Libertarian Party=Ideological Chum Bucket of Two-Party System

[GoRon]

Ratzinger,
We never had the pure libertarian country you bemoan losing. The ink wasn't dry on the constitution before compromises were already being made.

The much ballyhooed separation of church and state was nearly non existent in some places just for example.

Also I might add that our modern ideas of liberty in many cases are superior to the founding fathers vision.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Ratzinger,
We never had the pure libertarian country you bemoan losing. The ink wasn't dry on the constitution before compromises were already being made.

Fair enough, but I could have lived more comfortably in a flawed Libertarian country than a non-Libertarian one.

The much ballyhooed separation of church and state was nearly non existent in some places just for example.

True, but at the time, just about everyone believed, even generically, in a Christian God. So it wasnt controversial, yet.

Also I might add that our modern ideas of liberty in many cases are superior to the founding fathers vision.

And what ideas would those be? Acorss the pond in Europe, they view the 1A as an American oddity, while criticism of minorities or even things like 'denials of genocide' will get you prison time over there. So dont think modern ideas of regulated speech is better than the FF's ideals.

 

[roo_ster]

libertarianism’s Achilles’ heel, it would almost certainly be its tolerance for zealots, purists, mavericks, and, well, whack-jobs.

Jonah's got a bit of a plank in his eye, methinks.

Read some history. JG alluded to some of it in the review. The conservative movement has done the pruning and heavy-lifting the LP can not and likely will not ever do to make it a viable movement.

List of Groups Read Out of Conservative Movement:
1. American Mercury-style anti-semites
2. John Birchers (& like tin-foil-hatters)
3. Randroid utopians (& similar cult-of-personality types)

Until the LP/libertarian movement can do the same with its anarcho-capitalists, side-walk privatizers, and dope-for-12YO kid types, it will continue to be on the margins.

I agree, libertarianism and objectivism are utopian. But, I say, "so what?"

Read up on utopian movements in the last 150 years. It is a tale of guillotines, gas chambers, terror-famines, and re-education camps. Don't think it can happen to "reason" fetishists? The architects of the French terror were just such folk, too. Tom Paine ring a bell?

Such movements seek to drive the square peg of human nature into their theoretical round hole, with the expected results.

Keep your utopian schemes away from me & my imperfect system.

If working for smaller less intrusive government with more personal freedom and responsibility is just utopian, does that mean we're just to settle for the crap we have and be happy with it?

Read the article. Libertarians and the LP have gotten so wound around the axle of ideological purity, they have never gotten around to doing the heavy lifting of popular politics.

Incrementalism is not a dirty word, especially if you can mange a ratchet effect. Take a page form the left's playbook and use it against them in real, hip-deep-in-the-muck politics.

I take great exception to the allegation that it is some extreme ideology. It HAS been implemented before: about 200 some odd years ago. It slowly started to evaporate, starting with the death of the last of the Founding Fathers (James Monroe) and then just about dying with the loss of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election. (Goldwater is one of the Gods of the Libertarian movement)

Bravo sierra.

The founding fathers were not, as a whole, utopian libertarians. Also, doctrinaire libertarianism is not what the fonding documents stand for. There was plenty of skepticism of popular will as well as centralized power.

Which Goldwater? The one of 1964? Perhaps the early-1980's Goldwater? I think you are channeling the post-Senate Goldwater of his twilight years.

 

[GoRon]

Quote:
Also I might add that our modern ideas of liberty in many cases are superior to the founding fathers vision.
And what ideas would those be?

slavery = bad

womens right to vote = good

black voting rights = good

I'm sure there are other liberties that could be listed that our FF would have called licentiousness. We now have left it to individuals to decide for themselves their personal morality with no repercussions from the law.

 

[SteveS]

The much ballyhooed separation of church and state was nearly non existent in some places just for example.

Not to mention the numerous laws that were passed because of religious beliefs or heavily influenced by religion, such as blue laws and laws against adultery. The idea that religious influence on the law is something new is just not true. If anything, we are more free from relgious influence now than we were 100 or 200 years ago.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Which Goldwater? The one of 1964? Perhaps the early-1980's Goldwater? I think you are channeling the post-Senate Goldwater of his twilight years.

The true man. So perhaps starting in the 1950s with his rejection of the 'legacy' of socialism like the New Deal. Yes, he started getting really hawkish in the early 60s but good points were made. Vietnam being a 'no win situation' was very true. Ideally, probably it would be after his reelection in '68.

Regardless, he is highly regarded by many libertarians and libertarian groups like Cato.

Bravo sierra.

The founding fathers were not, as a whole, utopian libertarians. Also, doctrinaire libertarianism is not what the fonding documents stand for. There was plenty of skepticism of popular will as well as centralized power.

Cute use of foul language. Yes, there were two main camps - the Federalists led by Washington and Hamilton, and the anti-Federalists led mainly by Jefferson. Yes, I know they hadnt adopted the LP platform so dont patronize me.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

I'm sure there are other liberties that could be listed that our FF would have called licentiousness. We now have left it to individuals to decide for themselves their personal morality with no repercussions from the law.

Depends. With a bit of modern ideas of liberties on the 'old' system and that is how Id like it.

 

[HiroProX]

*shrugs*

Conservatives will keep voting like conservatives, then 25 years hence they'll wonder why they're exactly where Hillary & Co. wanted them to go.

I little, unvarnished truth for the sauce.

 

[Soybomb]

And all he can do is bitch about it because, as is, it doesn't fit into his idea of a perfect world.

