Some would say that the socialist movement is hopelessly fragmented. In addition to the Socialist Party USA, there are the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Equality Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the World Workers Party, and, to a lesser extent, the Green Party — in addition to countless smaller-yet socialist and Communist splinter groups.
Could the libertarian movement be headed down the same road?
Already there is the Boston Tea Party — inaccurately considered by most a “spin-off” of the Libertarian Party. The BTP was founded in 2006, and after an initial flurry of activity, it lay dormant for two years until it was reinvigorated by Bob Barr’s convention victory in May. Almost immediately, however, a disgruntled BTP leader formed the Objectivist Party, which is on the ballot in Florida and Colorado.
Libertarian Reform leader Brian Holtz cautions against fragmentation in a recently published article, Why Multiple Freedom Parties Is Dumb. He enumerates nine reasons that the LP should stick together, but makes two exceptions.
The first would be when the dominant freedom party has become immune to repair through caucus efforts and needs to be destroyed and replaced.
Many members of the BTP think this is the case with the “dominant freedom party” — the LP.
The second exception, Holtz says, are “zero-government abolitionist anarchists.”
I don’t mind working with anarchists wise enough to realize it’s harder to overthrow a big State than a small State — as long as they don’t insist the party endorse their abolitionist rhetoric (and thus help the State resist the party’s efforts to shrink it!). However, having a separate anarchist party would be useful in clarifying that the LP has no official plans to abolish the state, and would siphon off radicals who fret too much about the LP’s lessarchist tent getting bloated with people lacking sufficient hatred of the state.
As I said about this over here (http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/why-multiple-freedom-parties-is-dumb/#comment-29381):
The rebuttal to this nonsense is actually simple: the “free market†of political ideas/parties will sort out the complexities on its own, survival of the fittest, the consumers (the electorate) making the call.
As libertarian as it gets.
Too bad there’s not a true free market of political parties…
Me, I prefer a different approach, moving policy in the proper direction through other means. It has worked over the years for the socialists, who, outside the major parties, have had little electoral success but great policy success (to our detriment, no less), and it can work for us, too.
Anthony D, if you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
In my opinion, forming a new party is the way to go, but we mustn’t rush into things the way the LP was formed.
Good luck to Ron Paul, but I feel his quest is in vain, much the same way any hopes to establish the LP in a mold that actually will play the game of politics are forever dashed.
Even if the LP could fix all of its internal problems overnight, we’d still be hurt by years of bad public perception and a new eerie suspicion as to why everyone in the party made up suddenly. Plus, there’s the very possible reality that the party HAS and WILL continue to be co-opted under any alliance struck inside it.
“I neglected to mention one thing — I’m not merely a statist, but a world-government statist. In a world with one single government, there will be no war — because there will be nothing to challenge the supremacy of the people.”
Yeah, centralism at its worst. Luckily, the ideal of world government is completely Utopian. It cannot exist. Even if the entire surface area of the planet was conquered (which is what it would take) there would be immediate rebellions. If humanity ever flirts with world government, the result would be the most bloodshed and suffering the planet has ever seen. “Supremacy of the people” indeed; only misery on the part of the individual.
“Carl,
I’m sure that myself and a lot of other true libertarians would be glad to see you and the “reformers†leave the LP for another political party.”
Carl already left the LP, if I recall correctly.
“My point is that working people, farmers, etc., could have debates on monetary policy in 1900. They — for the most part — can’t now. The public schools have dumbed people down, made them more complacent, etc. That works to the detriment of third parties.”
Quite the self-perpetuating problem there. Government-induced complacency makes it nigh-impossible to get people interested in means to reduce said government-induced complacency. That might not be a problem that can be dealt with until the collapse of the current régime.
—
On the effectiveness of the LP, I’d agree with Spence’s observations.
The LP clearly hasn’t caught on, and has built up many impediments to popularity. The party did not learn from history, and failed to mimic the tactics of successful third parties. Rothbard thought it was too early for a “libertarian” party, and maybe he was right. A generally liberty orientated but not explicitly libertarian party with a few key issues (say, ballot access reform, decentralism, etc.) might have had more success. But that was thirty years ago, and what’s done is done.
More or less, I see three options. First, stick with the LP. Advantages include ballot access and an existing base of volunteers. Disadvantages include infighting, bad/marginal reputation, etc. The second option seems to be to join an existing liberty-orientated third party (e.g. the BTP or the PPoA, etc.) or found a new one entirely. Advantages include a new brand name, freedom from infighting, no harmful traditions, etc. while disadvantages include lack of name recognition, volunteers, and ballot access. Third, one can take Ron Paul’s route and try and reform a major party. Advantages are ballot access and candidates being taken seriously. Disadvantages are a huge establishment against you, pre-existing expectations of what that major party stands for, infighting with the rest of the party, etc.
None of the three options will be an easy road to travel…
Carl,
I’m sure that myself and a lot of other true libertarians would be glad to see you and the “reformers” leave the LP for another political party.
As facetious as that question was, of course there is.
