It's official

[9th Engineer]

I can be a libertarian (I am) and still say that there are things worth fighting for. If there wasn't, the all libertarians by definition would turn into anarchests.The divide is we do not try to stop behavior that is not malicious or costly to other people. I throw in the second criteria because I don't think it is in the nature of libertarianism to force people to take responsibility for the behaviors of others.

[Ibby]

don't look at me, I'm not the one saying you HAVE to be ONE-HUNDRED-PERCENT behind non-aggression to be libertarian... All I said was that, logically, supporting it on principle doesnt work for non-aggression.

You cannot be a libertarian and be ok with our current Imperial aspirations, not even a little.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well. I confess to a considerable degree of excitement. Here goes.

Originally Posted by Radar

We can have opposing opinions, and still both be libertarians. We don't have to walk lockstep and agree on everything to be libertarians, but we do have to agree on one thing, and that is the non-aggression principle.

And do you not see a logical contradiction between the beginning and the ending of this statement? I do. There is more than one understanding of the non-aggression principle, varying mainly in the initial consideration: how much aggression is enough before you may rightly countervail even by violent opposition? There is further the point I raised and you've never given thought to: is it wise or well to permit an antilibertarian enemy the first blow? I don't think it is. He may get it in, but we don't as a matter of principle have to give it to him. That you won't acknowledge that adult libertarians are going to have more than just one reading of the NA principle isn't a matter of Libertarian philosophy, but a product of your own habit of mind, which is "my way or the highway."

This is the core belief of libertarianism. It defines who is or isn't a libertarian, and you are not one. David Nolan made the chart you cling to as a means of outreach to find those who happen to lean toward libertarianism. Then they could be approached to see if they were really libertarians...which you are not.

It would be more accurate to say of me that I mix a lot of neocon philosophy into my libertarianism. Particularly prominent is the neocon commonplace that a democracy prospers best in a world completely full of other democracies, who also prosper themselves in like manner. I think the more libertarian the democracy (or republic), the better a democracy it is. It is really the things I agree with that make me a libertarian, and not some quibble over exactly how to approach and actualize some principle. The neocon finding about democracies applies with equal force to libertarian societies: they too should prosper best in the company of other libertarian societies. There will be others, you know: for better or for worse the nation-state is not going to wither away altogether. There will always be some need for the coercive elements of a social order to deal with the unsocializable. The problem presented by the sociopathic and the would-be overlords is a bit more glossed over than I would like.

It is also true that the places that would benefit most greatly from a libertarian society are precisely those places which have it the least: the tyrannies. The tyrants do not sit idly by once aware of something that may threaten their power, which libertarianism can hardly avoid doing. I say we must be prepared to prevent tyrants from doing anything effectual to forestall their overthrow -- which among other things means being better at fighting than they are.

Something I haven't studied very hard yet is exactly who takes care of the public roads.

You can disagree with me all you want, and you can lie about being a libertarian all you want, but I will continue to correct you everytime you do it because you are a filthy liar, and an asshole.

I could care less how you feel about it.

That is indeed evident in yet another hotheaded try at hurting my feelings. Namecalling again, Paul? It's something you resort to much too easily, especially for a would-be holder of political office. You just lost this argument. See above for my prediction about the intensity of this debate.

It's the truth. It's not merely my opinion. Your views, directly violate the philosophy of libertarianism, and the Libertarian Party platform.

My views are about expanding the Libertarian Party base, as I think libertarian ideas are well worth trying. Your determined efforts to purge this Party, to kick just about all and sundry out of the treehouse because they're not quite your sort, make the party weak. This is a strategic mistake which must be righted if we are to succeed. What kind of dummy forms a political party with the intent of losing?? Don't blame party failures on the boneheadedness of an electorate that didn't take up your study hobby. And don't rely on the electorate being boneheaded either. That's what the socialist Democrats are doing.

Nobody who supports the war in Iraq is a libertarian. That's a fact.

And somebody willing to countenance the continuation of an ultrastatist dictatorship IS? Really. I have something for you, Paul: the people who support Iraq going to a freer, more libertarian social order ARE the libertarians here.

