."
Ron Paul never got 282 co-sponsors for HR-1207 by proposing to abolish the Federal Reserve. He called for an audit: a recognition that destroying the Federal Reserve would be a multi-step process. And THIS success only came in the midst of a recession the likes of which we've never seen since the 1930's, a massive transfer of wealth of taxpayer wealth to private banks, and international talk of dumping the dollar.
I won't speak for Carl- he's smart enough to make his own points- but to me, when you say that the timing of the reformers is horrible, and their belief system not strong enough, I ask what example do you have? Who out there is standing on principle right now, except the Democrats? They make having no principles a principle!
The Republicans? Yeah, they've really united against Obamanomics, and they're gaining some support, but they haven't once framed the debate on their own terms yet. The LP's problem is from an incorrect view that the reformers were trying to create a "Republican lite" party. You're confusing two carpetbaggers who ran on the presidential ticket for the whole reform movement.
Regarding the LP & C4L, I've already discussed them in my own article, but to put it simply, you're comparing apples and oranges. The only thing to take away from the C4L IS that their moderate and longterm strategy attracts a greater and more diverse following. It's effectively nonpartisan - not libertarian, republican, or democratic.
In order to get people to the "top of the quadrant", you have to first get them into the quadrant. Internalize them, then educate them. You don't run them through a strainer.
Back to the questions at hand: is someone who "only" wants to cut government in half a libertarian? Should that person be allowed/invited to join the Libertarian Party?
If they do join, if the population is distributed anything like a bell curve, you then end up with more moderate libertarians than "real" libertarians. Should there be a separate membership tier: you can donate but you cannot vote? Seems unreasonable.
I'm game to invite moderate libertarians to join the LP if that is desired. Or not. But I am not game to invite them to join and be berated. If I was, honesty would compel me to write something like:
"You are a Moderate Libertarian. This means you are libertarian, only unprincipled. Please join the Libertarian Party and finance it's operations, but do not vote on the platform."
Strikes me as uncool. Better to invite them to join the Modern Whig Party or some such.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-08-31 04:34:28
Sure, they should be invited to join. The question you fail to ask is this: should the rest of us just be satisfied with their stance once they join?
Again, there's a difference between berating and educating. I already agreed that top-corner libertarians often don't understand the difference and make the mistake of berating instead of educating. That's where our own education needs to take place. Does that mean we shouldn't educate the moderates at all? That's the current state of the LP... be afraid of educating the moderates. Avoid it at all costs, for fear that you'll "offend" someone else. It's the new political correctness.
It doesn't really matter whether it's "uncool" to invite a moderate libertarian to join. Nor is there a contradiction in pointing out their principled shortcomings in a respectful manner.
But should we give in to those shortcomings? Absolutely not! That's the insane part of the current LP plan, and it's the side you're arguing to support.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-08-31 04:57:52
Spence:
Ron Paul never got 282 co-sponsors for HR-1207 by proposing to abolish the Federal Reserve. He called for an audit: a recognition that destroying the Federal Reserve would be a multi-step process. And THIS success only came in the midst of a recession the likes of which we've never seen since the 1930's, a massive transfer of wealth of taxpayer wealth to private banks, and international talk of dumping the dollar.
More precisely, his campaign aides and C4L volunteers got those co-sponsors, and he's about to come out with a book about ending the Fed, which his supporters whole-heartedly support.
You confuse standing on principle with insisting on all-or-nothing. Being principled has nothing to do with black-or-white thinking. I'm happy to fight for auditing the Fed because it's consistent with the ultimate goal of abolishing it. Do I think that auditing the Fed will work? No, I don't. I think the audit we end up with will be a joke, and it will probably be tied to legislation that we absolutely abhor. I also think it will create an opportunity for even more activism against the Fed because the result will incense Americans who jumped on board and saw their effort get watered down. This will inspire even more activism... not to mention greater adherence to principle.
...when you say that the timing of the reformers is horrible, and their belief system not strong enough, I ask what example do you have?
The example I offer is the obvious one...the current LP. It's currently dominated by reformers, and look at the result! Trying to "out-moderate" the Reps and Dems is a doomed effort to begin with.