Your intentions are noble. It’s just that the plan is heavily flawed.
Concentration of power of that magnitude makes it even harder for people to challenge unfair practices and corrupt individuals in a mega-bureaucracy that will surely ensue from such an idea.
So of course there would be no more war, but still greater poverty and despair.
Look at the streets of inner city Detroit to know what I’m talking about. The State, with the misconception of pre-emptive legislation has cultivated a reaction to itself, which enlarges the problem and stretches its own resources. The gangs. The drug war.
Every system is inherently flawed one way or another. Libertarianism, based on the idea of self-correcting markets and adaptation, is the only ideology that recognizes this. How fast do you think the State could address the clogged courts and international lawsuits that would inevitably arise from such a world government?
Now, I do not believe, like a few here, that we can simply erase the state overnight – even though I count myself as an anarcho-capitalist at heart. That is simply not the way a system such as the State dissolves itself. But by introducing a little anarchy to the system first, we can set society on the road to self-correction.
People are only as good as their interests permit. And self-interest is limitless. Therefore, the desire to solve society’s problems is not merely an economic solution, but a philosophical one as well.
None. The state would continue to make war against its own people, and they’d run out of places to run.
I neglected to mention one thing — I’m not merely a statist, but a world-government statist. In a world with one single government, there will be no war — because there will be nothing to challenge the supremacy of the people.
No hope for me, is there?
I gather that. And thanks for validating one of my earlier points. Yes, I think that’s where libertarians and statists can agree. People are very flawed and self-interested. That is the point.
There will always be a government, even if we erase the central head. Why? Because people make up their own rules of conduct when voluntarily dealing with people. They are GOVERNED by these laws while voting the way they know best to – with their money.
Tell me, who do you think it is that wants war? Let’s keep in mind how infrequent (or too frequent, depending on your view) major confrontations are, even with all the vast interconnections between each nation. Globalization is not entirely a bad thing.
The more you depend on your “enemy” for trade, the less likely you are to rush into war. But when governments act without fear of reprisal, you’re going to get more and more war. This is the current situation we’re in.
People all over the world, not just in the U.S. have been cultured to believe this- because they are stupid. Because the government is in the prime position to take advantage of them.
Spence, my view is that without a central state to build and encourage the concepts of civic virtue, people would not vote at all. Most people are essentially self-interested, base, and generally stupid. That’s what our government is supposed to do — to create situations where they can afford to be base and stupid without destroying the world.. The fact that it has failed to do that means we need to reform our government, not get rid of government altogether.
This is Hume, via Madison, that I’m using here.
I agree with Carl wholeheartedly over the SoP and concept of “courting the left”, which I have stated a few times over since.
Duverger’s law isn’t the end-all, be-all. In fact, it simplifies the process greatly. In many ways, a true two-party system is ideal, with a couple other viable but minor parties always threatening the major two. We don’t have that here. There is no traction. The LP base and LNC as a whole have failed to gain this traction, whether it be the radicals in power or the self-professed moderates with “pragmatism”. (They have nothing of the sort.)
If the LP was to ever become viable, it had to start now- as time is against it with ballot access challenges mounting and rising independent voters being sucked back into the duopoly. Alas…nothing.
Many European countries have both a communist and a socialist (or social democrat) party. Some also have a green party, which tends to be very leftist. By splitting the recalcitrant radicals from the pragmatists, the left has been very successful in these countries.
This country’s voting system is far less friendly to such splitting. Even three total parties is tough. Still, a split is justified when one considers that easily half the LP considers education to be the primary goal of the party. When “education” includes making the case for extremely unpopular positions, then such education defeats the alternative goal of electing freedom-oriented politicians.
The Nolan Chart could provide the basis for a broad based (i.e., electable) libertarian party. However, the LP’s core documents and culture contradict the Nolan Chart definition of the word “libertarian.” The membership oath restricts the party to anarchists, borderline anarchists, and those willing to fudge when signing an oath. The slogan “Party of Principle” reinforces the idea of basing all positions on the oath.
While I personally think having such a narrowly
“principled” party is a waste of activist effort, I have given up on taking over an organization whose core membership wants to pursue this line. My friendly advice to such people would be to be a PETA for liberty. That way, ya’ll could dispense with FEC reporting, ballot access, etc. But I will no longer try to shove this wisdom down the ears that won’t hear.
A broadly libertarian party set up to win elections would be useful to the freedom movement because libertarians (broadly defined) are under-represented in government. The current two-party system is biased. Eliminating this systemic bias will not by itself turn the country libertarian — libertarians are in the minority — but it could turn the tide.
Starting such a broadly libertarian party from scratch would be easier and more effective than continued efforts to change the LP from within. The LP is doomed as a win-elections party for many reasons including:
1. A membership that doesn’t want to change.
2. A radical branding that would take years to live down
3. A culture of flaunting weirdness
4. Bylaws designed to preserve a radical positioning
5. A pragmatic faction that is too close to being Republican
In other words, what I have in mind is probably appealing to maybe 20% of the existing LP membership. The real sweet spot for a new political party is a combination of moderate libertarianism and moderate egalitarianism. Ron Paul was on the edge of that sweet spot with his combination of anti-banker rhetoric and calls for less immigration — which is why he got far more traction that the LP ever got.