I know it bothers the shit out of you, but that's too fucking bad. Get over it, you're not a libertarian.

You'll be nearer serenity if you get over it yourself. I spent the nine years of my military service within a totalitarian social order. Military services are not in themselves very conducive to innovation because in these rigidly structured, command societies, it is all too easy to become stultified, to think, "It's not my job, man." Yes, it stultified me, and I don't want that sort of thing around me ever again. This same thing colors all the unfree societies -- initiative isn't let to grow, bloom, and take the whole joint over, yet without doing that, an economy, blighted by its social order, permanently underperforms. Militaries have other goals than creation -- they are designed as organizations that function even under severe damage. That is the true characteristic of successful militaries. A side effect of this is the stultification I spoke of. It's unfortunate, but I also don't see how it may be avoided -- and a libertarian nation cannot dispense with its army, because there will ALWAYS, in every generation, be outsiders who would try coercion on this nation. Insiders, too; societies are never perfectly functioning machines. Absolutely never. Radical-politics people tend never to understand this.

There are no "numbers" that will make you a libertarian. Being in the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan chart does not make you a libertarian, and it never will.

It also shows I cannot very well be anything else. Thinking of this kind, Paul, is why the Libertarian Party remains a tiny, politically ineffectual group. A nice social club, but where is the libertarian ideal nationwide? And how can we make it greater? There has been no thought in your end of the LP on this, and certainly none in your head, or you'd be sounding rather more like me.

Every single time you lie to people and say you're a libertarian, I'll let them know you are not one, and that I'm speaking from a position of authority within the party, and I can back all of it up with books, websites, and other verifiable sources while you are just talking out of your ass.

I realize you can't help talking out of your ass, because that's where your head is, but this doesn't lend you any credibility.

I tell the people the truth. I am a libertarian. You, in opposing this, are condemned to permanent falsehood with every utterance on this point. You shall not prevail in this. Not yesterday. Not now. Not ever. Never. You must not, can not, and shall not prevail over me, not if the Libertarian Party is to grow to both greatness and effectiveness. Brawling with you will no doubt make me a stronger libertarian through the stimulus: me bodybuilder, you barbell.

Perhaps that is true, but the right way is rarely the easy way...Libertarians don't feel it is our place to go around forcing others to have those other democracies.

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders . . . All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."

- Hermann Goering, Nazi Gestapo


"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."

- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1908

It would be more accurate to say of me that I mix a lot of neocon philosophy into my libertarianism. Particularly prominent is the neocon commonplace that a democracy prospers best in a world completely full of other democracies,

Imperialism...

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You cannot be a libertarian and be ok with our current Imperial aspirations, not even a little.

We haven't got any.

We never really did. Yeah, we glommed the Phillippines for a while -- more or less because it was the fashion then. And we turned the Phillipines over to the Filipinos.

We never really did because our nation started out on a firmly anti-imperialist footing and this has remained a fundamental. Economic pressure kept us that way: the expenditures of empirebuilding are simply bad for business. And we Americans instinctively hew to that which is good for business, however imperfectly we may do so from year to year. Even our most send-in-the-Marines times have most often been in the service of economics.

I'll believe you when we walk away without taking a drop of oil and the Kissinger pipeline proves to be false.

Too late... seen the plans drawn-up already dividing-up the oil fields with Cheny's signature on it.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

- Abraham Lincoln, November 12, 1864

[Ibby]

Radar, I'm sorry, but I'll have to side with UG this time. I don't like the guy any more than you do (well, okay, maybe a little more than you do), but if you ask me, its kinda un-libertarian to declare whether or not someone is libertarian. I agree that non-aggression is important, but UG has a rationalization:

There is more than one understanding of the non-aggression principle, varying mainly in the initial consideration: how much aggression is enough before you may rightly countervail even by violent opposition?

I may not agree with him, but his interpretation, however distant from mine or yours it may be, is an interpretation nonetheless. A GOOD libertarian he may not be, but who are we to say what he is or isnt? Whether he is or he is not, we have no right to declare him otherwise until he gives CONCRETE proof, which as I said before, his views on nonagression are not.