The only thing to take away from the C4L IS that their moderate and longterm strategy attracts a greater and more diverse following. It's effectively nonpartisan - not libertarian, republican, or democratic.
If you believe that, then I question your judgment. First, arguing that the C4L is behaving "moderately" is insane. There's nothing moderate about what they're doing regarding the Fed, as far as I can see. Again, learn the difference between principled stances and black-and-white thinking. They are not identical.
In order to get people to the "top of the quadrant", you have to first get them into the quadrant. Internalize them, then educate them. You don't run them through a strainer.
So you're perfectly happy with those in the lower part of the quadrant? No education needed? You're putting the cart before the horse. You don't lead the liberal, conservative, and moderates quadrants into the libertarian quadrant by letting the lower-quadrant libertarians lead you. If you do, you end up where the LP is now.
You know, I joined the LP in 1976 and was actually employed by the party as publications director for SLS a few years after that. During that period, while Rothbard was actually still alive, I never heard a single libertarian advocate the Zero Aggression Principle in any way. I mean clearly we weren\'t in favor of war, but who was, especially in the wake of Vietnam. There seemed to be a lot more interest in Milton Friedman than in Murray Rothbard, and obviously we couldn\'t be a bunch of pacifists because we believed in the same principles as the founding fathers who started our country in violent revolution.
Sometime in the next 20 years, while I was working and relatively uninvolved in the party, that all changed. The LP became infested with socialist-leaning anarchists, and an even farther out fringe developed who thought the LP was too moderate and embraced ideas from the lunatic fringe.
So when I got back into politics, I saw little choice but to become a Republican, because I still believed in capitalism and the principles of the founding fathers.
I read over the RLC's statement of principals along with the Libertarian's platform and I have to admit that sometimes I had to glance at the top of the page to remember which platform I was reading from, they were so much alike. This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to bash my head against the wall. Their are about a dozen organizations with practically the same mission statement and yet they are splintered over inconsequential issues. Is it too much to hope for an old "Can't we all just get along?" conjecture? No platform is going to satiate every member's beliefs, if it did you would never gain more than a percent or two of the national vote (LP *cough cough*). I don't really give a damn what political party a candidate runs in just as long as they receive the support and contributions of the same groups instead of splintering 10 different candidates that all share the same basic principals along with ~2% of the national vote in a good election year.
I have to hand it to the LP (incidently I score at the apex of the Libertarian quadrant) they are masters at squabling like children and suck at organizing. How bout being practical or would you rather wait till you are completely under the shadow of Big Brother and meeting in the dead of night planning revolution?
Nobody really believes in the Non-Aggression Principle, in that not even those who sincerely believe it and advocate it apply it to their own recommendations for public policy.
I'll have a piece coming out on Nolan Chart.com a few days from now about that; Julian Simon's "symbolic belief" idea--really making its rounds in the 'blogosphere--has given me an "angle" to address it.
Yes, the NAP should be abandoned, because it's bad philosophy and rude, too.
But anyway: I'm glad to see Carl Milsted here--thoughtful and, I'm now noticing, a capable writer, too.
If the Nolan Chart is to be adjusted it ought to be done empirically. The symmetry is odd., the lines arbitrary. People know who libertarians are and usually know if they are libertarian. Make the instrument valid, based on that information, using regular social-scientific methodologies.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2009-08-31 14:34:40
"when I got back into politics, I saw little choice but to become a Republican, because I still believed in capitalism and the principles of the founding fathers."
That's likes saying "when I got back into politics, I had no choice but to join Hamas, because I still believed in keeping kosher and celebrating Chanukah."
"A better approach is to respect the whole quadrant but demand the top of the quadrant. Not possible to build, you say? Rubbish! The trick is to be firm without being offensive, something (I'll grant you) that many at the top of the quadrant need to learn how to do."
"
Sure, they should be invited to join. The question you fail to ask is this: should the rest of us just be satisfied with their stance once they join?
Again, there's a difference between berating and educating."
