Just throwing an idea out there, one I have no solid opinion on myself: If the Constitution Party were to replace its support for the “Biblical foundations” of the American Republic with “Constitutional foundations”, and both the CP and the Libertarian Party were to formally agree that the federal government should have no role in defining marriage or the propriety of any sexual orientation, might these two liberty-oriented parties be able to merge, at least on the national level?
66 Comments
Comments are closed.
The whole tangent on gay rights deflected from the question: where does the Constitution authorize immigration limits?
“Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. ”
LP platform, 2008.
Granted, they could and should have done without this: “However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.” I no more want the federal government checking for that at its borders than to have state, county, city, neighborhood advisory council, etc., governments doing the same.
mscrib,
The LP would have to know for sure what its policy on immigration WAS, before it could ask the CP to agree with it. =)
Unless the CPers could be convinced to support freedom of movement (open immigration), I don’t think it would be worth it. The LP is still harmed by the mixed messages conservative “Libertarians” send whenever they promote non-libertarian policy. Open borders, IMO, is easier justified on economic grounds (distorting labor markets is a bad idea) than social grounds, which means CPers would have to dump social conservative ideology for economic reality. Doubt it.
And again, where there is gay marriage, I would be against taking it away without also taking away heterosexual marriage.
But where there is not gay marriage, and thus there is a discrepancy, it is a very poor choice to advocate MORE government. This is what the labor movement did way back in the day and it helped destroy America.
If a cost-benefit analysis revealed that medical marijuana increased government, or in any way initiated new force, I’d be against it.
It is criminal that heterosexuals are given privileges that homosexuals and bisexuals are not. But to address the discrepancy by expanding the welfare benefits is a greater crime still against those of any, all, and no sexuality who choose NOT to be married (government-sanctioned or not).
Also, people can and do argue that medical marijuana somehow keeps drugs from being fully legalized.
Medical marijuana legalization = less government.
Extending welfare benefits to gay couples = more government.
Government issued medical licenses are “more government,” so you can argue that medical marijuana = more government. I’ve seen it done.
I disagree with that argument, but I understand it.
So, would you vote for legislation that welfare benefits, including the right to legally marry, as well as all government jobs, be limited only to native-born, Christian, heterosexual Caucasians? Or would you vote against it?
This question assumes that you do not have the ability to eliminate government jobs and benefits entirely, since we both agree we would if we could.
http://www.cafepress.com/without_lube
No, no, no.
Medical marijuana legalization = less government.
Extending welfare benefits to gay couples = more government.
Fully agreed.
They also arise from discriminatory government.
Again, getting government completely out of these areas is a worthwhile goal, but not a short term one.
That’s like opposing medical marijuana because all drugs should one day be completely legal, or because the AMA cartel should be broken up.
Yes, yes, they should.
But in the meantime, that’s no reason to deny sick and dying patients who need it safe access to their medicine.
All of Mr. Casarjian-Perry’s problems arise from too much government; not not enough.
DOMA is bad policy and should be repealed. But why not advocate for abolition of marriage instead of granting taxpayer-subsidized benefits to yet another group?
I’m not sure how, for instance, the right to bring over your spouse from another country is a taxpayer subsidized benefit.
I’m all for abolition of government involvement in marriage, but in the meantime, it has damned better be equitable – not discriminatory.
DOMA is bad policy and should be repealed. But why not advocate for abolition of marriage instead of granting taxpayer-subsidized benefits to yet another group? I would defend gay marriage if it existed and a movement tried to abolish it without abolishing straight marriage; but I cannot condone agitating for even more government intervention in the name of “equality.”
Similarly, if the regime did not allow ethnic minorities or women to serve in the military, I would not champion their “right” to do so. How callous. “I demand equal rights to murder, rape, and pillage while collecting welfare!”
For example
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/jim-casarjian-perry/
The regime should no more be allowed to discriminate by sexual orientation than by race.
For the present, the tax-supported military and government recognized marriages exist, and they should not discriminate.
I agree with the goal of getting rid of them altogether. But we don’t as yet have any means to achieve such goals. In the meantime, real people are being screwed over by legislation such as the deceptively named DOMA.
Where do gays not have equal rights, paulie? I’m not saying they do, I’m just asking.
I don’t think the “right” to join the U.S. Imperial Killing Machine is a “right” at all, (it obligates me through taxation), nor something any human being should aspire to, so forgive me for not shedding a tear over DADT.
State marriage is also a privilege that should be abolished for heterosexuals and, where it exists, for homosexuals.
I wonder if there’s too much bad blood between the PFP and Libs to make that happen. I’ve never been able to find anything about what went down during Rothbard’s days there, but given that they explicitly mention Socialism as one of their major values, my guess is the tent isn’t that big anymore.
