This is a topic I raised for discussion several years ago on another blog I used to write for, and I remember getting a lot of heat from it as an outsider to the LP. But in light of recent events, I figured it would make for an interesting debate.
The Libertarian Party has always seemed poorly named to be. Libertarianism is a fairly strict philosophy, and it’s hard to build a practical political party on a philosophy that few people can embrace completely and totally.
Whenever I take the Nolan Chart test, as I did a couple of days ago, I wind up being identified as a Libertarian in the middle bottom portion of that quadrent. There are a few exceptions where national priorities should be set and agressively pursued, but in general I support LESS taxation, LESS regulation, and GENERALLY smaller government.
But then in practice I tell someone that I don’t support abolishing public schools or that I believe we should increase Federal funding for NASA and space exploration in general… and I realize very quickly how “unlibertarian” I am.
That’s because the party and the philosophy have adopted this same identity and in order to be a member of the Libertarian Party, one must adopt the libertarian philosophy. It’s the same way that it’s not easy to join a church if you only agree with 75% of their teachings.
But a political party shouldn’t be a church. It’s my belief that a more broadly marketable name and identity (such as the Freedom Party or the Liberty Party) would be vastly more palatable to voters. The Republicans and Democrats are so successful because they have flexible enough identities to house huge numbers of voters who have general positions that lean to the left or the right.
A big tent Liberty Party could break through and capture a huge percentage of the American electorate. Because ultimately there are many people out there who support smaller government and less regulation… but there are very few true libertarians.
Now feel free to tell me why I’m wrong. 🙂
It was Proposition 18, you ignorant statist! 🙂
Of course, you’re right… it all makes perfect sense. I had completely forgotten about the vote they took on “Proposition 17 – The introduction of a half-cent sales tax to facilitate the mass murder of all Jews in German occupied Europe.”
Austin you still don’t get it. You advocate pure majority rule – or you’re just ok with it – but both taxes-backed-by-guns and the holocaust are products of it. They’re both on the same continuum and once you have the former, it’s only a matter of time before you get the latter.
Shut your mind to the facts but they remain facts irregardless.
If A, B, C are 5, 10 or 20% taxes-backed-by-guns, well that’s the same thing isn’t it? That’s the same thing as asking if you want to be shot 1, 2 or 3 times. I don’t want to be extorted, or shot, so yeah I’ll take ‘Z’: no initiation of force.
Ross: well said on compromise!
I think the problem is that “party” part of the name. George Washington was right – political parties are just a bad idea. Instead of focusing on what needs to get done – for the LP that would be, more than anything else, shrinking the size of government – they focus a lot of energy on how they can get more power and more members, even if it means sacrificing the things that need to get done.
That’s why, in my opinion, the “reformers” of the LP are ridiculous. If the party exists to push an agenda of personal liberty, what’s the point of compromising on that? To get more votes? Those extra votes aren’t for your original platform, but for a watered-down, politically correct version of it.
You can argue that compromise is an essential part of democracy, because it is. But there’s a difference between compromising on the points of your agenda and compromising on what your principles are. Because when you compromise on your principles (for the LP, I guess that would be individual liberty more than anything else) you destroy the purpose of the party – to further an agenda based on your principles!
The “naked cannibals” comment was meant to be out of thin air, to point out how absurd it was that you, essentially, equated locally funded government schools to the Nazi holocaust.
What frustrates me the most when talking to Libertarians is that the political reality of most situations is a choice between A, B, and C. And Libertarians immediately leap into why the correct choice should be Z and anything short of Z is immoral.
I guess that’s all well and good for some college philosophy class, but it’s not anything most people (including myself) care to get into a debate about.
I am who says what is right or wrong. So are you and everyone else.
I am determining what is right because I am alive. It’s called using reason to make judgments. The person unable or unwilling to make judgments is severely handicapped.
Imposing your ideas about right and wrong on others by force is wrong. (Since this is just a comment I won’t go into why.)
I am not suggesting anarchy. Given your great reputation frankly I am dumbfounded that you conflate anarchy and small, limited government.