As an intellectual, a libertarian, and someone familiar at least a bit with the scope of scholarly libertarianism, I find that line of thought very insulting. What sort of "educating" can a top-corner libertarian give me, really? "Forget that Richard Epstein, that James Buchanan, that Robert Nozick, and that Friedrich Hayek stuff, you must pay lip service to the NIFP/NAP/ZAP?"
There comes a time when one must come to recognize genuine intellectual disagreement and, if building a movement, to accept pluralism. I'm willing to keep NAP anarchists "on board" so long as they're constructive (not always the case). I even respect some of them--those who understand that there are tradeoffs--from a libertarian perspective!--that come with their position.
But if they fail to respect me, if they think they should "educated" me, which usually means berating me with folk "glibertarianism" and moldy, old, dead arguments, the gloves come off. There cannot and must not be an artificial hierarchy in libertarianism or the LP which puts people I see as usually but not inevitably glib and foolish at the top. There must not be a hierarchy that puts me and my fellow modern classical-liberals at the top. Outreach documents must reflect the common libertarian direction and values, and nothing more or less.
And as a corollary to that, there comes a point to tell "chirping sectaries" that a political party ain't the right place for them, that we'd love for them to stay registered, but to go away and come back when they learn to play well with others.
The educated public, including the better journalists, know who the libertarians are. Libertarians do, too--in identifying e.g. Cato as a libertarian institute, Reason as a libertarian magazine.
These efforts to define--or as the glib ideologues say, "maintain a consistent definition of"--libertarianism in spite of this are counterproductive in a political movement, and vainglorious, too.
"See, the Cato people, and Tyler Cowen, and Kalafut, too (who?) they're somehow secretly nonlibertarian. No, I don't mean that they don't stand for smaller government, markets, and individual liberty. It's just that they fall _here_ on this nonscientific survey thingy, and that they don't believe in NIFP..."
@Walt: Thanks. That's one answer. I'd like to hear from more people. That said, there is no point in extending the invitation until the oath thing is cleared up. I'm not going to invite someone to join an organization whose membership criterion disqualifies them. And the LP's membership form should be explicit on what the oath means. Telling people what they signed up after they signed is unprincipled!
As for education, I may write a complete piece on this issue. In short, mere association with other libertarians (broadly defined) radicalizes, even without the presence of radicals -- no conscious effort is required. But some conscious effort could be productive without triggering Ben's valid objections.
@Dave: The seeds of discord were already sown back in 1976. See Murray Rothbard's "For a New Liberty." (Then again, I have the 1978 edition; maybe the 1973 edition was less strident.) When I joined the outreach materials included both the reasonable Ed Clark campaign book and Rothbard's writings/books. Rothbard prevailed, and then decided he didn't like the hippies who were left after the Catoites were purged. If you like quality rants, try to get a hold of copies of American Libertarian.
@Randy: It would be nice if we could just get along. If we could clarify the definition of the word "libertarian" we could. Either that, or the broader movement needs a new word. My observation over the years is that many purist libertarians will happily cheer the efforts of fellow travellers as long as they don't fly under the libertarian banner.
@Ben: Thank you for the compliment. I've been practicing -- filling up the Net with my scribblings.
"More precisely, his campaign aides and C4L volunteers got those co-sponsors, and he's about to come out with a book about ending the Fed, which his supporters whole-heartedly support."
Yes, I'm aware of this. But I ask you, if it was so easy to get those co-sponsors by letterbombing Congressmen, why didn't he try last year? Or the year before that? The timing right now is perfect. The Fed overextended their reach. It got people questioning them. They're now more receptive to calls to investigate it.
"You confuse standing on principle with insisting on all-or-nothing. Being principled has nothing to do with black-or-white thinking. I'm happy to fight for auditing the Fed because it's consistent with the ultimate goal of abolishing it...This will inspire even more activism... not to mention greater adherence to principle."
I ask where you get the part that I said that principle means being black-white. It doesn't have to be: I wrote a whole article on that for Christ's sake. That's your flaw: you assume everyone who wants to take a moderate stance on something wants to water down the principle of it. And what you said basically amounts to an admission that this will be a multi-step process. You don't get from pt A to B overnight. Of course it will take time. I'm a purist (in philosophy) and I recognize this will take time.