But the core of the sweet spot is a bit closer to the center, and away from the racists that Paul flirted with. Many of Brian Holtz’s views — especially on the environment and land issues — place him in this sweet spot.
Continued experiment will determine whether Brian or I am right as to the optimal strategy for bringing about our similar (but not identical) freedom visions.
Exactly, mscrib.
Jeremy, as a statist, I assume you believe that people are quite irrational and cannot manage themselves. But let’s say that under a central government like we have today, there’s only a handful (or worse yet) one system that the evil corporations need to circumvent in order to walk free.
In our anarcho-capitalist example, you’re counting on people not resisting because they are lazy and corporations still run the show. This would not be so.
In a true anarcho-capitalist society, people vote with their money. There are no regulations, tax codes, subsidies, etc. that can bail out a corporation or install them as the legal monopoly lording over a group of people. That means you damn well be sure that you please them, cause if you go down, no one’s going to save you and you’ll be out of a job. Sounds harsh, right? But how is spending money to save someone who wittingly tried to screw you over more productive than letting them fail and be absorbed by an honest competitor?
Jeremy,
You pretty much spelled out the reasoning behind J.K. Galbraith’s countervailing power theory. However, anarchism, at least if implemented at present, would probably lead to far, far greater transaction costs, so multinationals would be a different beast altogether and likely be much weaker than they are now.
I don’t agree. If someone is unscrupulous enough to kill for money, then why wouldn’t he kill his employer? It’s cutting out the middle man. Only through the state (or maybe religion) can men be tricked into doing things like this. For example, they’ll kill for a king or their government, etc.
But hey, I’m not going to convince you here. Just planting the seed!
Spence, I’m glad you believe that “actions based on the desire to inflict or cause harm would be met with equal resistance,” but in world of corporations run amok, wouldn’t people be so plastered to their television sets consuming mass-produced items they wouldn’t have the will to resist? Who’s gonna call out the corporations when the corporations are the most powerful entity on earth? Who’s gonna bust the trusts when the trusts are themselves the state?
G.E., same deal. Admittedly states are susceptible to being used as vehicles for unscrupulous actors, but they’re also capable of being used to trump and destroy unscrupulous actors. In a stateless society, there would be nothing to compete with the multinational corporations. “Tricking people into initiating force on their behalf while simultaneously not rising against them” would be a given.
Jeremy – If someone were “rich enough” to pay a company to violate the rights of others, what would stop that company from simply TAKING the wealth from their employer instead? Nothing. When someone can trick people into initiating force on their behalf while simultaneously not rising against them, that’s not anarchism, that IS the state.
That is a fallacy on so many levels. First off, in a “stateless society”, the only rule would be to not use coercion or aggression to any ends. So any service that actually exists to kill people would likely find itself driven out immediately.
But let’s pretend that such a service were, in fact, permitted to exist. Okay. What do you think would be the reaction of people when they caught wind of this? Obviously, people would boycott Mort’s show or the “hitmen agencies”. Another reason why total acquisition is impossible. Actions based on the desire to inflict or cause harm would be met with equal resistance in a “free”, aka stateless society.
Morton Downey, Jr. would not be able to attack Ron Paul in a stateless society. Law and order would be more efficient, not less so, in a world of competing services — why do you think justice is an exception?
In a stateless society, Mort the Mouth would just buy off all the “competing services” and then lynch Ron Paul.
And this is why I’m a statist. It’s too easy to buy off the safeguards when you make them all buyable.
This is where “pragmatism” can come in handy. You can’t come out and tell people you’re going to cut this this agency and that program, and then somewhere, at some obscure place and time, explain the benefits of it. Libertarians have a knack for doing that.
Intimidation works, but only when there’s a reinforcing feeling of security. The gov’t does this on a daily basis. The LP can do as they do, except without the security aspect…or we can inverse the concept and speak of the positives of liberty. Often times, the best arguments for freedom are buried deep in debates. This does not help our case at all.
My point was that I see your point. I wrote an entire article at Nolan Chart about ways to start steering the public education system into our favor.
Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that third party viability is out of the question. Sure, they’ve erected several barriers to prevent threats to their power, but in many ways have made people more susceptible to us. No third party has really taken full advantage of this.
The LP has done a particularly horrendous job though, because it goes against the flow of “progress” and more corporate statism. If say every LP member were to agree to anarcho-capitalist theory and endorse an incrementalist approach, and actively court the left rather than the right, I have a feeling the party would be much more potent.
My point is that working people, farmers, etc., could have debates on monetary policy in 1900. They — for the most part — can’t now. The public schools have dumbed people down, made them more complacent, etc. That works to the detriment of third parties.
“The centralization of education is also an issue.”
I see it every day.