You can make anything absurd I guess but you did not employ any kind of logic or reason in going from what I said to “Naked cannibals loose in the wilderness”.
Look at the requirement for assessing property taxes (nationalization of one’s assets, partial or whole) and slaughtering the Jews (nationalization of lives): majority rule.
Majority rule – without exceptions for basic principles like the right to life, liberty and property – gets you both. How it gets you naked cannibals I have no idea because you pulled that out of thin air.
BTW, that’s how you take it to the absurd extreme in 3 steps.
Local property taxes to fund elementary schools –> Nazis slaughtering the Jews –> Naked cannibals loose in the wilderness.
George, who is to say what is right or acceptable? Why are you determining what is right?
You’re suggesting complete anarchy and nothing less. Because anything short of putting every last human being naked in the woods to fight independently for food and shelter is compromise.
And compromise is unacceptable.
Austin, people can vote at 99% margins to loot the mansions of rich people or slaughter the Jews, but it doesn’t make it right or acceptable.
If we lived under pure majority rule, any majority any time could vote to deprive you of life, liberty and property. What kind of freedom is that.
1. I think the robbing at gunpoint analogy is reaching a bit far. At some point, and I prefer the local level, the people have to be able to empower the government to manage services. Individuals have repeatedly voted by large margins to support taxes like that when there is a solid arguement for them.
2. You’re basically right, but at the same time it’s a gradual process to transition away from that stuff. It has to be very incremental or it simply won’t happen.
The ballot access problem is significant. I know the U.S. Taxpayers successfully changed to Constitution… but at least 5 or 6 of their affiliates don’t use the name. I think a couple are stuck with USTP and a few others were state affiliates of other parties in the past and have retained those names. It’s not easy, certainly… but it’s possible. Particularly if you get bigger name presidential and statewide candidates that can secure continued access over time.
1. I do not disagree with any of this, except it just does not go far enough. Would the locals not willingly pay for education? What you’re saying is, “Hello, neighbor. I know you would not donate to my charity if I did not have the force of the government’s guns behind me, even though I’m pretty sure you benefit from the service being provided, even indirectly. So I’m going to have to rob you at gunpoint. Have a nice day!”
2. The cause of the cultural breakdown has nothing to do with gay marriage — you’re right. It has everything to do with GOVERNMENT. You touch on this with welfare, which rewards women for having children they can’t afford to pay for and discourages marriage. But it goes beyond that. Welfare in general. Tax credits for children. Medicare. And the free babysitting service provided by taxpayer-funded institutionalized “education.” And let’s not forget the Drug War, which has decimated our cities just as Prohibition did decades earlier.
Maybe YOU wouldn’t volunteer to pay for schools, but others would. There are endowments that fund open-to-the-public libraries all across the U.S. There are privately funded public parks. The American people give a higher percentage of their income to charity than any other people — and the percentage donated increases as you move DOWN the economic latter! If taxation, which is inefficient, were abolished, then there would obviously be more than enough money to fund everything we have now.
How can you morally justify making someone pay for public schools with their taxes, and then also paying for private school or homeschooling? Should religious and conscientious objectors to secular and statist education be made to fund that which they oppose? That’s no different than taxpayer funded abortions.
And as for roads: They clearly should be funded privately! Even more so than schools.
*half the country, not ballots…whatever.
Though Ayn’s probably joking, I think if any party tried either option it would be very successful…
Well the other issue here is ballot access. Sure, go ahead and change the name of the National Party, then watch as various election officials attempt to make us re-qualify for ballot access. Of course we wouldn’t want to have to do that, especially those of us who retain ballot status after each election.
So…you end up with half the ballots saying “Liberty Party” and the other half saying “Libertarian Party”. Want to talk about voter confusion…that would be a cluster fuck.
Just keep it how it is, much easier.
The “failure” of our education system is rooted, I think, in two causes.
1. Mandates and excessive testing have degraded the way schools teach students. Here in Florida, we have the FCAT… which is basically the only thing the schools focus on because it’s how the state decides who to hand out money to. Testing is important, and could be a tool for determining what schools need more help, but the meat and potatoes of education should be locally funded and administered by elected school boards and flavored by local standards.