"The example I offer is the obvious one...the current LP. It's currently dominated by reformers, and look at the result! Trying to "out-moderate" the Reps and Dems is a doomed effort to begin with."
Ah, but you see- here we go again. Like I said before, you are basically labelling all reformers as LINOs who want nothing better to gut the platform and save the Republican Party. We've already established the bad apples (Redpath, Barr...). The REAL reformer's stance is to select the issues of the day, the "moderate" part being we don't want to default on all our loans, sell all the property to Indians, and turn millions of the poor into the street by tomorrow. Moderate = gradualism. That does NOT equal softness of principle. Stop making this mistake.
"If you believe that, then I question your judgment. First, arguing that the C4L is behaving "moderately" is insane. There's nothing moderate about what they're doing regarding the Fed, as far as I can see. Again, learn the difference between principled stances and black-and-white thinking. They are not identical."
I know the differences. But you're leading me to believe that you don't (for reasons above). I ask you if the C4L could have called for abolishing the fed right away? This is what moderation is once again= GRADUALISM. It's the very opposite of black-and-white thinking.
"So you're perfectly happy with those in the lower part of the quadrant? No education needed? You're putting the cart before the horse."
Here's how I view the LP: lower quadrant minarchists, radical extreme anarcho-capitalists. These people don't want to work in the system at all. They basically threw a temper-tantrum in Denver and ensured that the carpetbaggers got away with a Republican lite ticket. Same thing with the LNC election. The only exception was at-large. There are people on both sides who fail to see each other's point of view. The people in the middle are moderates. By that definition, I count myself as a moderate even though ideally speaking I call myself an anarcho-capitalist. Make sense yet? I'm not putting the cart before the horse, I'm putting a CARROT in front of it.
My whole argument from the get-go has been GET the people, THEN educate them. I even said so in my last reply "internalize-then educate". Man, how did you miss that? Honestly, this whole thing's just proof that libertarianism is doomed as a party because neither faction allows common groundwork. All you need to do to fix this would be to accept one rule: the end goal is little to no government, now let's work our asses off to get there as safely as possible. Distinguish between reform and moderate for a change.
I mean one of the fallacies that I pointed out in "Dangers of" was the rules of politics affect the Libertarian party whether or not they want to deal with them. Look at those liberals who go around touting capitalism is to blame for all our problems. That's obviously slander, as they overlook government's role in it because such acknowledgement would hurt their argument.
Likewise, when I say that the LP is a microcosm of this, it means that libertarian radicals do the same damn thing when it comes to calling all reformers/moderates soft on principle. And I went on to mention how the "Republitarians" are NOT what we aim to do. Those are the ones in charge.
You've heard the saying, "Give peace a chance. It certainly hasn't been tried before." In concept, it's no different than if I were to call NAFTA free trade and you were to correct me.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-09-01 03:30:29
Ben wrote:
As an intellectual, a libertarian, and someone familiar at least a bit with the scope of scholarly libertarianism, I find that line of thought very insulting. What sort of "educating" can a top-corner libertarian give me, really? "Forget that Richard Epstein, that James Buchanan, that Robert Nozick, and that Friedrich Hayek stuff, you must pay lip service to the NIFP/NAP/ZAP?"
You mean, moderate libertarians don't try to educate top-corner libertarians? Or do you mean that it's only insulting when top-corner libertarians engage in educational activities with moderate libertarians? Are you claiming that you're not trying to educate top-corner libertarians? Are you claiming that you're not trying to educate me, for example? I'm sorry you feel insulted, but really... how about a little balance in your analysis?
Spence wrote:
Ah, but you see- here we go again. Like I said before, you are basically labelling all reformers as LINOs who want nothing better to gut the platform and save the Republican Party.
I assume nothing of the sort. That's your false assumption about me. I merely observe the actual behavior of the LP and conclude that it's counterproductive based on the results. Do I think that the direction is wrong? Yes. Does that mean I think that certain people are LINOs? No. If I believed that, I would not have created this website (nolanchart.com) where every libertarian (whether "top corner" or "moderate") is welcome, as is every liberal, every conservative, every moderate, and every statist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-09-01 03:56:58
Almost forgot the main reason I wanted to comment.