That’s true, but as an extension of that, it was the whole anti-Nixon air that was “absorbed” by the Democrats. Bad time for a protest party, historically. It’s quite obvious why the strongest showings for third parties are when the incumbent is leaving office. Any other time simply impedes efforts to kick the bastard out.
P.S. You’ll find the only thing I truly disagree with you on is media transparency. Having contacts in the media and having done work on my local public access channel, as well as my hatred for the MSM, the slightest pronouncement of nepotism to one side agitates me greatly.
True, but it’s also before draconian ballot-access laws or the tyrannical Australian ballot itself (in most cases).
Also, there’s a double-edged sword to the advances in media: Prior to the Internet, TV and radio made it much more expensive to reach voters than it was in Eugene Debs’s day. And with the Internet, people have been bombarded with “third parties can’t win” for 50+ years prior by the MSM. The centralization of education is also an issue.
Spence – It is hard to believe you’re just 17 — you are wise beyond your years. (Except all those times when I disagreed with you! 🙂 )
Point of clarification(?), though: What do you mean “absorbed by the Democrats?” The LP was founded, by my understanding, in opposition to Nixon’s price controls and closing of the gold window.
Think about it. 30 years have gone by. If the LP was ever going to be viable, it would have done it by now. When you think back to the potency of past viable third parties (Free Soilers, Republicans, Populists, Progressives) they had some statewide success at least under 5 years. And this was mostly before they had the technology and forms of media we have access to today.
There’s two main ways to establish a viable third party, by looking at collective track records:
1) Start a regional base in one or a group of states. Localizing a particular message and then spreading it forth. (Freedom isn’t really particular. Start with an affront by the specific state on individuals.)
2) Latch onto a message the major parties are ignoring at the time. (Not a frivolous one that is already being absorbed by the Democrats at the time of formation.)
The LP did neither. And they’re unapologetic about it to this day. Basically damning the cause of liberty and saying “whatever” and persisting the same failed course.
Honestly, the LP was probably doomed from day-one. After all, the Pledge — which seems to demand anarcho-capitalism (i.e. anti-state monopolism) was actually (according to David Nolan) a statement AGAINST “anarchists” and against the Revolutionary principles of the Declaration of Independence (i.e. rising against the government). It’s kinda hard to have a party of principle founded on a pledge that sounds like one thing, means another, and disavows the D.O.I.
Spence is right on the money, here.
Brian makes good points — and he is right as far as the downsides of splitting the movement go. But unity has not worked, and I think cannot work. Even if the anarchists are purged, that still leaves the Phillies-Outright wing and the “establishment” wing (i.e. the people who nominated Barr) who violently oppose one another as they do the anarchists.
Like I said: If the anarchos had their own party, perhaps everyone would be happier and we could even happily work with the “lessarchist” LP on common issues.
Maybe not several new ones, but it definitely looks like something needs to be done otherwise that’s what’s going to happen. The LP has run two campaigns. A failed educational one, and now a failed “play-by-the-rules” one. Why should they keep their monopoly on liberty-minded individuals when they fail to spread the message on a consistent basis?
There’s way too much in-fighting. People shouting traitor/statist or anarchist/supremacist at every turn. (Look no further than this site at some of the comments. Or even go to Nolanchart.com) All splitting apart would do would make it official.
And really, neither side is productive. So definitely, a complete reclamation is in order or it’s time to shred the LP for good.
All I want is to be free from taxation and monopoly. Why do you want to force me into paying taxes and prohibit me from providing voluntary services, VTV? If you don’t, then you’re an anarcho-capitalist. If you do, then what gives you that authority?
VTV – You don’t seem to understand anarchy. Morton Downey, Jr. would not be able to attack Ron Paul in a stateless society. Law and order would be more efficient, not less so, in a world of competing services — why do you think justice is an exception? What incentive does the monopoly state have to provide efficient justice? None. To protect life and property? Very little. What’s more, Ron Paul would be more likely to be armed to fend off an aggressor in a society that did not prohibit non-violent gun use. Finally, while it isn’t the state that “allows” MDJ to be an asshole, he is a product of the dehumanizing public school system that aggrandizes bullydom and aggression. And it is HIS type of people that get THEIR laws passed and imposed on others — case in point, drug prohibition, as shown in this video.
Oh, and don’t forget to scroll up and read my statement above the one with the video link.
The state is not what empowers Morton Downey Jr. to be an asshole. In fact, it has nothing to do with it. There will be assholes like Morton Downey Jr. state or no state.
The state however, does prevent him from physically attacking Ron Paul and not going to jail.
It prevents that mob of morons from lynching him.
The point of that video, is to show you why we need some state to police the people who are not as smart as you and I. In another time period, they would of strung up Ron Paul for having any view that was not concurrent with theirs.
Yeah, that’s classic, but so what? I don’t see it as an argument in favor of the monopoly state. The monopoly state is what allows a-holes like Morton Downey, Jr.’s values to override those of a man of peace like Ron Paul.
Oh hey, G.E.
