Libertarians

[The Wrath]

It really can't be worse than it is now...no government is better than a tyrannical government.

Our government sucks, but do you honestly think it couldn't be worse?

[AisA]

It really can't be worse than it is now...no government is better than a tyrannical government.

It can't be worse than it is now? I do not know where you live, but here in the U.S. things are very good indeed; not perfect, but certainly far better than, say, North Korea.

[Lemuel]

Perhaps a clarification of my first post is in order:

The Libertarian Party should appropriately be the political extension of objective, rational thought. Even though there are semantic differences on some philosophical issues (which these forums chronicle), the practical political extension of individual rights and capitalism should be defined as "libertarianism."

I can see a conservative, who dislikes the practises of abortion and euthenasia, voting libertarian (within the above context), valuing the sovereignty of the individual over policies which make the infirm and unborn public property. I can see a liberal, to whom environmental protection is important, voting libertarian, valuing the sanctity of property rights over corporate enslavement.

[What I have trouble with is rational thinkers voting for a Republican or Democratic candidate based on which is "more likely" to re-establish Americans' freedom; both Parties' platforms are clearly collectivist and statist in nature. But I'm digressing here ...]

How the Lib. Party ignores the rational and philosophical basis for its platform is discouraging. By avoiding the fundamental ideas behind property rights, individual rights, capitalism, and a government limited to the defense of everyone's material safety, the Party has left itself open to irrational philosophical influences.

Religious zealoutry is given a wide berth where the Party's opinion of church-state separation is concerned: since there's no specific Constitutional provision for a completely secular government (simply one against Congress declaring a national faith) there's no real separation.

It's clear to any critical thinker, though, how destructive to individual liberty religion is, if enforced by the state. The party position - if it is to be an extension of rational philosophy, and not a borrower of rhetoric - should be that laws will be decided on the basis of protecting individual and property rights, not on perceived "common religious sensabilities."

This has widespread consequences, even where ideas seem to connect. Cold-blooded murder is evil, but why is it illegal? Because it violates another man's right to exist, or because God said He doesn't like it? If you don't clearly define the interests of individual rights and personal property (including one's own body), then you can't use them as the basis for making murder illegal. You have to go with the Ten Commandments reason, then, leaving a wide opening for the interpretation of "murder" to include euthenasia and abortion. Suddenly a person's right to life-support termination, or removing a fetus, is violated by the State.

Now, I'm not starting an off-topic debate, here; I'm simply making an example of one of the Libertarian Party's flaws. There are many others, but the single most fundamental problem is that the LP's moral defense of libertarianism is, to me, weaker than Republicans' defense of capitalism.

The LP can drift in the right direction, though, and when a candidate (like Badnarik was) shows some serious promise, I'll set aside my usual write-in option. The only practical alternatives - for me - involve greater collectivism, weakening the nation even more. Conservatives and liberals alike are fighting each other and doing so going the wrong direction entirely.

[EC]

No, the proper political system of Objectivism is capitalism. Liberterianism does not equal capitalism.

[Lemuel]

You're absolutely right - I agree completely. I retract that statement on the premise that libertarianism does have a great degree of irrationality embedded within.

I'm just annoyed that "libertarians" hijacked the name of what should be a rational, Objectivist political affiliation. Capitalism is exercised by the society at large, but what form of government protects it, or rather what political party will work to truly unleash capitalists? Republicans? Since when do they stand up for everyone's individual rights?

Maybe there should be a Capitalist Party, maybe there is, but the name would cause some consternation, since liberals have done a great job of making capitalism look "evil", and conservatives are impotent to respond.

I would like the Lib. Party to be - in name - the one that stands for Objectivist principles and a secular government, but the actuality of libertarianism is that it's just ideological window dressing of Rand's philosphy.

[Tom Robinson]

I would like the Lib. Party to be - in name - the one that stands for Objectivist principles and a secular government, but the actuality of libertarianism is that it's just ideological window dressing of Rand's philosphy.

Do you think a political party based on explicitly Objectivist principles is going to fare any better than the LP at election time?

[The Wrath]

No. That's why you should vote for the candidate, not for the party. It isn't unimaginable that an Objectivist would run on a Republican ticket.

[Tom Robinson]

No.  That's why you should vote for the candidate, not for the party.

So one could vote for a Libertarian Party candidate and not vote for the Libertarian Party.

  It isn't unimaginable that an Objectivist would run on a Republican ticket.

Is that more imaginable than an Objectivist running on the LP ticket? (I don't suppose anyone would wish to claim that the Republican Party platform is closer to Objectivist principles than the LP's.)

[The Wrath]

Unless I'm mistaken, Objectivists generally believe the Libertarian party to be the most dangerous political party. Even so, voting for a Libertarian is a waste of a vote. Vote to make a difference, not a statement, unless the two main candidates truly are equal in amount of suckage. I have yet to see an election where I could not make a clear choice between the two main candidates and, until I do, I will never waste my vote on a Libertarian.

[Tom Robinson]

Unless I'm mistaken, Objectivists generally believe the Libertarian party to be the most dangerous political party.

In a race where the only two candidates were a Libertarian and a Nazi, would the Objectivist vote for the latter?

  Even so, voting for a Libertarian is a waste of a vote.  Vote to make a difference, not a statement, unless the two main candidates truly are equal in amount of suckage.  I have yet to see an election where I could not make a clear choice between the two main candidates and, until I do, I will never waste my vote on a Libertarian.