Spence wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of this. But I ask you, if it was so easy to get those co-sponsors by letterbombing Congressmen, why didn't he try last year? Or the year before that? The timing right now is perfect. The Fed overextended their reach. It got people questioning them. They're now more receptive to calls to investigate it.
Yes, the timing was right, but that wasn't the only reason C4L has succeeded. The other is that they engaged in direct, in-person lobbying on Capital Hill, visiting Congressional offices one at a time asking for co-sponsors. The C4L calls and emails supported that effort, but they couldn't achieve the HR1207 success by themselves. On-the-spot lobbying was the primary lever.
Contrast this with what the LP has done on the issue. That's right, nothing. I've been calling for months now for the LP to engage in a loud, public campaign via press releases, TV and radio appearances, and every other form of publicity they can muster. Still, the LP remains silent on the issue, despite the fact that we all agree that the time to strike is when the iron is hot. Why? Remember, the moderates are in charge of the LP right now. The only thing that the LP has done is to ask the choir for donations using the financial crisis as justification. That's with the "moderates" in charge. That's what I'm reacting to.
Spence also wrote:
...This is what moderation is once again= GRADUALISM. It's the very opposite of black-and-white thinking....
...Here's how I view the LP: lower quadrant minarchists, radical extreme anarcho-capitalists.
I strongly disagree. I admit that some people fall into your categorization, but I'm not one of them, and I'm pretty certain neither do most others. I'm a top-corner lib, but I fall in the minarchist category.
Nor do I agree that most top-corner libs don't believe in gradualism. Characterizing top-corner libs as opposing gradualism simply is not accurate. On the contrary, I'm pretty confident that most top-corner libs do believe in gradualism, meaning that they don't expect the entire government to close down tomorrow as the only possible solution. The difference in approaches is one of degree, not one of gradualism vs. immediacy.
The current LP approach is to be so gradual as to be invisible. That doesn't work. The liberty movement needs to take much bigger gulps than that.
@Walt: I think what Ben found offensive was the idea that the party would officially attempt to educate the non-anarchists into the ZAP paradigm. The idea that ZAPers would try to enlighten minarchists and vice versa as individuals and caucuses is by no means offensive.
At the end of the Portland convention I informally floated the idea of officially having multiple official caucuses within the LP each with their own platforms. You could have a Rothbard Caucus, an Objectivist Caucus, a Free Liberal Caucus, etc. The LP would then be an umbrella organization to provide ballot access for these related caucuses. The only role of the Committee of the Whole would be to reject any Caucus which excessively damages the brand overall (such as a White Power Caucus or a Man-boy Love Caucus). The idea didn't get any traction so I didn't push it further.
Another idea I informally floated was to use the program to represent the different factions. Instead of a program which says this is what all Libertarians intend to do next, it would list several different paths towards liberty -- moderate and radical. Such a document (or web of hypertext pages preferably) would clearly not commit any candidate to a particular position. It would simply give a picture as to what is going on amongst Libertarian candidates and invite people to investigate their local candidates (or be one).
This whole discussion is why Libertarianism is only a philosophy built with a secret society architecture, and not a viable political party. There are too many purists willing to ostrecize potential voters over stubborn principle. I think I actually heard someone talk about an Oath??? I see nothing benefitial in an oath besides keeping out people. That seems counterproductive and stupid in politics.
This is why I and others are willing to forsake many of our principals by voting Republican as a means to keep out the Statists/Socialists. The difficult part is many of the Republicans that run are borderline statists too. If the Libertarians were smart they would see this as an opportunity and continually run their candidate under the Republican Party. Its a two party system, Ron Paul understood this, even a Marxist like Obama understood it.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-09-01 07:36:15
Hi C.S. Milsted, jr,
Suppose you were able to wave a wand and have everyone "properly" labeled. Then what?
I strongly promote skipping the first part and proceeding directly to the "then what?" part without regard to labels.
Frankly, if someone is constructively promoting the rule of law, individual liberty, limited government, free enterprise and the ability for individuals to defend these principles, I don't care what label they wear, what labels you think are proper or what labels any of numerous quizzes determine they "should" be wearing.