This is an example of what I mean by the people’s inability to understand your beliefs, and therefore being unable to live by them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k
We have fusion in NY and it sucks. Certain parties choose to pick a gubernatorial candidate that will get then 50K votes (typically a red or blue) and then they peddle that influence in directions they deem effective. The LPNY tends to hang in there with an ardent group of activists and long time loyalists. Every four years we run a statewide slate and then go home.
That being said, we tend not to agonize too much over ideology. Splits usually derive from personality disorders and dysfunctions. I actively pursue alliances with Greens, the CP and even some outsider Republicans and Democrats. I’d love to be able to brag like Wes about the amount of candidates we have or run for Congress as perennially as Brian seems able, but we can’t.
The nature of the third party in America tends to be factional and quirky. Broad coalition, big tent operations aren’t necessary in this regard. Their purpose is to satisfy membership and produce meaningful opposition and protest.
I find the current ’success’ modality in the LP’s general membership rather irksome. It tends to alienate a base of membership who have signed on, not to win, but to be effective issue movers. Pick three issues and run for office . . . But when certain factions marginalize others with exclusive tendencies (cruise ship conventions let’s say) or ideological branding (radical/reformer) it creates fundamental discord among personalities.
When the LP existed for meaningful protest and not happy happy win win schlop, it was much more unified and secure in its ideological misgivings and splits (witness the existence of the former Dallas Accord). Of course as not winning progressed and sniping about the same became the mantra and bloodsport for re-positioning all manner of things, that’s when folks either dug in their heels or simply started walking away.
This is the part that you fail to see, as do most Anarchists. The sociological tendency to head towards tyranny is a constant. It will happen in ANY system of government. Including no government. The Anarchistic governmental style will fall prey to the same thing eventually. And in my opinion, it will happen far faster, as it has in history over and over and over again. I remember asking an Anarchist in debate to give me one good example of an anarchistic society that has worked.
He came up with Somalia…
Needless to say, I was not impressed with his example.
I can think of a few. Certain Native American cultures, people of Ireland and Scotland in different times of history.
They also have something in common. Every one of them was eventually smashed by it’s neighbor who wanted what it had. And when those societies could not unify, they failed to preserve their freedom.
The system of Anarchy while beautiful in concept does not stand up to what happens when people see someone weaker then them and want what they have.
You also need to consider, and I know this is difficult, that you cannot look at a system of governance just in your own eyes. It’s easy for you to imagine anarchy working because you see yourself doing find in that scenerio. And you would hope that everyone else in it would. The problem is, in order for Anarchy to work you would have to have the whole world on the ball and behind your utopian ideals. That will never happen.
Have you ever lived in a neighborhood where the state doesn’t intervene much? I have. When I lived in Pontiac Michigan sometimes I was in areas where the police response time is over 2 hours. It doesn’t take long for people to start preying on each other in that situation. I am sure if I was in a neighborhood full of Mary Ruwart clones I would be fine if it took the police two hours to respond. Or even if they didn’t show up at all. But Mary Ruwart and people like her a tiny tiny minority in humanity. And there are people on this earth who will never achieve that level of peaceful enlightenment.
Any sociological structure, a government, for example will eventually erode with time, as people find the cracks in the armor and exploit it. The trick is to try and design the “filter” that will do the job for the longest amount of time before you have to replace it. There is no perfect answer to human government, because we are not perfect people.
I once watched a documentary called “The Trap, what happend to our dreams of freedom?”
It examined a lot of different governmental systems. Their failures and successes. But it refered to “Game Theory” the concept that the character Nash from “A beautiful mind” had won the nobel peace prize for. When our leaders got a hold of it, they tried to use this theory to govern humans under the idea that human behavior could be dealt with logically.
By the end of the documentary, They interview Nash himself. And he said that he now realizes that one cannot apply math and logic to human behavior because human beings are irrational. It was as he put it, his “enlightenment” to realize that his life’s greatest achievement was flawed.
The only thing certain when governing people, is that our competitive nature that is an extension of our personal instinctual wars for genetic dominance, will cause us as a species to look for the quickest path to power. Like the animals in “Animal Farm” who set out to live the perfect utopia. They had their rule. “All animals are equal.”
Then one day, when nobody is looking it is changed to “All animals are equal, but SOME animals are MORE equal then others…”
This factor is not a fault of the state. It is a fact of life about mankind that has been there since the begining. And it still goes on now. You see it more obviously when you watch it in the few genuinely primitive tribes left on the earth. But it is still there in all of us. We just have fancier names for it now. As we pretentiously assume the title of “civilized”.
For real, all y’all’z ideas are dumb. Bring 5 friends to the next LP convention who are able to convince 5 or 10 people to do whatever. That’s all it takes. Do the math.
GE,
What VTV is describing is a theory held by many “radical minarchists”. I’v heard it called the “Cyclical governance theory”–but dont know the real name for the idea. It is also, essentially, what I believe is neccesary for maximized liberty. And the oil filter is a wonderful example, if not perfectly suited.