2. Our society has really broken down the family bonds that supported children in the past. The public education system is not a good substitute to raise these children, but there’s no viable alternative. Something needs to be done to restore a traditional family values. And by that I don’t mean fighting gay marriage or whatever… I mean family values in the sense of responsible adults feeling that it is their absolute duty and responsibility to raise their children properly. Ending the welfare state would do a good deal to help, but there’s a cultural problem that’s taken hold as well. I don’t have a good answer for that.
People aren’t perfectly logical, which is where your reasoning breaks down. I might vote for a 1/2 cent sales tax to fund education because I believe it’s important… but if the tax was voluntary… I don’t know that I’d offer to pay it. It’s hard to balance self-interest and society’s best interests.
The same reason people cheat on their taxes… their roads and services don’t disappear… but they benefit personally by keeping more of their money. So sometimes you have to elect people to do the right thing, because collectively we wouldn’t do the right thing if left to our own devices.
The only name change that I can imagine being anything but laughable would be a switch to the name “Liberty Party”. That way, the initials stay the same and it’s members could still be called libertarians.
Would this attract voters? I don’t know.
Aynrkey, just out of curiosity… where do you work? 🙂
Perhaps we should revive the old name “Democratic Republican”, that way voters for both parties will accidentally vote for us.
Maybe we should change the name of our party to “Incumbent Party”.
That way the word “incumbent” is attached to each and every one of our candidates.
I don’t get it, Austin. If society benefits from education, then why must the government force society to fund it? How can the people be smart enough to elect politicians to force them to pay for something they would not pay for otherwise? That doesn’t make any sense.
It is immoral to force people to pay for something they otherwise wouldn’t. 100 years of involuntarily funded education has been a failure.
It’s a pretty big leap.
Certainly, poorer cities would have poorer school districts. Which is where charitable funds, state and Federal money, etc.. could step in to help bolster the quality of the educations being provided.
Locally funded and controlled compulsory public education that is augmented by charitable donations and grant money from the state and Feds is a good bit different than a private education system with voluntary participation.
Austin – Locally funded and administered is a lot better than the alternative. If you get to the local level, then how much of a leap is it to get to the voluntarily funded level? If we need an educated populace and a skilled workforce, then why wouldn’t corporations or wealthy individuals or charities provide the funding for the schools? And if involuntarily funded schools were funded at the local level, then how can the property taxes in the slum areas you’re talking about possibly fund a quality education for those students?
Libertarianism would argue that the slums are the result of government interventionist policies.
So yes, I believe in the need for public education. But it should be local… locally funded and locally administered.
If the Federal or state government wants to get involved, it should be through grants to local governments and not unfunded mandates.
It just doesn’t work, though. Here in Jacksonville, we have some horrible neighborhoods with poverty, high crime and drug use.
I can’t even imagine how bad the situation would be if the parents didn’t have to bother educating their children at all. These are not the homeschooling or e-learning types. They are the ones whose children have only the most limited family and community support… and removing public schools from that would be a disaster. Unless there was something realistic to replace them with.
Regarding public schools: Today, food is produced and distributed mostly by private for-profit enterprises. The government issues food stamps for the poor.
The result: fat poor people.
We could apply similar thinking to education.
—
Yes, this involves force. I’d prefer purely private scholarships, but I’ll take school stamps over the current system.
The early Heinlein had a very interesting take on the force argument in “For Us, the Living.” He justified public education and a citizen’s dividend on the basis that we all benefit from accumulated capital — especially intellectual capital — built up from prior generations.
The argument is fuzzy, and provides no easily definable limits, but it is quite interesting.
In other words, if you have an ancestor who made a discovery then you are due royalties. (By a similar argument, if you have an ancestor whose land was robbed, you are due rent.)
Think about the logic you’re employing, Austin: You’re saying “society” needs an educated populace, and yet the only way that this can be achieved is by having a government FORCE people to pay for it. This presumes a government, with its military and police might, knows better than the people from whom it’s supposed to derive its powers.