It is the action, and the resulting consequences, which determines whether one is defending liberty or enabling oppression. The labels are simply mind-clutter for easily manipulated herd joiners and choir preachers.
However, since I am far out numbered by these herding types and I accept that they will NEVER adopt constructive activities, I'll put in my two cents on their "proper" labeling.
Murray Rothbard divided libertarians into 3 groups,
1. Emotivists, far and away the largest and by my observations, the most useless group. They moo in unison and have no ability to constructively defend liberty.
2. Utilitarian/Absolutists, much smaller group of close minded folks who much prefer being martyrs for their principles than doing anything constructive toward the defense of liberty.
3. Natural Rights / Individualists, This group at least understands that the defense of liberty is the only cause that matters but still, most of these folks don't grasp the difference between "having rights" and "exercising rights" The former rests on mass delusion and the latter rests on the defense of liberty.
If the Nolan Chart could put a big "E" next to emotivists and a big "A" next to the absolutists then the confusion you mention would evaporate because it would quickly become clear that those thusly labeled can simply be dismissed without wasting any time on their individual rantings.
Walt: Your site contribution is admirable and it is by and large a good idea. But the radicals dominate this site in posting. There is a disproportionately higher level of them than any other "quadrant" on the site. If you didn't believe reforms were a wasted effort, I have yet to see how you have suggested it be improved other than "not standing soft on principle". You keep pointing to the current leadership as a failure, and it is, I'll give you that, and that's the whole point. And you "conclude" naturally that reform is "counterproductive". That is how you phrased it and it's a narrow view.
"
Yes, the timing was right, but that wasn't the only reason C4L has succeeded. The other is that they engaged in direct, in-person lobbying on Capital Hill, visiting Congressional offices one at a time asking for co-sponsors. The C4L calls and emails supported that effort, but they couldn't achieve the HR1207 success by themselves. On-the-spot lobbying was the primary lever.
Contrast this with what the LP has done on the issue. That's right, nothing. I've been calling for months now for the LP to engage in a loud, public campaign via press releases, TV and radio appearances, and every other form of publicity they can muster. ...That's with the "moderates" in charge. That's what I'm reacting to."
They're carpetbaggers, Walt! I've said this time and time again! And this is more proof that moderates and LINOs are synonymous to you. Plus, on the C4L example, once again, I'm quite aware of how they operate. But try telling me that a push to get legislators to "legalize all drugs" or "ban fiat money" right now would be as effective as HR 1207.
"I strongly disagree. I admit that some people fall into your categorization, but I'm not one of them, and I'm pretty certain neither do most others. I'm a top-corner lib, but I fall in the minarchist category."
Too bad you didn't quote the whole paragraph. Never did I say either that those are the only two groups in that sentence or any other. But by and large, they are the greatest factions, and that was the point. To demonstrate how the factionalism is killing the LP. And as I myself am similar to you, I fail to see how we divered paths - how one got into blaming moderates for all the problems the LP is in, and myself, who recognizes this isn't the moderate's true plans in action.
You said:
Nor do I agree that most top-corner libs don't believe in gradualism. Characterizing top-corner libs as opposing gradualism simply is not accurate. On the contrary, I'm pretty confident that most top-corner libs do believe in gradualism, meaning that they don't expect the entire government to close down tomorrow as the only possible solution. The difference in approaches is one of degree, not one of gradualism vs. immediacy.
Approaches are relative by this degree. And if this was such an articulated view already, I have yet to see more material from this demographic of libertarians. Strange, no? In fact, the closest we got to gradualism from the LP was the 2004 platform- which listed such transitional actions as "immediately cease contributions" to welfare, subsidies, dissolution of anti-trust and other oversight boards. That's just on the economy.
"The current LP approach is to be so gradual as to be invisible. That doesn't work. The liberty movement needs to take much bigger gulps than that."
An approach which I agree with. And I've said so several times. In fact, I don't think I've been out of step with your criticism thus far. So why still contesting the moderate/gradualist strategy? This gives the impression you are labelling all of those who ascribe to that view as "counterproductive", as you have said. And I see sprinkled analysis from you that the other view is an oversimplification and "black-and-white thinking". Should I not be confused from this? And if not, which should I believe from you?