[Radar]

The truth is I'm for as large a party as possible, as long as all the people in the party subscribe to the non-aggression principle (the cornerstone of libertarianism) and actually ARE libertarians. This means they don't support unprovoked wars against non-threats like Iraq, they don't want to close the borders or promote larger government to do so, they don't support stealing money through force like income taxes, etc.

I'm a big tent libertarian. As long as all people in the libertarian tent are libertarians, I'm fine.

The accusatory tone of some of the messages suggesting that use the term "purists" as though it were a negative are genuinely laughable.

In fact, they are exactly like this...

======================================

George: Father Tucker, I live in this neighborhood and I'd like to become a member of your Catholic church.

Father Tucker: That sounds great George. Do you believe in and worship Jesus Christ?

George: No, I prefer to worship Satan and I don't believe Jesus ever existed. But I do believe in some of the other stuff in the Bible. I wanted to use the church for our animal sacrifices every week.

Father Tucker: I'm sorry to hear that son. We don't allow Satan worshipers to use our church for animal sacrifices or to become members of our church.

George: But father, I've been watching your parking lot, and I have been seeing your membership dwindle. If you started allowing people to use the church for Satan worship, your membership would increase by 10 fold.

Father Tucker: That may or may not be the case, but we are not flexible on this. Membership in the Catholic church belongs solely to those who those who share the same beliefs of our current members. That is to say they believe in and worship Jesus Christ. We also never allow our church to be used for Satan worship or animal sacrifices. There are no exceptions. I hope you find Jesus and choose to worship him. In fact I'd be willing to spend some time talking to you about him. If you change your mind and agree in the existance of Jesus Christ and choose to accept him as your lord and savior, we can work on making you a member of the church through baptism, education, and confirmation.

George: Father, why do you have to be such a purist? You are losing members left and right. If you really want to fill those pews, you'd let me come here with my fellow Satan worshippers. It's guys like you who keep this church from growing as large as it could be. What if we just got rid of a few things like baptism? Isn't baptism antiquated anyway? I think a lot of people don't join the church because of baptism. And don't you think Jesus Christ is a hard sell? It's pretty radical and a lot of people won't go for it if they have to stop sinning. How about if we get rid of baptism, allow Satan worshipping, and only have 5 commandments? Maybe then we could grow a lot?

Father Tucker: No. I'm sorry, but we can't do any of those things. Our belief system is what it is. We don't change our core beliefs simply because it might attract more people. We believe them because we consider them to be the truth. We can be flexible on many things, but not on our beliefs. I'm sorry.

George: Geeeze father. Who made you the Czar of Catholic purity? I'm sure in your mind, a tiny church is a GOOD thing. I guess you just don't want your church to grow. We need to get people like you out of the church. Why are you trying to FORCE people to believe a certain way or follow ancient rituals?

Father Tucker: We're not trying to FORCE anyone to do anything. We have a certain belief system, and we welcome everyone who share it, but we will not change our belief system or our message for expediency or growth. Nobody is forcing them to join our church or to believe a certain way just so they can join.

George: With that attitude, your church will never amount to anything.

======================================

Nothing I've said contradicts anything else I've said. We don't have to agree on everything, but we do have to agree on 1 thing, and that is the core belief of libertarianism... the non-aggression principle. And no, there are no degrees of it. Non = none. Meaning it's never ok to use aggression against those who have not used it against you first. Iraq did not use aggression against the United States of America and America's defensive military is not for defending any people but our own.

Before people get their panties in a wad over the church analogy, the example doesn't have to be a church. It can be any private organization with a set of shared beliefs. It could be an atheist organization where people want to become members who only pray to one god and who want to mix church and state. It could be a vegetarian group where a prospective member says they eat beef, pork, and lamb, but no fish or chicken so they want to become members, and to change the rules to allow other meat eaters to join and to use the resources of the group to promote eating meat. It could be a person who wants to join the NRA or JPFO but who supports restrictions on certain types of weapons, and who calls the removal of all gun control laws "radical".

The point is that a particular group was created with a common set of principles and core beliefs and someone wants to join the group despite not sharing those beliefs and often times has the exact opposite beliefs. They further demand to be allowed into the group and want to change the group to suit themselves. In many cases they drive long-time and loyal members out of the group out of frustration.