Private education, homeschooling, voluntarily (and charitably) funded “free” schools, e-learning, etc. Whatever works best for the student without bureaucrats lining their own pockets or the government disseminating propaganda. This is vastly superior to the one-size-fits-all model of today’s “education” complex. Institutionalized schooling is a NEW phenomenon. The free market provided education for the entire history of the world up through 1900, and the classical methods of education are vastly superior to the concentration-camp methods.
What is the free market, real world solution for educating the masses?
If we have 3%, then we should work on getting 4%, then 5%, etc., until we reach critical mass.
It is a priority to have an educated population and a skilled workforce — which is exactly why there shouldn’t be taxpayer funded schools, which don’t work! Whenever there is a need, the market will meet that need.
Government is not a single substance that can be lumped together and judged uniformly. To think that way is to divorce yourself from reality and assure that you will remain on the fringes of practical politics.
I do listen to NPR and watch PBS from time to time. I use it, but I don’t think we should fund it with government money.
I don’t really use the public education system any more, and I’d probably send any children I eventually do have to private school, but I would still pay taxes to fund it. It’s a priority for a nation, particularly a representative democracy, to have an educated population and skilled workforce.
A one-size-fits-all answer of “cut government at all levels, at all costs” doesn’t fly with me or 97% of Americans.
This thread has been the first time in a long while that I’ve heard radicals argue articulate (and frankly, reasonable-sounding) rationales in favor of their philosophy… rather than going negative with something like, “Restore ’04 or the neocons win!”
I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but you guys really should have been doing more of this at the convention and in the months prior to it. I think the personality-factor of the Barr campaign was a major distraction to you guys, and took you off-message.
“Most people who want smaller government don’t absolutely want it across the board.”
Well, yes, I agree. What that means in practice is that most people who ‘want smaller government’ are *in practice* supporting larger government.
If that one single idea can become widely accepted, I think we will have substantially done our job.
“And you can’t make them go from wanting to generally reduce the size of wasteful government and regulation to supporting reducing the size of government across the board no matter what, no exceptions.”
Of course I can’t *make* them, but I can persuade them. After all, I was persuaded of this. I beleive I have persuaded others of this.
Conflict or persuasion – that is our choice of tools to make government smaller. Those who say they will work for less government in *certain areas*, but not in the areas they think are important, have chosen conflict (against those who think the same thing, but disagree over which areas are important). Those of us who say they are willing that *all* aspects of government be shrunk – even areas of expense we desire – are choosing persuasion.
Austin – That’s because most people only want smaller government where it effects everyone else but themselves. They want to have the benefits of “free” stuff, but they don’t want to pay for the stuff they don’t want. It doesn’t take a lot of brain power to see that this system is impractical. Even a Democrat or a Republican can see the problem with this!
That’s just it though. Most people who want smaller government don’t absolutely want it across the board.
And you can’t make them go from wanting to generally reduce the size of wasteful government and regulation to supporting reducing the size of government across the board no matter what, no exceptions.
The first position is practical, the second is more philosophical.
G.E. writes: “We believe that the libertarian philosophy is both moral and efficient, and any deviations from it are both immoral and inefficient. So why would we want to deviate?”
I you mean Zero Aggression Principle for libertarianism, then you are delusional. Keep cutting government and at some point you hit a point of diminishing returns. Economies of scale and natural monopoly situations argue incredibly strongly for some government. Complete abolition of government is inefficient.
I am game for cutting government beyond the point of maximum efficiency for the sake of morality, but I still reject ZAP. Historical evidence indicates that abolition of government usually results in warlordism, a new government, civil war, and/or external conquest. These are immoral outcomes. Strict adherence to ZAP is immoral.
—-
Do note that ZAP was not always the definition of “libertarian.” And the LP was not always “The Party of Principle.” The original slogan was “TANSTAAFL,” an acronym from Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” which expands to “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.”
Years ago, I declared myself an anarchist after reading said book. Reality penetratedyears later. Interestingly, Heinlein recognized reality in the book. At the end, anarchocapitalism gives way to democracy. Heinlein did his homework.
—-
Once upon a time, England combined laissez-faire economics, legal drugs, and a world-spanning empire. Classical liberalism was once imperialist.