I'll restate what we've come to so far. If we can agree that the current LP is ineffectual, all it takes is that we come to terms why. You believe the "moderates" in charge have failed. Something you note is merely observation, but such a broad observation that for the last 2-4 years compared to the LP's 37 year history, I can point to the failure of the more pure and definitely more radical people in charge as well. These generalizations don't help matters, so let's just forget them and get to the true point- why are the "gradual" compromise-ready purists so heavily underrepresented here?
Hi Jahfire: Are you suggesting that I add a question such as:
Are you a:
1. Loud mouthed dummy?
2. Sellout?
3. Medieval scholastic philosopher?
Hmmmm, not sure that would fly.
Frankly, I think Murray Rothbard was the most useless libertarian in recent history. He sabotaged the movement with poisonous memes. But at least he did a masterful job of villifying those who did productive work for liberty. What made Rothbard so powerfully poisonous to liberty is that he was a brilliant writer, so his bad ideas stick.
------
To all: if moderate [LINO] libertarianism gets adopted, then more radical ideas become more politically acceptable. As long as the wimpy mushy half-steps toward real liberty have a positive effect on society, the cause of liberty moves forward.
Strident calls for remaking society are appropriate for attracting early adopters, but they don't have an impact deeper into the bell curve. Thus, such calls belong to organizations other than a political party meant to win elections (and thus move the bell curve).
The big danger of incremental libertarianism is increments which backfire. Some smallish cuts in government produce more negative consequences than positive consequences. For example: tax cuts below the Laffer Curve maximum when the government is running a deficit. Order of operations is important, unless you have dictatorial power that can weather the storm.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-09-01 10:24:09
Hi Carl M.
Thanks for asking as opposed to presuming to tell me what I mean. That's refreshing.
I'm not suggesting you do anything at all, for the record. My point was that no matter how you decide to apply labels, the labels are irrelevant with respect to actions and consequences.
I then proceeded to describe how I would find value in applying the labels as defined by Rothbard. This is because my only interest in interactions with others is to determine if they can assist in the defense of my liberty or if they can only assist in the oppression of my liberty.
My recent article, What right do I have, describes why I find very few people who ascribe to any of Rothbard's three categories to be of any help at all in the struggle for the defense of liberty.
I much prefer being on equal terms, of persuaison instead of education. Carl Milsted is almost right about what I find insulting: my primary objection is to the LP officially trying to "educate" me into the NIFP position.
But I also take offense at the glibness of many--not all--NIFP libertarians. What (moral) right do shallow non-self-examiners who avoid going head-to-head with the best objections to their own position have to "educate" me about philosophy? (I'll get my philosophy from philosophers, k thx.) Modesty and respect go hand in hand, and if someone is going to seemingly immodestly put himself in a position intellectually above me, he'd better be able to deliver. (You've probably seen this response from me in global warming, too. If someone is going to say that not only I [not a climatologist] but also climatologists have made downright sloppy mistakes, he'd better not have something like "earth's core is getting hotter" or "doing calculations on digital computers is bad practice" as his position, and he'd better at least understand what radiative balance is. Again, it's a matter of respect for one's counterpart in a discussion.)
@ Carl M.
I think LP Libertarians can't handle Platforms and Statements of Principles and whatnot and need a "time out". Perhaps individually they're alright but the internal culture of the Party is sick, the legacy of the "chirping sect" era. Having caucus platforms and some statement of commonality--preferably that doesn't mention "principles" since old-school libertarians abuse "principles" to no end--would be better off temporarily if not permanently. Like you, I found few takers. Tom Stevens wasn't averse to the idea.
Re: Rothbard: How funny is it that the man and his immediate circle ended up a paleocon while his followers scream about Friedman or Epstein style libertarians being secret Republicans? "Monstrous!"
Re: backfiring--Tyler Cowen had a very interesting essay on relationship between liberty and demand for government in the Cato Unbound series timed to coincide (I think...) with the release of Radicals for Capitalism. Like Tyler, I'm not too worried about it. Liberty is of primary importance to me, and size of government only important in that context, which I suppose is why I prefer the label "liberal"
@Jafire: I read your article. I think I follow what you are getting at but am not sure. Some years ago I wrote Excuses for Liberty which has some somewhat similar thinking. That said, I think the concept of rights is a bit more defineable than you indicate in your essay. Perhaps I'll address this issue in the future.