Rothbardians were a big chunk of the PFP before 1974, lost the internal battle to the socialists, and left for the LP – where at least some of them remained until 2008. Whether any will remain after 2008 remains to be seen.
What are “gay rightsâ€, paulie?
Equal rights with straight people.
What are “gay rights”, paulie?
The big tent party I would join would center around peace and civil liberties issues – ending the military-industrial-government complex, ending the drug war at all levels, supporting gay rights, supporting immigration freedom – and would allow for differences of opinion on economic issues.
I wonder if there’s too much bad blood between the PFP and Libs to make that happen. I’ve never been able to find anything about what went down during Rothbard’s days there, but given that they explicitly mention Socialism as one of their major values, my guess is the tent isn’t that big anymore.
People thinking that someone peacefully coming into this country looking for a better life equals an “invasion†is precisely the reason I’m glad the CP exists as an alternative to the LP. The more I think about it, the better it is. Folks who think that nationalism or various “values†are more important than freedom can leave the LP, and allow it to stand strong. It really could solve what has been a developing problem for the LP. If open borders folks in the LP can get the platform to take a stronger stand, the anti-immigration folks might just head off to the CP for good. It’s a win-win.
I agree.
So if I owned 60,000 acres on the Mexican border and invited some thousands of Mexicans to come over and live/work on my land, the U.S. has been invaded?
If millions of Mexicans want to move in, and there are property owners who are willing to sell land to them, rent apartments to them, shelter them, etc., that hardly counts as an invasion. It’s nothing but voluntary action and exchange.
Of course!
But we were talking about the Constitution. Where does it authorize immigration restrictions per se?
I believe the answer is Yes – provided there are enough people in these organizations willing to embrace a core platform and downplay or compromise on the 20% of issues on which they disagree. In other words, people willing to join a big tent party
I am willing to join a big tent party, but not that one. That 20% happens to be important to me – perhaps more so than the other 80%.
The big tent party I would join would center around peace and civil liberties issues – ending the military-industrial-government complex, ending the drug war at all levels, supporting gay rights, supporting immigration freedom – and would allow for differences of opinion on economic issues.
The Constitution authorizes our body-politic to protect our borders.
Where?
Exactly. The Constitution authorizes Congress to deal with naturalization. If someone,who is not a naturalized citizen, crosses our borders,especially in the millions–that is an invasion.
How so? Americans by the millions cross the border into Mexico, for example I have been to every state in Mexico, as well as every country in Central America and every major island in the Caribbean.
I invaded those countries?
Fact is, immigration can not be regulated by the feds under the Constitution – only naturalization. If people move to the territory claimed by the US without attempting to become citizens, the Constitution authorizes no power to the federal government whatsoever to stop them – whether it be by the millions, billions or quadrillions.
darolew – The CP fundamentally does not respect your right to private property. They want to inhibit your ability to trade with people on the other side of imaginary lines, prevent you from hosting individuals who are from the “wrong side” of those lines as laborers or tenants, and all the while, claim it’s for your own protection.
People thinking that someone peacefully coming into this country looking for a better life equals an “invasion” is precisely the reason I’m glad the CP exists as an alternative to the LP. The more I think about it, the better it is. Folks who think that nationalism or various “values” are more important than freedom can leave the LP, and allow it to stand strong. It really could solve what has been a developing problem for the LP. If open borders folks in the LP can get the platform to take a stronger stand, the anti-immigration folks might just head off to the CP for good. It’s a win-win.
“Exactly. The Constitution authorizes Congress to deal with naturalization. If someone,who is not a naturalized citizen, crosses our borders,especially in the millions–that is an invasion.”
So if I owned 60,000 acres on the Mexican border and invited some thousands of Mexicans to come over and live/work on my land, the U.S. has been invaded?
If millions of Mexicans want to move in, and there are property owners who are willing to sell land to them, rent apartments to them, shelter them, etc., that hardly counts as an invasion. It’s nothing but voluntary action and exchange.
I think the question misses the point – can members of the CP and LP be attracted into a single political force that provides a small government alternative to the Democrats and Republicans and which can eventually win a plurality of votes?
That political force could grow out of the CP, the LP, Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, or an entirely new organization, or it could be a closely coordinated effort among several of these.
I believe the answer is Yes – provided there are enough people in these organizations willing to embrace a core platform and downplay or compromise on the 20% of issues on which they disagree. In other words, people willing to join a big tent party.
Ron Paul has been a model for this big tent, big idea approach, and the LP has been moving in that direction (as is frequently decried on this site). I would imagine the CP has many supporters who would embrace such a movement, including perhaps those here who support Baldwin in preference to Barr even though they don’t support some of the CP’s social stances.