Austin writes:
“There are a few exceptions where national priorities should be set and agressively pursued, but in general I support LESS taxation, LESS regulation, and GENERALLY smaller government.
“But then in practice I tell someone that I don’t support abolishing public schools or that I believe we should increase Federal funding for NASA and space exploration in general… and I realize very quickly how “unlibertarian†I am. ”
What makes NASA/space so special? What ‘exceptions’ should be ‘set and aggressively pursued’, and on what basis is the decision to make the exception made?
Each one of us has some thing(s) he thinks of as ‘exceptional’ and that should have more resources than our currently allocated to them. For you it’s space; for another person it is Art. I’m not sure how, other than the market, we can fairly decide who gets the resources both interests are competing for. In the current political system, the compromise position is that none of these ‘exceptional programs’ gets funded adequately enough to please those who think they should be exceptions, but nearly all of them do get more funding than the market would provide them in their current shape. This gets little accomplished, wastes resources and truly pleases few, but serves well for vote-buying. It also increases strife as competing interests wrangle over government resources.
Therefore with everyone claiming to be for ‘smaller government’, but with everyone having one exception, we wind up with BIGGER government.
Libertarians call this creeping increase of government through compromise the ‘ratchet mechanism’, and it is this which we need to resist. Carla Howell puts it well with “Small government plus one exception equals big government.”
We must, as Libertarians, resist the temptation to declare our favored program an ‘exception’. If we can’t do this, we are still more part of the problem than the solution. Government needs to be made smaller at all levels, not through some conflictuous wrangling over whose exception(s) are more important.
My boss basically thinks all third parties are “communist”. I have the coolest boss in the world, but, he is very ill-informed when it comes to politics. Who knows, that may have something to do with age or lack of interest in politics.
Dean Ahmad in his Ruwart nonmination speech outlined the boundaries for those who have forgotten.
(Dean and I go way back to the early days in Massachusetts; I hadn’t remembered it, but I even predate HIM in the LP! Watching the tape of the nomination speeches-first chance I have had since then – and seeing Klausner, and Dasbach and (on the other side) Dean and Jim Lark and Barry Hess) … brings back a lot. (Any recall what Manny’s first big step in the LP was? As stalking horse for Bergland in 1975.)
Economic freedom, civil liberties and non-interventionism! That’s what Doc Dean reminded us of.
Libertarianism is a great philosophy with deep roots and and a massive appeal to every man and woman’s deepest yearnings and highest reason. It also has a lame, off-putting name. When I tell people I’m a Libertarian, most ask if that’s some kind of communist, or repeat back “Librarian?” I don’t think I’d have that kind of problem if I said “I’m in the Freedom Party” or “The Liberty Party.”
Sometimes, etymology can be a lot to ask of a person.
I don’t see the vehement rejection of the “tarian” suffix as the part to blame; I personally don’t mind it. Actually, Austin, the person who wrote that very article on the name change, Carl M., commented above.
The problem with party names is that they all too often sound as if you must join them if you call yourself one of them. So we should avoid simplifying ourselves to the Liberty party.
Just look at the examples in our history: Federalists vs. Antifederalists. Democratic-Republicans. Maybe as a compromise we could call ourselves the National Libertarians or something of that sort to evoke a distinct image in people’s minds.
The thing I have against our current party name is that with the whole purist/pragmatist debacle, it really casts shadow over whether we really accept all libertarians or not, though I think this will subside now that the convention is over and the reformers have a chance to create a big tent.
that was a joke of course, I wouldn’t sell shit to Whirlpool, mainly cause they fired me. I didn’t see the “no smoking” sign!
I need to go to bed, the cold medicine I took is kicking in. Nothing worse than a summer cold.
Maybe I can get Whirlpool to buy the naming rights to the performing arts center for like a yearly fee & tell the state to take a hike…haha.
FYI-I use to work for Whirlpool, doing security. Their World Headquarter campus is absolutely huge. I was skinny when I worked there!
I could have a laundry list of issues. However, I must pick 3-5 to focus on. I’m just not that far a long at this early stage.
