How the Libertarian Philosophy Can Finally Become Reality by Raven West
(libertarian)
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Back in 1972, the first Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Dr. John Hospers published a 464 page paperback titled "Libertarianism - A political philosophy whose time has come". That was the optimistic title on the cover. The inside cover page was a bit more pragmatic; "Libertarianism - A political philosophy for tomorrow." This is also the title of 2007 re-published book listed on Amazon.
How can a political philosophy be both one whose time has come today and yet still remain a philosophy destined for the future? Can it be, that after more than three decades, the time for real change, and real libertarian political leadership is now? Even if it is being led by a Republican?
The Libertarian Party has run candidates in nearly every major race since its inception, but except for a few wins, has never really made any significant progress. When Ron Paul was the LP presidential candidate, hardly anyone knew who he was, and fewer cared. Yet Paul was still able to receive more than 430,000 votes almost twice the total of any other third party candidate
With the current political wave of disenfranchised voters, is 2010 the "tomorrow" that Hosper's was hoping for? Can a Libertarian candidate actually win a major election? Probably not. At least not in the traditional way. Ron Paul recognized this when he switched his party affiliation to Republican. Knowing he would never win a seat in Congress if he had run under the Libertarian party banner, he chose to take the better path to Washington, but he never gave up on the message, or the core values of Libertarianism. And neither did his son.
Rand Paul grew up in a political environment, one that was intrinsically libertarian. His philosophy, no matter what his political affiliation, is libertarian. Sometimes that philosophy is in direct opposition to our own government's laws, especially when it comes to basic property rights and individual liberties.
Anyone who has read Hosper's book, or has an understanding about the libertarian philosophy, knows that Rand Paul's comment on the 1964 Civil Rights Act had nothing whatsoever to do with racial bias. No more so than a libertarian's views on the Adults with Disabilities's act makes one biased against adults with disabilities, or Title IX makes one biased against women. In a perfect world, we would not need laws or governments to force individuals to do the right thing, but unfortunately, we are not living in a perfect world.
However, there is no doubt that there is a great deal of anger in this country for the simple fact that government seems to be everywhere. We are fast approaching the world of Orwell's 1984, then we are to Hosper's ideals of individual freedoms he had in 1972. Nowhere is that more evident then in the never ending "war" on drugs.
When did individual rights and personal freedom become a philosophy of kooks and weirdos? Sadly, that is how the mainstream media was depicting Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. Americans have grown tired of the two-party system, but most are not yet ready to take a giant leap of faith to the libertarian way, so they rally around a "party" that doesn't exist and support established party candidates, mostly Republicans, who have strong libertarian philosophies.
Rand Paul is a Republican, born and raised in a political environment that not only preached individual liberties and less government intrusion, but actually worked to make those ideals a reality. In spite of the ridicule, in spite of the negative press, Rand Paul is continuing to gain support for a philosophy which was started before he was old enough to drive.
The Republican Liberty Caucus endorses candidates who have a proven track record on supporting libertarian ideals. Send enough of them to Washington, and the philosophy that Hoper's wrote of as one for tomorrow might just be the one whose time has actually come...today.
Back in 1972, the first Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Dr. John Hospers published a 464 page paperback titled "Libertarianism - A political philosophy whose time has come". That was the optimistic title on the cover. The inside cover page was a bit more pragmatic; "Libertarianism - A political philosophy for tomorrow." This is also the title of 2007 re-published book listed on Amazon.
How can a political philosophy be both one whose time has come today and yet still remain a philosophy destined for the future? Can it be, that after more than three decades, the time for real change, and real libertarian political leadership is now? Even if it is being led by a Republican?
The Libertarian Party has run candidates in nearly every major race since its inception, but except for a few wins, has never really made any significant progress. When Ron Paul was the LP presidential candidate, hardly anyone knew who he was, and fewer cared. Yet Paul was still able to receive more than 430,000 votes - almost twice the total of any other third party candidate
With the current political wave of disenfranchised voters, is 2010 the "tomorrow" that Hosper's was hoping for? Can a Libertarian candidate actually win a major election? Probably not. At least not in the traditional way. Ron Paul recognized this when he switched his party affiliation to Republican. Knowing he would never win a seat in Congress if he had run under the Libertarian party banner, he chose to take the better path to Washington, but he never gave up on the message, or the core values of Libertarianism. And neither did his son.
Rand Paul grew up in a political environment, one that was intrinsically libertarian. His philosophy, no matter what his political affiliation, is libertarian. Sometimes that philosophy is in direct opposition to our own government's laws, especially when it comes to basic property rights and individual liberties.
Anyone who has read Hosper's book, or has an understanding about the libertarian philosophy, knows that Rand Paul's comment on the 1964 Civil Rights Act had nothing whatsoever to do with racial bias. No more so than a libertarian's views on the Adults with Disabilities's act makes one biased against adults with disabilities, or Title IX makes one biased against women. In a perfect world, we would not need laws or governments to force individuals to do the right thing, but unfortunately, we are not living in a perfect world.