The combination of Ron Paul, LP, and CP activists and contributors would create a serious political force. Even if they form internal factions and compete to promote their pet issues and candidates, the overall movement would be far stronger. Dems and Reps have used this model to dominate politics for 150 years. If enough pro-Liberty groups are willing to work together and embrace the big tent approach, such a new force is possible.
Paulie,
Exactly. The Constitution authorizes Congress to deal with naturalization. If someone,who is not a naturalized citizen, crosses our borders,especially in the millions–that is an invasion.
The Constitution authorizes our body-politic to protect our borders.
Yeah, I guess that’s why the Constitution Party is the Constitution Party and not the Articles of Confederation Party — they are more Hamiltonian-nationalist than Jeffersonian/anti-federalist.
There could be no better fate for the world than if the U.S. Megastate ceased to exist.
Immigration Freedom is a code-word I suppose for open-borders policy?
No, we wont be working towards that end.
Sorry, for a minute I thought you really meant your platform would be consistent with the constitution, which does not authorize limiting immigration – only naturalization.
“A nation without borders ceases to existâ€
I think, for a lot of libertarians, that’s the point. =P
Immigration Freedom is a code-word I suppose for open-borders policy?
No, we wont be working towards that end. We value sovereignty and like Ron Paul we believe that “A nation without borders ceases to exist”.
Good deal!
Then they will be for immigration freedom 🙂
GE,
Working on it. =)
In four years,the CP’s platform will be considerable more consistent and…well…constitutinalist.
What I think would be cool is for the CP to make “getting the government out of marriage” a bigger issue. Here is an area where real libertarians can agree with the CP, and it makes the marriage/homosexuality issue less divisive between the two parties.
Those states are where the CP is anti-drug war even on the state level, just in case that wasnt clear.
GE,
Im quite aware of what a libertarian is. Peter suggested a coalition at the national level…their drug stances work for that.
I suggested a coalition at the state level where possible–this is still ohk in some states like Idaho, Nevada, Texas, and Louisiana.
I think Libertarians would be much better off convincing Greens that their 10 Goals can be achieved without government force, and working on fusion in that direction. That’s a much more politically attractive package (if it can be accomplished).
Personally, I’m kind of glad that the CP’s core constituency (religious, anti-immigrant trade protectionists) has the CP to go to, so that they don’t feel tempted to join the LP and try and bring it in their direction. While the two parties nominally share a lot of positions, the key differences are huge ones – places where Libertarians shouldn’t budge, and where CPers are unlikely to want to budge either.
Yes!
Don’t mistake Bob Barr’s views for that of real libertarians, Trent. The LP, like Ron Paul, is against prohibition, period. Not just at the federal level.
Eternaverse,
No they dont. The platform of the CP explicitly states that they want to end federal involvement in drug issues.
And there’s the drug war. The parties have opposing veiw on that.
I think Libertarians would be much better off convincing Greens that their 10 Goals can be achieved without government force, and working on fusion in that direction. That’s a much more politically attractive package (if it can be accomplished).
Personally, I’m kind of glad that the CP’s core constituency (religious, anti-immigrant trade protectionists) has the CP to go to, so that they don’t feel tempted to join the LP and try and bring it in their direction. While the two parties nominally share a lot of positions, the key differences are huge ones – places where Libertarians shouldn’t budge, and where CPers are unlikely to want to budge either.
Yea right. Barr drops out and endorses Baldwin–followed by Paul doing the same.
NOW we’re talking.
There’s one easy way to test this idea out right now…
Chuck Baldwin could drop out and endorse Bob Barr.
Let the experiment begin!
Peter,
You write:
“A constitutionalist-style LP/CP national ticket could hope to go in with about 500,000 votes minimum, figuring the 350K+ of recent LP tickets plus the 98K-185K of the last three CP tickets.”
That assumes that the all of the LP’s and all of the CP’s separate voters would be on board for a fusion LP/CP fusion ticket.
I don’t think that’s realistic. At least some Libertarians would find a fusion candidate acceptable to the CP to be “not Libertarian” enough, while at least some CP voters would find a fusion candidate acceptable to the LP to be “too Libertarian.”
Fred Church Ortiz // Aug 7, 2008 at 10:06 am
“I think trade & immigration policy would put the kibosh on an actual merger, but I do think there’s room for more collaboration an occasional cross-endorsement.”
I could not have said it better my self, except personal experience in the most populated state of the Corporate States of America indicates that both movements [in California at least] are mostly talk.
My opinion is that the AIP [Alan Keyes, and Ed Noonan SUCCESSFUL break away ballot access] and the so called Constitution movement AND the LP/ Boston Tea Party fision are rooted in inactivity by the core group. In California AIP/CP and LP were mostly talk talk talk about any issue.
Political parties are a lot better at splitting than merging.