It is important to me to have at least 1 issue be “student driven”. From what I’m hearing so far, the kids would like to have more activities. For example, the “Republican Club” and “Young Democrats of LMC” had no problems getting the “green light” to start, but, the “Libertarian Club” can’t seem to get approval. Now why is that? hmmmm….
I would understand if the college had to pump money into such a deal, but the two clubs I mentioned both have their own sets of “dues” and what not.
Jason, not aiming to put you on the spot. Just curious about how you were planning to approach it.
It goes back to the original topic I guess.
Ya, I’ll help him run.
😉
But sure, I would like to see the school become private.
Mike, I had a friend who lived in Schaumburg. He looks like Steve Buscemi when Steve was in the movie “Air Heads”
What I’m saying is, I want to figure out exactly what they are doing and where the money is coming from and if they EVER disagree on ANYTHING (so far…no). I’m not going to “blast” anything until I have all the facts in front of me.
I mean, I’m only a week into this, but if I’m being put on the spot right now, one thing I would like to see is some of their services privatized. Paying maintenance “double time” on holidays to perform snow removal could be done via out sourcing that particular job, thus saving money. Those guys have plenty to do, you could save money by outsourcing snow removal. The only position they have outsourced is their security service, which has saved the school money.
I also, frankly, know some kids who go to school there who are going to poll students to find out what they want to see. After all, it is their school.
“Free beer in the college bookstore and “bong Wednesdaysâ€â€¦”
You ever think about moving to Schaumburg, Illinois? I’d help…pass out leaflets, door to door, seriously…..
So you’re running on the issues that are facing the Board and not a flat promise to eliminate the all government funding for the institution?
Free beer in the college bookstore and “bong Wednesdays”…
On a serious note, I’m still working on it. I’m pouring through various meeting minutes to get caught up to speed. Not much gets published regarding the Board of Trustees, so I’m still in the process of reviewing.
Jason,
What is your platform going to be?
My “campaign site” is still being developed…clearly. Its fine though, because the others running have never had websites nor do I see them having websites this year.
I just turned my stuff in last week, cut me a break…haha.
Well, as long as it’s for the good of the country….. 🙂
Actually, Austin, I rescind my offer. If you became a radical or even a moderate LPer, then our site would lose balance. You have to stay a moderate mushman McCain backer! It’s for the good of the country!
I appreciate the offer G.E. – but I don’t think I’d ever fully convert. 🙂
Jason – Looking at the number of partisan vs. nonpartisan officials that the LP claims… I’d say your chances of winning are probably far better this year.
Maybe you’d do better Jason if your campaign site, uhmm, well…had anything in it…
haha, just messing with you.
Jason – The problem with your experiment is there’s no independent variable. You can’t measure if the name “libertarian” is bad or if the names “Democrat” and “Republican” are good. With “good” meaning, in the eyes of voters, “has a chance to win.”
Oh, and I should add that we should welcome people who have such crazy ideas as “public schools are educate” and “the government should steal from people at gunpoint to fund space programs.” We should welcome them into the party and encourage them to run for local offices. But I think our standard bearer at the presidential level should be PURE, or very close to it, and that people like you, if you joined the party and began considering some of your positions more critically, might see the wisdom of the plumb line. Maybe not, but maybe.
Come on, Austin! Join us in the LP. I’ll turn you into a radical in no time.
Well Austin, I’ll let you know. I’m running for a county wide, non-partisan office this November. If I should lose (and I most likely will), the in 2010, I plan to run for county-wide, partisan office. At that point, I suppose I’ll be able to compare a bit. It will be interesting to see if there’s a difference from when I have nothing next to my name and 2 years from now, when “Libertarian Party” is next to my name.
I am perfectly fine with the current party name. I am proud to be a Libertarian and dang it, we have worked pretty hard for many years to get that name accepted. Why reinvent the wheel?
Austin – We believe that the libertarian philosophy is both moral and efficient, and any deviations from it are both immoral and inefficient. So why would we want to deviate? We want a broader appeal, but we want that appeal to come from bringing people to our philosophy. Our goal should not be electing national candidates, it should be spreading the the libertarian message to the point where such candidates can be elected as purist libertarians.