However, there is no doubt that there is a great deal of anger in this country for the simple fact that government seems to be everywhere. We are fast approaching the world of Orwell's 1984, then we are to Hosper's ideals of individual freedoms he had in 1972. Nowhere is that more evident then in the never ending "war" on drugs.
When did individual rights and personal freedom become a philosophy of kooks and weirdos? Sadly, that is how the mainstream media was depicting Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. Americans have grown tired of the two-party system, but most are not yet ready to take a giant leap of faith to the libertarian way, so they rally around a "party" that doesn't exist and support established party candidates, mostly Republicans, who have strong libertarian philosophies.
Rand Paul is a Republican, born and raised in a political environment that not only preached individual liberties and less government intrusion, but actually worked to make those ideals a reality. In spite of the ridicule, in spite of the negative press, Rand Paul is continuing to gain support for a philosophy which was started before he was old enough to drive.
The Republican Liberty Caucus endorses candidates who have a proven track record on supporting libertarian ideals. Send enough of them to Washington, and the philosophy that Hopers wrote of as one for tomorrow might just be the one whose time has actually come...today.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 27
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Raven West only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Raven West is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: May 23, 2010 06:56:52 PM
Hi Raven West,
You asked a great question. How can Libertarianism be both a philosophy whose time has come and also for the future? The answer is easy, Libertarians generally have a very hard time distinguishing between philosophy and reality. They have mistaken a philosophy for evaluating and interacting the their individual world for a viable political party. Ron Paul is the greatest example of someone who understands this vital difference.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: May 24, 2010 08:53:10 AM
The real lesson to learn from the Paul's is that when Libertarians choose to participate in the Republican Party to win office they have decided also to participate in the two-party plutocracy and, therefore, have sold out and also chosen to be corrupt and lying politicians. They are cowardly by not recognizing that the country needs a viable third party.
Posted By: malcolmkyle
Date: May 25, 2010 03:32:00 AM
Prohibitionists dance hand in hand with every possible type of criminal one can imagine.
An unholy alliance of ignorance, greed and hate which works to destroy all our hard fought freedoms, wealth and security.
We will always have adults who are too immature to responsibly deal with tobacco alcohol, heroin amphetamines, cocaine, various prescription drugs and even food. Our answer to them should always be: "Get a Nanny, and stop turning the government into one for the rest of us!"
Nobody wants to see an end to prohibition because they want to use drugs. They wish to see proper legalized regulation because they are witnessing, on a daily basis, the dangers and futility of prohibition. 'Legalized Regulation' won't be the complete answer to all our drug problems, but it'll greatly ameliorate the crime and violence on our streets, and only then can we provide effective education and treatment.
The whole nonsense of 'a disaster will happen if we end prohibition' sentiment sums up the delusional 'chicken little' stance of those who foolishly insist on continuing down this blind alley. As if a disaster isn’t already happening. As if prohibition has ever worked.
To support prohibition is such a strange mind-set. In fact, It's outrageous insanity! --Literally not one prohibitionist argument survives scrutiny. Not one!
The only people that believe prohibition is working are the ones making a living by enforcing laws in it's name, and those amassing huge fortunes on the black market profits. This situation is wholly unsustainable, and as history has shown us, conditions will continue to deteriorate until we finally, just like our forefathers, see sense and revert back to tried and tested methods of regulation. None of these substances, legal or illegal, are ever going to go away, but we CAN decide to implement policies that do far more good than harm.
During alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, all profits went to enrich thugs and criminals. Young men died every day on inner-city streets while battling over turf. A fortune was wasted on enforcement that could have gone on treatment. On top of the budget-busting prosecution and incarceration costs, billions in taxes were lost. Finally the economy collapsed. Sound familiar?
In an underground drug market, criminals and terrorists, needing an incentive to risk their own lives and liberty, grossly inflate prices which are further driven higher to pay those who 'take a cut' like corrupt law enforcement officials who are paid many times their wages to look the other way. This forces many users to become dealers themselves in order to afford their own consumption. This whole vicious circle turns ad infinitum. You literally couldn't dream up a worse scenario even if your life depended on it. For the second time within a century, we've carelessly lost "love's labour," and, "with the hue of dungeons and the scowl of night," have wantonly created our own worst nightmare.
So should the safety and freedom of the rest of us be compromised because of the few who cannot control themselves?
Posted By: George Dance
Date: May 28, 2010 08:39:29 PM
"How can a political philosophy be both one whose time has come today and yet still remain a philosophy destined for the future?" The question really should be: How can a book call the same political philosophy both [etc.]? In the case of the Hospers book, that's easily explained.
Libertarianism was originally published in hardcover in 1971 by Nash , under the title of Libertarianism - A political philosophy for tomorrow. The 1972 paperback issued by Reason Press used the text from the Nash version unaltered, which is why that title appeared on the inside of the book. However, because Hospers was running as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, a new cover was adopted, with a picture of Hospers on the front and the more immediate subtitle, A political philosophy whose time has come.