Hang out with Libertarians enough, and you'll hear this sort of thing a lot, about guns, drugs, urban zoning, privatizing playgrounds, etc.

If you don't dream big and look at the problems, how are you to ever make progress? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying gun owners aren't in a better place now than they have been in the past, but that is certainly no reason to be satisfied, content, or complacent. The world will never be our perfect world, but I don't see how sitting around and patting ourselves on the back will get us any closer to our ideal.

 

[HiroProX]

Pick your own form of progress and act on it, lest others define "progress" for you.

 

[Jeff]

Liberatarianism is a Utopian ideal?

I've never heard such nonsense.

How is resigning to the fact that we live in a fallen society Utopian?

How is proclaiming liberty is essential, and that advocating for such all-encompassing liberty will have great repercussions for society, Utopian?

There is nothing Utopian about Libertarianism. It is sheer pragmatism. It is the uncomfortable and sometimes nauseuous understanding that real liberty is afforded only with unrelenting responsibility and a necessary sense of selfishness.

Goldberg simply doesn't get it. No surprise there.

 

[BigG]

The more I read by libertarians the more I think the Libertarian Party is a coffee klatch or Think Tank for whack jobs. You can quote me.

 

[Rembrandt]

There are similarities between Libertarians and Berkley Liberal activists. Both put a great deal of energy into political ideology and activism.....except the libs have more legislation enacted to show for it.

 

[Jeff]

You can quote me.

That would hardly be necessary.

 

[araiford]

The conservatives have done such a fine job of preserving liberty in the USA. Who needs libertarians?

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

The conservatives have done such a fine job of preserving liberty in the USA.

Sarcasm right?

 

[mljdeckard]

I think I'm pretty much with the others who are conservative with libertarian leanings. Every time I think about joining the party, I go to a gun show and get an eyefull of the guys behind the libertarian table, and I remember why I haven't joined. Yeeikes.

We have two parties for a very simple reason. No one wants to be in a losing party. It is better to align with the less evil side than lose your voice entirely.

 

[Soybomb]

We have two parties for a very simple reason. No one wants to be in a losing party.

If I vote for either of the two major parties, I've lost. Neither represent me.

 

[HiroProX]

Let's see....

No gun control, yep, guess we're whackjobs.

Lower taxes, guess we're whackjobs.

Reducing the size of government and its attendant bureaucracy, yeah, I guess we're whackjobs.

Demanding the state follow its own laws, **** how dare we?!

ZOMFGWTFBBQ!!! Opposing our tax money being used to defend and provide welfare for the rest of the frelling planet, shocking!

*Looks at the immigration bill*

So, how about them republicans?

 

[GoRon]

Did you guys even read the article? Here let me help you, maybe you need to read the last section a second time to get the point.

Hence it should be no surprise that libertarianism’s greatest victories have come from its ability to persuade not the general public but conservatives themselves. The hot tea of libertarian radicalism is cooled in the saucer of American conservatism and made palatable. Today, libertarian economics are essentially indistinguishable from conservative economics. The Club for Growth, the Republican Liberty Caucus, and similar organs speak for “economic conservatives” — which, for all practical purposes, means libertarians. To be sure, they don’t advocate the legality of seven-year-old heroin dealers; nor do their hearts necessarily swell with pride over every Republican policy. Conservatism’s relationship to the GOP is quite analogous to libertarianism’s relationship to conservatism, in that both are punctuated with frequent disappointment and frustration. A burning question left unanswered by Doherty is whether libertarian strategy is an inevitable outgrowth of libertarian ideology. Is libertarianism capable of saying no?

No conservative should commit to a policy without first consulting the libertarian position. Indeed, once conservatism forgets to ask, “Should the government really be doing this?” it will have ceased conserving what is best about conservatism. Hence Radicals for Capitalism should be required reading not just for libertarians, but for their conservative comrades-in-arms as well.

 

[roo_ster]

GoRon:

Yeah, they probably read the article.

Instead of acknowledging the common ground they might have with JG & movement conservatives, they are denouncing him for his lack of adherence to the libertarian orthodoxy.

IOW, they are proving his point for him.

 

[ArmedBear]

IOW, they are proving his point for him.

I wholeheartedly concur.

God damn! I love the chum bucket image!

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

if you had to identify libertarianism’s Achilles’ heel, it would almost certainly be its tolerance for zealots, purists, mavericks, and, well, whack-jobs.

And that is different from far liberalism and conservatism how?

Some might call me a liberal with strong libertarian leanings. I don't like the term liberal because it's been so abused by people who don't understand it. A rarity, perhaps, in mainstream politics these days, but so is the "conservative with libertarian leanings" several have called themselves, if we're honest.

 

[longrifleman]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/liberal-post-interview.html

A timely and interesting take on libertarian thougt.

I used to consider myself a mainstream conservative, like most of my family and neighbors, but I noticed that there didn't seem to be a consistant philosophy to support the name. I noticed that over time, conservatism was constantly changing to support the status quo, after the liberals were able to drag the country a little closer to the socialist pit. I didn't change, but the Republican party and the "conservative" movement sure did.

What do you current Republicans and conservatives recommend for someone like me? The stock answer to work from within, with all due respect, is a joke.
Ask Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul how welcome any voice is that doesn't toe the line. At the local level the reception is just as warm.

As for the claim that libertarianism is utopian, at least for me, it is the exact opposite. I want the power of govt to be limited as much as possible because I've seen what unlimited power in the hands of real utopians can do. No thanks.

 

[Michigander]

The ultimate libertarian utopia would be peaceful anarchy, no?