Peter,
Again–this wont be accomplished on the national level because it would inhibit ballot-access for each of the seperate parties.
But it could be utilized on the state level via “legalized ballot fusion”.
Mike – You misunderstand “fusion.” It is practiced in some states, such as New York, and used to be quite common throughout the country. It allows multiple parties to nominate the same candidate. There are some candidates that the CP and LP could find mutually agreeable. There are other cases where the CP or LP would not be running a candidate for a particular office anyway, and find the other party’s candidate to be “acceptable” in that circumstance.
There is a bridge between the LP/CP, as Ron Paul showed. The problem is that a LOT of the CP types who supported him (“CP types,” not necessarily members) don’t understand Ron Paul’s position on trade. I think if they did, a lot of them would not support him.
Mike,
The difference is that Peter isn’t suggesting that this alliance then nominate him and that such a ticket would sweep to victory as Mr. Milnes claims for himself and his Progressive Alliance.
I don’t know, the whole “fusion” idea sounds a little too Robert Milnes for my taste. I really don’t think any of them would give up the marriage and abortion arguments. If they did, I’d hate to see what they’d want us to give up. Once you go God Politics, you never go back.
… it would have been something, though, if Ron Paul somehow managed to secure the GOP nomination… the CP and LP would have likely endorsed him and not run presidential candidates of their own… McCain would have launched an Independent bid, splitting the national GOP into warring camps… Dem nominee Kucinich would pick Nader as his running mate, with an insurgent HillBama disrupting a brokered convention…
… and then I woke up.
might these two liberty-oriented parties be able to merge, at least on the national level?
I’ve wondered the same thing, but then come to the conclusion of many here that LP and CP members can only barely play nice amongst themselves and keep their own parties from falling apart, so how could they possibly be expected to cooperate with each other?
And in the end, neither party has a whole lot to gain from a “fusion ticket” anyway — at least until one of them gets 50-state ballot access and over 1% of the vote…
For example:
I suspect the CP in Michigan would endorse Jason for a local or state legislative race.
I suspect the LP here in LA would endorse me for almost anything.
Peter – Nice post. But I think the differences go much deeper. Trent’s idea for fusion would be much better. The CP might endorse a bourgeoisie Libertarian who was pro-life and moderate on immigration. The LP might endorse a CP candidate who was pro-free trade, and not a fire-and-brimstone culture warrior. But the cultural divide between the parties is too great, and the differences in the idea of state-level policy is as wide as can be.
Certainly our goal should be to get fusion legalized in many states. In those states, then, cross-endorsements will be more common.
Ron Paul more or less did unite the parties, since his campaign was comprised heavily of activists from both camps. Unfortunately, there’s not another figure of that stature who could do it.
I would support such a thing personally, but I fall in the center of the Libertarian/Constituationalist venn diagram. The outer edges of both parties would undoubtedly torpedo any such move.
I don’t see it.
The CPers seem to be conservatives, and Libertarians are not.
Also, I’m not sure what the benefit would be to either Party or to the the freedom movement. Such a merger would simply stimulate the formation of several new splinter parties . In the long run that might be a healthy thing, but it sure wouldn’t benefit the LP much to experience such an exodus.
Ron Paul could have united both parties.
I see virtually zero possibility of a merger since there are so many folks in both parties with such incredibly strong opinions that they can barely hold together the parties as they currently exist (ie: BTP, AHP and AFP come to mind). I do see the potential for an alliance in the mold of the Liberal Party and Social Democrats of the UK. In those states where fusion is permitted I see potential there as well. In state and local races where economics and tax/fiscal policy are the main issues there is little to prevent cooperation other than clinging to unproductive stereotypes.
I agree with Fred. I think both sides could agree to let the states deal with abortion, gay marriage, etc. But the nationalism/multiculturalism issues would probably be a dealbreaker for both sides.
I think trade & immigration policy would put the kibosh on an actual merger, but I do think there’s room for more collaboration an occasional cross-endorsement.
You left out abortion rights…considering that the Constitution Party nearly came apart last year because one of the state affiliates (Nevada, I think) dared nominate someone who thought that there might be some circumstances where abortion should be allowed, I don’t think that they’d be willing to give that up, and I think if the Libertarian Party tried to say that no, you should never be allowed to have an abortion, then a large segment of the party and of potential supporters would quickly leave…leaving you with just the CP base. So…on paper, it might work, but I think that given the significant differences on individual rights, it would be a major failure.
Nice idea. Yes, I think it would be possible, but probably more likely on the state and local level. I’m Libertarian who wants to restore the Republic established by the Constitution of 1787 (which is not perfect, but better than the form of government we have now).
But I think, strangely, the Constitutionalists are more focused on the “Biblical roots” concept than on the Constitution.