The LP has done this and more by allowing these interlopers to actually be allowed into leadership positions within the party.

Some people want to be "Buffet Libertarians". They want to pick and choose which issues they happen agree on without regard for the principles or philosophy behind the traditional stands taken by the party. They want to toss out the pledge because it makes them uncomfortable by shining a light on the core beliefs that created our party, which they don't agree with and because it could be used to hold them accountable when they violate those principles or promote unlibertarian things.

I have no problem with people who don't agree with the Libertarian Party 100% of the time. We don't have to walk lockstep and agree on EVERYTHING, but we do have to agree on one thing, and that is the non-aggression principle. In the example of the church, you have to believe in Jesus Christ. In the example of the vegetarians, you have to agree that you don't eat meat.

Those who support the completely unwarranted, unprovoked, and unconstitutional war in Iraq do not support the non-aggression principle. There is no valid libertarian justification for the war in Iraq. There is no legitimate claim that Iraq ever posed even the slightest danger to America, or that America has EVER had a valid reason to invade Iraq at any time in history whether it was 1991, 2006 or any time between.

[Undertoad]

I'm not too convinced by your protests about the church analogy. The L party is much closer to a church than a political party.

A political party is for grouping people of perhaps dissimilar beliefs, together for the purposes of concentrating political power in a bloc.

Clearly Radar's L party is not this at all, but a vehicle for evangelism to promote a belief system which promises a form of paradise if the true believers can convert enough people.

Consider this imaginary dialogue. You won't have to work your imagination too hard.

=============

Joe Voter: Hey, aren't you that guy Paul? Some of the things you say make sense, I think I'm gonna vote for you.

Paul: That's great!

Joe Voter: Yeah, the Ds are sending us a bunch of morons to vote for and the Rs only care about Terri Schaivo.

Paul: I feel the same way.

Joe Voter: I think I'm going to register in a third party, the two big parties don't really represent me any more. I'm OK with public schools, but our taxes are way too high, they should be about half what they are. Do you have a registration form, I want to join your party.

Paul: NO! You're clearly NOT one of us!!

=============

Does Joe vote for Paul? No way. But appealing to Joe and getting his vote is not Paul's goal anyway. Which begs the question: what is Paul's goal?

[Undertoad]

Now if Paul is smart he will not argue with any of the above. It makes perfect sense in every way and is an accurate description.

But it doesn't make sense at all as a strategy.

The LP in fact acts as a net negative to the "liberty cause". It is a poor advocate for its own "philosophy". Why is that?

A) It is a poor substitute for a philosophy, even a political philosophy. Real philosophies address much more than the non-aggression principle addresses. For example, the NAP doesn't directly address the question of abortion, national boundaries, etc. Real, hard political issues and the NAP provides no guidance at all. Maybe a framework but no guidance, ya follow?

B) As a principle, it is so VAGUE that it has been interpreted to mean wildly different things. Some feel it permits an activist foreign policy, some don't. Some feel it requires 100% anarcho-capitalism, some don't. Some feel it must be implemented entirely overnight - no matter what the result - some feel it can be gradually rolled in. Some feel it permits modern environmentalism, some don't. Is this any way to run a political party?

C) The utter failure of the LP as a political engine is seen as a failure of the movement. Although polls show a good quarter to third of people are generally libertarian in nature, the party's 0.5-1% results delegitimize the entire movement. With all due respect to our present company, there are more transsexuals in the US than there are LP members. Of course, the transsexuals have an even harsher core entrance requirement.

D) Some people are just not good public advocates and should not be encouraged to head out into the public square to make their points. In the case of the LP, this is roughly half the candidates. They are not "crisp advocates for the liberty cause". They are "loony whack jobs attracted to a contrarian movement". People hear them and freeze in fear. This delegitimizes the entire liberty movement.

I could go on.

Now many thinkers, such as the Objectivists, see that the LP is promoting a competing philosophy and not a political party and refuse to become involved with it. What's that you say? The Objectivists are not Libertarians? But WTF? They can't possibly be more closely aligned, right?