In general, your strategy has considerable merit. However, there have been elections in which Libertarian candidates have won or have come close to winning office. Furthermore, in some instances it may be worthwhile to vote for a third party in order to force a major party to adopt some of the third party's positions. This was the strategy used successfully by the Conservative Party in New York to make the Republican Party move further to the right.

[The Wrath]

In a race where the only two candidates were a Libertarian and a Nazi, would the Objectivist vote for the latter?

Last time I checked, the American Nazi Party doesn't participate in elections. They just adopt highways.

[Tom Robinson]

Last time I checked, the American Nazi Party doesn't participate in elections.  They just adopt highways.

So the reason an Objectivist would never vote for a Nazi is because Nazis don't run in U.S. elections? Not exactly a hard core ethical stance, as it leaves open the possibility that some day, some Nazi or Nazi sympathizer might run for elective office, as David Duke did some years ago in Louisiana.

[The Wrath]

When I said that, I was picking out of the current political parties. Yes, if the only choices were Libertarian and Nazi, I would vote Libertarian.

[Capitalism Forever]

Do you think a political party based on explicitly Objectivist principles is going to fare any better than the LP at election time?

Not (yet), but only because the voters who are smart enough to like the party's principles will likely fail to be stupid enough to waste their votes on a third party.

[Capitalism Forever]

It isn't unimaginable that an Objectivist would run on a Republican ticket.

Is that more imaginable than an Objectivist running on the LP ticket?

Absolutely. No true Objectivist will have anything to do with the LP.

[Capitalism Forever]

In a race where the only two candidates were a Libertarian and a Nazi

...In other words, in a race where both candidates were Nazis....

[Tom Robinson]

QUOTE(Tom Robinson @ Apr 11 2005, 05:54 PM)

In a race where the only two candidates were a Libertarian and a Nazi

...In other words, in a race where both candidates were Nazis....

Is it your view that members of the Libertarian Party advocate genocide of non-Aryans, worship of the head of state, total government control of the economy, and expansion of national boundaries through military aggression? If so, I eagerly await references.

[Lemuel]

I've read the arguments on why the Libertarians are "dangerous", but the Party's young, and seems to want the right things - economic and personal freedom. While that's hardly a cohesive philosophy, it doesn't conflict with Objectivism as much as conservatism or liberalism. (Or does it? Maybe I'm not looking deep enough.)

For an Objectivist to get a RP nomination - for any office of powerful influence - would be difficult, since an admitted atheist would be attempting to gain the favor of a party whose constituency is largely religious. To get a DP nomination would be tough, too, since (I assume) an Objectivist's plan would be to roll back entitlements.

Lib.s are dangerous? It seems that the two major parties that have the Union in a thickening gridlock are more dangerous. I can't watch CSPAN for ten minutes without having to push back a wave of frustration at the ignorance displayed in our most hallowed halls.

So why would it be dangerous for formal Objectivists to get involved in a party that is young and misguided, with the purpose of "setting it straight"? There are already a number of (informal) objectivists and "fans of Ayn Rand" there ... are our differences so great that they are to be considered a threat?

Seriously, I'm asking ... I'm really trying to reconcile all this in my head, and much of the anti-Libertarian rhetoric I've read isn't without a few (perceived or unexplained) flaws.

[Capitalism Forever]

Is it your view that members of the Libertarian Party advocate genocide of non-Aryans, worship of the head of state, total government control of the economy, and expansion of national boundaries through military aggression?

If Libertarians got to run the U.S. government, the likeliest result today would be the genocide of non-Muslims and Sharia law.

[Capitalism Forever]

So why would it be dangerous for formal Objectivists to get involved in a party that is young and misguided, with the purpose of "setting it straight"?

Because 1) the ideologues of the party would make sure that nothing gets set straight and 2) it would give the LP the appearance of a respectable party. So what you would get is the worst possible combination: a party that voters see as respectable, while in fact it continues to be evil.

And Objectivists are setting the young and misguided libertarians straight--by promoting Objectivism in the ARI and in the media.

[Tom Robinson]

If Libertarians got to run the U.S. government, the likeliest result today would be the genocide of non-Muslims and Sharia law.

On the basis of what evidence do you make this claim? Earlier you had written that a race where the only two candidates were a Libertarian and a Nazi would be a race where "both candidates were Nazis...." Is it your view that Naziism and Sharia law are one and the same?

Edited April 12, 2005 by Tom Robinson

[Tom Robinson]

So what you would get is the worst possible combination: a party that voters see as respectable, while in fact it continues to be evil.

You mean a party like the one that President Bush is in.

[Capitalism Forever]

On the basis of what evidence do you make this claim?

Libertarians are opposed to "meddling" with Islamist countries. The result of that kind of policy is inevitably the spread of Islamism.

Earlier you had written that a race where the only two candidates were a Libertarian and a Nazi would be a race where "both candidates were Nazis...."  Is it your view that Naziism and Sharia law are one and the same?

No, but one is just as bad as the other.

[Capitalism Forever]

You mean a party like the one that President Bush is in.

1. There are many flaws in Republican policies, but they are nowhere NEAR as evil as Sharia.

2. Running as a Republican would not make the Republican Party seem respectable, because it already does seem such. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the fact that those who are currently in power are currently in power, but it is another matter entirely to help a gang that is currently out of power gain power--especially if that gang is worse than the current powers-that-be.

[Tom Robinson]

Libertarians are opposed to "meddling" with Islamist countries. The result of that kind of policy is inevitably the spread of Islamism.

No, libertarians support your right to meddle with Islamists to your heart's content, C.F. -- provided that it's your own money and blood that you're putting on the line.