What might prevent this fracturing is a more inclusive primary system for Presidential nominees. I know some states hold actual Libertarian Presidential primaries, but they’re basically ignored by the party or treated as beauty contests.
If it’s not the official primaries, then at least a vote-by-mail primary open to anyone who has donated $25 to the party in the last 12 months.
With the LP and other third parties, you have a few hundred people who meet at a hotel and decide things. Those who are unhappy wind up splintering off into little fragments.
And in some ways it’s vanity. People just like to see their name on a ballot and to campaign and call themselves a candidate for President.
The way the major parties are able to hold themselves together as well as they do is that there’s room for Dennis Kucinich and Pat Robertson and all of these types of more “extreme” figures to express themselves electorally (in a meaningful way) within the party. They can have a real impact on the future direction of things.
Government is and always has been the instrument of tyranny. Comparing it to an oil filter makes no sense — does an oil filter ever produce its own impurities and turn the car’s oil into sand, and then take over the entire car and the neighboring cars in the parking lot and force them to pay taxes and fight in wars? If that were possible, then the analogy might have some merit.
VTV says –
“Governmental systems are like say, an oil filter on your car. Let’s say that the filter will filter tyranny. No matter how well you design the filter, eventually you will have to pull it out and replace it.
Nice try . . . but way wrong. I think government is like an itch. You just want it to go away!
How about this one . . . governments are like cancer . . . they always kill the host unless the cancer itself is killed! Like cancer cells, governments need apoptosis . . . programmed death. Like cancer, government grows through angiogenesis . . . it develops its own feed system to continue its existence for its own sake.
We can all make parables in describing government . . . however, I believe that any parable describing government as a parasite, or nuisance which is better when it goes away is most appropriate.
AnthonyD said:
Of course, I do not believe all purists are non-bathers. I was using humor to make a point.
Wes says:
Your first post left out the humor. (No need to thank me for taking care of things.)
AnthonyD said:
Is it really that big a disaster that Barr did not show up at some silly press conference?
Wes says:
No, not too many people heard about it or would care even if they did. For the small number of people who heard about it and did care, you’d probably find them silly whereas I find them worthy.
AnthonyD – I’ve got to apologize for my snarky reply earlier. Tone of voice is hard to interpret over the internet…
Anthony – I assume that was a written statement and not something he actually said, right? His written statements are generally quite good — sometimes even heroic. He issued a press release defending South Ossettian independence, and then went on Glenn Beck and (I’m told — I didn’t see it) basically said the U.S. could/should go to war with Russia to “defend” Georgia.
wesbenedict,
Of course, I do not believe all purists are non-bathers. I was using humor to make a point. Similarly, I do not think the writers at Saturday Night Live think George W. is as dumb as they portray him (o.k., not the best example, but you get the point).
And my point was to simply point out how the true believers in an ideoogy can lose sight of whats important. My point is that there is a interesting (in terms of human behavior) commonality between the actions of the socialists and libertarian movements mentioned in this article. I know nothing of the socialist parties mentioned here, but I do know that they are all socialist parties, and it is highly likely they are fighting over unimportant (relatively speaking) issues, and losing the chance at presenting a united socialist front because of pointless bickering.
Bob Barr is not the perfect libertarian. He disappoints me sometimes with what he says. He did work in the CIA. He did support the Patriot Act. He did write DOMA. But you know what? We as Libertarians can focus on all these wrong things and splinter into a million little pieces, or we can keep our eye on the ball.
Here’s something Barr wrote yesterday:
“I won’t promise to ‘invest’ in new energy technologies,†Barr adds. “That is the job of the private sector. The government has no money of its own and has an awful record in choosing economic ‘winners’ and ‘losers.’ My job as president would be to keep government from getting in the way.â€
“I would not, as president, ensure that every child has an education, make sure every American has health insurance, or provide job retraining for every worker,” says Barr. “No president can honestly make those guarantees. And none of these are the responsibility of the federal government,†explains Barr.
“The president takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,†Barr says. “Fulfilling this promise would be my priority as president. The president’s job is not to run America, or the American economy, or any particular industry. The president’s job is to be the chief executive of the federal government. That job I would perform to the best of my ability.â€
Now, I ask you: What the hell is the problem here? I see no contradiction between what Bob Barr wrote yesterday and the libertarian philosophy. Is it really that big a disaster that Barr did not show up at some silly press conference? Do we really have to split up into half a dozen parties because Bob Barr did not appear on stage with a REPUBLICAN?
We can break up into a million little factions like the socialists, or we can keep our eye on the ball and focus on whats important. The choice is up to us.
If there are to be multiple freedom parties, I think minarchist/anarcho-capitalist would be a poor dividing line. I’m not an anarchist, and I thoroughly dislike the term “anarchist” and its socialist/chaos connotations; however, I still feel more comfortable with people like G.E. and langa than Phillies and Barr.
If anyone should be segregated into their own party, it’s Barr and the rest of the secular small-government conservatives who don’t fit into the Constitution Party.