The LP is a net negative to the liberty movement. Now that you've read it here, think about that, while you look at what happens over the next few years. Watch what you see. It's not only the Objectivists. Does CATO work with the LP? Never! Why does political success happen only to people such as Ron Paul, Gale Norton, etc. after they LEAVE the LP? Because the LP is a net negative.

[OnyxCougar]

Some points I thought were interesting: (all emphasis mine)

Libertarians say they favour political freedom. But even to simply enforce the outcome of the market, the apparatus of a state would be necessary - an army to prevent invasions, a police force to suppress internal revolt, a judicial system. Most libertarians go much further: they want a libertarian regime. Some of them have written complete and detailed constitutions. But like any state, a libertarian state will have to enforce its constitution - otherwise it will be no more than a suggested constitution. Even if the state is founded on the planet Mars (as some libertarians suggest), someone else with different ideas will probably arrive sometime. The libertarian constitutions might work in a freshly established libertarian colony, inhabited only by committed libertarians. But sooner or later there will be an opposition, perhaps resolutely hostile to the founding principles. States, which fail to enforce their own political system against opposition to the state itself, ultimately collapse or disappear. If libertarian states want to survive in such circumstances, they will use political repression against their internal opponents.

In the case of libertarianism within existing states, the position is much clearer. There is no question of a fresh start with a fresh population. The Libertarian Party of the United States, for instance, seeks to impose a libertarian system on the United States. It is an imposition, and can not be anything else. Unless they are prepared to accept the division of the country, they will have to deal with millions of anti-libertarians, who reject the regime entirely. They might call the riot police the Liberty Police, they might call the prisons Liberty Camps, but it's still not 'political freedom'.

and

non-coercion:
The principle of non-coercion, or non-initiation of force, appears in most self-definitions. It is the equivalent of the liberal concept of 'negative liberty' and some libertarians use that term. Libertarians say they are against coercion, but they support the free market. The introduction of a free market in Russia after 1989, lead to an excess mortality of about 3 million people. I call that force (and not defensive or retaliatory force): libertarians do not. Some US employers require their employees to smile at all customers, or lose their job. I call that coercion: libertarians call it freedom of contract. There is no point in further discussion of these issues: they are examples of irreconcilable value conflicts.

source

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Now if Paul is smart he will not argue with any of the above. It makes perfect sense in every way and is an accurate description.

But it doesn't make sense at all as a strategy.

The LP in fact acts as a net negative to the "liberty cause". It is a poor advocate for its own "philosophy". Why is that?

A) It is a poor substitute for a philosophy, even a political philosophy. Real philosophies address much more than the non-aggression principle addresses. For example, the NAP doesn't directly address the question of abortion, national boundaries, etc. Real, hard political issues and the NAP provides no guidance at all. Maybe a framework but no guidance, ya follow?

B) As a principle, it is so VAGUE that it has been interpreted to mean wildly different things. Some feel it permits an activist foreign policy, some don't. Some feel it requires 100% anarcho-capitalism, some don't. Some feel it must be implemented entirely overnight - no matter what the result - some feel it can be gradually rolled in. Some feel it permits modern environmentalism, some don't. Is this any way to run a political party?

C) The utter failure of the LP as a political engine is seen as a failure of the movement. Although polls show a good quarter to third of people are generally libertarian in nature, the party's 0.5-1% results delegitimize the entire movement. With all due respect to our present company, there are more transsexuals in the US than there are LP members. Of course, the transsexuals have an even harsher core entrance requirement.

D) Some people are just not good public advocates and should not be encouraged to head out into the public square to make their points. In the case of the LP, this is roughly half the candidates. They are not "crisp advocates for the liberty cause". They are "loony whack jobs attracted to a contrarian movement". People hear them and freeze in fear. This delegitimizes the entire liberty movement.

I could go on.

Now many thinkers, such as the Objectivists, see that the LP is promoting a competing philosophy and not a political party and refuse to become involved with it. What's that you say? The Objectivists are not Libertarians? But WTF? They can't possibly be more closely aligned, right?