@Ben: I've been toying with the designation "free liberal". Not sure if this describes my current thinking optimally, however. I'm starting to lean towards "natural rights defender" but that's a mouthful.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-09-02 09:59:21
Hi Carl M.
The point I stick to is that the definition is not the right. I'm sure you'll do a fine job with your definition and then I'll still assert that your definition does not alter the nature of a right in any way. Going through the work to have this exchange in the future is just a technicality. :-)
It isn't original, but my stance is: Give me liberty...I'll take it from there.
From your site: "Back in 2005-2006 I tried to get the Libertarian Party on the road to filling that niche. Were they to cut back on the one-dimensional thinking and realize that protecting nature, taking care of the needy and providing opportunities for the poor are positive values in and of themselves, Libertarians could occupy this niche and win elections – and in the process further their own value of smaller government. "
@Randy: some overlap of values and terminology with libertarian socialism, but a good bit more libertarian, and way more practical than either pure libertarianism or libertarian socialism. I try to stick to ideas that are either proven in the field or have strong theoretical foundation. Neither worker coops nor anarchism have a particularly good record of success. (Worker coops sometimes work, but often the workers end up preferring to sell out to capitalists. cf. UPS.)
A society dominated by small scale enterprises has been done successfully many times throughout human history. Much of our current economic centralization is artificial.
"I'm starting to lean towards "natural rights defender" but that's a mouthful."
Yes, and it too strongly ties one to natural rights theory. Free liberal is a lot better. Epstein's "Modern classical liberal" works too, but is also a bit of a mouthful.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-09-04 06:56:38
How about just "individual" why all the qualifiers. Especially when they mean different things to differnent people and you'll never be sure that any two people agree on what "modern" or "classical" or "liberal" mean? Individual defines a person, the qualifiers describe a herd.
I took your test and, even though I agree with you that the Nolan Chart test is not perfect, I don't think that yours is better.
Some of your questions, particularly the ones on the Draft and Immigration, lacked the option I had in mind, and I was forced to choose an option I didn't fully agree with.
I think that you made a nice effort, but not good enough. So, if you fail the first time, you are about average. Keep trying.
My test was an enhancement of the World's Smallest Political Quiz, not the test on this site. All three quizzes are based on the Nolan Chart. This article questions the Nolan Chart itself, not the particular quizzes. The Nolan Chart metric for libertarianness makes good sense for building a broad-based coalition; I consider it superior to the LP membership oath criterion. My gripe is with those who use the chart sometimes and at other times use the other, inconsistent, definition.
BTW, my quiz is definitely dated. I have not upgraded it in years. It will never be satisfactory for everyone, since providing all the required options would make the test way too long.
Wasn't Milsted a thug then when he was thrown out of the LP in the '80's when it was discovered he was a government infiltrator?
He has returned with the LRC GOP-sponsored PAC campaign of mis-education on Libertarianism. And his LRC thugs disrupt the few working LP affiliates left, then chant there is no evidence the LP works. What he won't tell you is how he praised the 2004 platform, until he realized activists loved it and were using it to get gains.
Be that as it may, he's an intellectual thug now right out of an Ayn Rand novel, complete with love for Kant and saying just a little coercion on principle is fine and the mark of a man of reason.
And his pals have driven the LP from 800 people in office to 160 (maybe). They're trying to shut down 2 strong affiliates where I live now by ignoring the state by-laws and bringing in GOP stooges selected by the LNC as they've been doing across the USA. How practical.
Bob, do some research. Made up acusations weaken your point. I was never thrown out in the 80's. I wasn't all that involved at the time other than paying dues and haranging friends on how taxation is theft. I didn't grow up until later.
Ayn Rand believed in government. She was most decidedly not an anarchist. She had great praise for the U.S. Constitution. She considered the zero tax anarchy advocated by the LP prior to 2006 to be supremely irrational.
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.