The reformers can try to take over the LP and turn it into something it was never intended to be. We can fight them. Ultimately, one side can defect and start its own party. If the reformers do take over, then the LP will die out in a few years — just like the Reform Party. I don’t think a party with a more liberal interpretation of libertarianism can survive.
G.E. – It may have held it together for that long, but has it held it back as well? I don’t know.
You might be right… and perhaps a different party with a more “liberal” name and interpretation of libertarianism is the answer. I doubt it will happen though.
Jason,
You might be right about the “tarian” portion turning people off. Most voters are not apt to embrace a party with that suffix.
I’m not really sure. It would be fascinating to see a test in which voters are offered ballots for an unknown office and unknown candidates with party labels… and compare how Liberty performs vs. Libertarian. Or some other name.
The libertarian ideology has held the party together for 37 years. Other third parties, with “roughly” libertarian or “roughly” leftist principles, etc., have faded and gone away. The Greens are on the way out. The LP will outlast the CP.
Spence,
I posted the idea on Third Party Watch early on and it was largely dismissed. I’m actually very encouraged by the initial reaction on here.
The name isn’t the problem, the people are. The party should stand for libertarianism, and if people want it to stand for something else, they should form their own parties.
The word “libertarian” was originally much broader in meaning. It still retains that broad connotation when attached to the modifier “civil.” That is, one can be considered a “civil libertarian” without calling for legal crack.
The LP membership oath coupled with the insane Dr. Rothbard has made the word “libertarian” the freedom-pointing equivalent to “communist.” The left does much better by having different words for different degrees of leftiness: “liberal”, “social democrat”, “socialist”, “communist”.
In other words, I agree with you times 10.
I was once told the “tarian” part turns people off.
That was meant to be “principle”. I’m much, much less firm on strictly adhering to principals, most of whom should be disregarded regularly.
Austin,
You seem to be equating a name change with a philosophy change, and I don’t necessarily see the connection. A Liberty Party could still be a libertarian party, just as the Libertarian Party could get philosophically watered down without changing the name.
I also don’t agree that the LP is like a church where you wouldn’t join if you only agree with 75% of it. The LP is about two things – direction and destination, and until we get a lot closer to the destination, we’ll be primarily focused on direction (i.e., toward liberty). If you agree with going in that direction, than the LP is the place you should be. Certainly it’s a closer fit than most national parties, which don’t want to go in that direction much or at all.
But should the LP stop standing for the full libertarian philosophy? No. One of our main functions is to point out another model by which society can choose to govern itself, and in that respect, our consistency and strict adherence to principal is crucial.
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting stupid names like that. And of course, the fear of losing ballot access is always present. But overall, changing their name isn’t that bad of an idea. However, we can also accomplish the same thing by actually embracing people who believe 80% of a radical strain instead of a 100%.
OK, I agree with you philosophically. I’m not 100% Libertarian, but I go with the party that has those principles available. Now promoting direction towards the philosophy does not make it exactly 100%. I get a little clinchy in the shorts about public schools being shut down, and then being transferred in a private school of my religion (all hail agnostic?). Same with NASA.
But we hold the philosophy of Liberty, freedom, and justice. If that doesn’t attract voters, we should just close shop.
Changing the name to Freedom Party or Liberty Party will kill credibility. Having a loose worldly name like that kinda makes folks look at it funky.
Examples: Boston Tea Party, Marijuana Party, Peace and Freedom Party, etc.
Official looking, sound to it’s philosophy.
The Libertarian Party of the United States.
Me likes.
I’ve heard the argument about changing the name of the party, but people generally tell me it’s because they think it associates the LP with being “libertine”
I’m fine with our current name.
Where, pray tell, did you post this idea? I’ve seen the idea suggested on the Reform Caucus website. I have to say this and changing our party mascot, and perhaps slogan as well, are indeed steps in the right direction to gaining broader acceptance.
Really, who would outwardly denounce libertarianism… who would lampoon the Statue of Liberty in a comic strip… who honestly believes we’re so narrowly confined to one person’s idea of principles?