The LP is a net negative to the liberty movement. Now that you've read it here, think about that, while you look at what happens over the next few years. Watch what you see. It's not only the Objectivists. Does CATO work with the LP? Never! Why does political success happen only to people such as Ron Paul, Gale Norton, etc. after they LEAVE the LP? Because the LP is a net negative.

That is because the Libertarian Party does not believe in micro-managing everything and making everyone's mind up for them. Some things are up to the individual.
That it is above the Games of the other parties is it's strength.
Sad... I would have thought you would know that.

[Undertoad]

That it is above the Games of the other parties is it's strength.

We measure the strength of political parties in terms of how much influence they wield.

Sad... I would have thought you would know that.

You need to know this phrase is annoying, insulting, and a totally unconvincing appeal to your own sense of superiority.

HTH

[Radar]

1. I don't have to waste my time arguing because it is laughable, and doesn't resemble reality in the slighest.

2. The LP is absolutely NOT a net negative toward the cause of liberty and in fact is the ONLY organization that is a net positive for it. Liberty has never been furthered through the major parties, including through Ron Paul.

3. The NAP is not vague or ambiguous in the slightest and it addresses every issue you mentioned.

4. The LP is not a failure. There have been many people who failed at being good libertarians like Undertoad, but the party has not failed. In fact it's done very well considering the fact that we don't compromise our principles and don't take dirty money. If anything the Libertarian Party is the single most successful third party since the Republican Party was a third party before Lincoln was elected.

5. The results of an election don't delegitimize the beliefs of those running. Popularity does not mean something is right. Once it was very popular to believe the world was flat and the sun revolved around it.

6. Libertarians on the whole are far better educated, articulate, and better able to make a "crisp", witty, intelligent, and cogent argument than those in any other party.

Not one part of anything you had to say had anything legitimate to back it up. It was nothing but a display or your own ignorance and bitterness.

The Libertarian Party is a success. With more money it would be a greater success. But the LP should not now, nor ever give up the pledge, or adherence to the NAP (which is better and more complete than any other political philosophy).

There wasn't a single part of your post that even remotely resembled anything close to the truth or reality.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Now if Paul is smart he will not argue with any of the above. It makes perfect sense in every way and is an accurate description.

But it doesn't make sense at all as a strategy.

The LP in fact acts as a net negative to the "liberty cause". It is a poor advocate for its own "philosophy". Why is that?

A) It is a poor substitute for a philosophy, even a political philosophy. Real philosophies address much more than the non-aggression principle addresses. For example, the NAP doesn't directly address the question of abortion, national boundaries, etc. Real, hard political issues and the NAP provides no guidance at all. Maybe a framework but no guidance, ya follow?

B) As a principle, it is so VAGUE that it has been interpreted to mean wildly different things. Some feel it permits an activist foreign policy, some don't. Some feel it requires 100% anarcho-capitalism, some don't. Some feel it must be implemented entirely overnight - no matter what the result - some feel it can be gradually rolled in. Some feel it permits modern environmentalism, some don't. Is this any way to run a political party?

C) The utter failure of the LP as a political engine is seen as a failure of the movement. Although polls show a good quarter to third of people are generally libertarian in nature, the party's 0.5-1% results delegitimize the entire movement. With all due respect to our present company, there are more transsexuals in the US than there are LP members. Of course, the transsexuals have an even harsher core entrance requirement.

D) Some people are just not good public advocates and should not be encouraged to head out into the public square to make their points. In the case of the LP, this is roughly half the candidates. They are not "crisp advocates for the liberty cause". They are "loony whack jobs attracted to a contrarian movement". People hear them and freeze in fear. This delegitimizes the entire liberty movement.

I could go on.

Now many thinkers, such as the Objectivists, see that the LP is promoting a competing philosophy and not a political party and refuse to become involved with it. What's that you say? The Objectivists are not Libertarians? But WTF? They can't possibly be more closely aligned, right?

The LP is a net negative to the liberty movement. Now that you've read it here, think about that, while you look at what happens over the next few years. Watch what you see. It's not only the Objectivists. Does CATO work with the LP? Never! Why does political success happen only to people such as Ron Paul, Gale Norton, etc. after they LEAVE the LP? Because the LP is a net negative.