I’m a weight-lifting sunbather, and I’m bad by nature (at least sometimes). Don’t want to exaggerate expectations on the weightlifting results aspect–lifting 16 ounce beers in sunshine produces limited results.
Jim – I don’t know or care if people are good or bad by nature. “People are bad by nature” is VTV’s premise for discounting anarchy. I am an anarcho-capitalist.
GE, I do my best to follow the teachings of Jesus. So, I do not believe that people are bad by nature. Rather, I think that in very many cases, God has written on their hearts the way to be good.
I think Hans Hermann Hoppe has correctly identified a big hole in the thinking of classical liberals. That idea is the idea that governments are formed to defend life, liberty, and property rights. Evidently, they are not. And, even when people ostensibly do form a government to defend those rights, it becomes corrupted and incapable of doing so.
We cannot expect to create governments to make people be good. What we can plan to do is organise things so that those who choose to do harm can be quickly and effectively handled in some way.
Obviously, the most effective way to handle a criminal who is determined to harm someone’s life, liberty, or property, is for the intended victim to pull out a gun and kill the criminal right then and there. There are reasonable alternatives, but those choices that involve disarming the many and leaving them at the mercy of the well-armed few don’t strike me as reasonable.
Left alone, people find ways to cooperate. Free market competition isn’t wasteful, it is the most intelligent way of cooperating to find a market clearing price. And people find all kinds of ways to fill in where there is something not being done by, say, a central planning committee. Even when they have to do things illegally, people find a way.
I don’t expect to form a perfect government for mankind by men. Jesus promises a kingdom under His blessed guidance for a thousand years, and I can await such perfection. I expect men and women to be imperfect, and to only strive to do things well some of the time.
But, given this limitation, it is clearly a worse problem to have power concentrated in the hands of a few. The mass of people are probably too ignorant and too vice-ridden to govern themselves or each other with intelligence, enlightenment, compassion, and sensitivity. Which argues compellingly that no small group of the people are qualified to do so either.
The best approach is to govern others lightly, or not at all. We do not have a government of consent at this time, but to the extent possible we should seek a government of unanimous consent, where those who don’t agree cannot be coerced into obedience.
What the heck is wrong with wanting more than one needs? That’s more than possible through the division of labor achieved by free-market capitalism. Charisma or trade, so long as he “convinces” others to help him get it without the use of force, then that is not only NOT bad, it is the essence of pure good!
VTV,
I agree that abolishing the state would not change human nature. I don’t think that anarchy would be a utopia. I just think that it would be better than the current statist system. You say that the state helps to stave off the inevitable, but from where I stand, it just facilitates the inevitable.
Many opponents of anarchy fail to see that the things that they fear most about anarchy are already happening, and indeed, are happening because of the state. For example, you say that:
“Someone with charisma is going to want more then he needs. He will convince other people to help him get it.”
It seems to me that the phenomenon that you have just described is more commonly known as an election.
langa. I would say it is equally a pipe dream to believe that not having a state is going to somehow change human nature. The only thing you can hope to achieve in any government is to stave off the inevetable as long as possible. Anarchy would just allow human nature to do what it always does. Someone with charisma is going to want more then he needs. He will convince other people to help him get it. And without a unified front to stop he or she, they will get it. That’s why so many cultures that were close to being anarchy were victimized by other nations.
Well, I will be happy to share that with you sometime G.E. I have wanted to call you on the phone, but I lost your phone number. Do me a favor and drop me an email.
Meanwhile, I can sum it up in what I almost consider to be a law of physics of human behavior. Remember that I believe it was Jefferson who said that every government will need a revolution from time to time.
Governmental systems are like say, an oil filter on your car. Let’s say that the filter will filter tyranny. No matter how well you design the filter, eventually you will have to pull it out and replace it.
There are in my opinion two constants in human behavior. Greed, and the need for dominance. Though we conviently try to forget, we are but animals. We instinctively want to be genetically dominant. And this means having more then someone else. You and me Jason, represent the “enlightened few”. Who can rise above this. The problem is, the majority of society is either unwilling or simply unable to live free of greed.
But hey, give me a call.
The last 2 paragraphs were not supposed to be in italics.
Anarchy cannot work for the same reason that Socialism and Communism don’t work.
Human nature.
A society where everyone just agrees to “get along†is a pipe dream. History has proven time and again that it just does not work.
If people are by their nature evil, selfish and corrupt, then why would you want to give a small group of them almost unlimited power?
The real pipe dream is that donning a government uniform will somehow cause a fundamental change in people’s nature.
Agreed about the BTP, and I know you’re one of the “good” minarchists. In fact, most minarchists are good. We should have the debate in real life some time, though, because I’d like to hear (not read) your explanation of how people who are bad by nature can be expected to create governments that will make them be good.
Freedom works. Free markets are the natural form of human behavior.
I have no dog in the race amongst anarchists, minarchists, and other political groups. I am for a type of government which I call self-government. It is not anarchy, because people are governed, each by himself. It is not politics so much as it is human behavior.
Make no mistake, I am against people who don’t govern themselves. Those who act without thinking, without responsibility, without self-control are ungoverned, and very often cause harm to others by their unwillingness to govern themselves or rule their passions.
What I am against is not all government, but against tyranny. I am against tyranny because it rapes, it murders, it tortures, it strips habeas corpus, it denies gun rights, it enslaves, and it corrupts.
There is a lot of hair splitting and name calling and purging and vomiting in the libertarian movement. Which means that there are many very passionate people who have closely held beliefs. That we often attack each other is symptomatic of any people who are actually being oppressed.
But we don’t have to live like refugees.
And GE is right. The Modern Whig party is not a libertarian party. It is arguably a conservative, and presumably a constitution-favoring party. But it steps off the liberty train at several stations.
Nevertheless, there appears to be a significant organisational talent involved, so the Whigs are back, and bless them. Let’s find ways to work with them where we have common cause.
After all, earlier this week, Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin were able to make common cause with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. And might have made common cause with Barr if he weren’t such a weirdo.
I think habeas corpus is really important. Where do the Modern Whigs stand on restoring habeas corpus? Ending the war? Restoring liberty? It is going to be fun to find out.
I respectfully disagree G.E. But you know I respect you. As to the original statement in this post, it would be a lot easier for the “freedom” parties to come together if we were able to agree to disagree on all but a few core principles.
This is why the BTP’s platform is brilliant.
VTV, my friend, your logic is poor: If humans are bad by nature, then the governments they impose on their neighbors will be bad, too.
Anarchy doesn’t presume everyone’s going to get along. It presumes the market works better than socialism in all cases.
A non-anarchist believes that individuals do not have the right to be free from aggression, and that a gang known as a “government” has the “right” to initiate violence against would-be competitors in the provision of certain services.
If you believe in personal secession (i.e. I should be able to opt out of taxation and ignore the government so long as I commit no acts of aggression) and that individuals should be allowed to form their own voluntary confederations for purposes of defense and dispute adjudication, then you are an anarchist.
Anarchy cannot work for the same reason that Socialism and Communism don’t work.
Human nature.
A society where everyone just agrees to “get along” is a pipe dream. History has proven time and again that it just does not work.
I know I have had a hard time sometimes in the party dealing with the Anarchists in it, because you get to a point in the conversation where it is almost like talking to a religious fanatic. No matter how illogical their beliefs are they just don’t and won’t get it.
But the reason we will end up with splinter parties, is that there are too many irreconcilable differences. The Constitution Party, for example, is very similiar to the LP in many respects. The problem is, a lot of their membership are unable to see government and their religion seperate.
Gene – Anarcho-capitalist Walter Block answers your question:
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block102.html
Anthony D:
all this proves is that purists of any stripe are wingnuts who do not work well with others, or bathe on a regular basis, for that matter.
Wes says:
While there may be some purists who don’t bathe according to your preferred schedule, there are some damn sexy purists out there, and some damn geeky un-sexy moderates. Did you see the 2008 platform committee? All geeks–true, some sexy. It is possible to be geeky and sexy.
I’ve been lifting weights and laying out in the sun to help improve the image of the Libertarian Party. I took two showers today. What have you done for liberty?
No.
Is the Modern Whig Party also a Libertarian-oriented party?
“Some would say that the socialist movement is hopelessly fragmented.”
Others would point out that the socialist movement has been very successful. While the term “socialism” is dirt, many of the key policies of socialism have been espoused by both Republicans and Democrats. Self-labeled socialists still aren’t happy of course, but compared to the 1840s or even the 1890s, they’ve made huge progress.
I don’t believe in purging anyone from the party, but I do question the concept of self-described anarchists involving themselves in a political party that has to meet certain government regulations to retain ballot status.
Ross,
If you were talking about me, I would just like to let you know that I was using satire to point out the common element of purists of any political persuasion. Namely, to percieve any deviance from THEIR orthodoxy as an affornt to THEIR cause, at which time they proclaim that they are the true priesthood of their ideology, denounce everyone else as heretics, and start their own religion.
I agree with the general idea that freedom lovers should stick together. However, I totally disagree with the “purge the anarchists” part. Where would the LP be without the anarchists, who are primarily responsible for it being the “party of principle”. After all, it wasn’t the anarchists who picked Barr and Root.
Thanks for your constructive, insightful criticisms and thoughts that added to this discussion in an immense way.
all this proves is that purists of any stripe are wingnuts who do not work well with others, or bathe on a regular basis, for that matter.
I skimmed over the article earlier, and Holtz made a few good points. For instance, why can’t the Boston Tea Party (or other parties like it) simply be caucuses within the LP? Wouldn’t that strengthen the “freedom movement”?
However, I do see one reason for the Boston Tea Party (but no other parties like it) to exist – its name. I wonder if the BTP ran a candidate for office against a Dem, Rep, and Lib, if the BTP member would get more votes than the Lib just because of the clever party name. It might just be appealing to people. And even if they didn’t get more votes, they would certainly generate more interest in the time leading up to the election.