There is an essay here which might be of some use:
“Policy Libertarians (PLs) include the vast majority of the most visible organizations and writers in the modern libertarian movement: the Reason Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Ron Paul campaign, the LP, the Constitution Party, most libertarian economists (e.g. Milton Friedman), and single-issue organizations like Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. PLs, as their name suggests, focus their energies on inventing and advocating a list of policies that governments should follow. For example, you can find policy libertarians opposing liberal eminent domain laws, fighting for lower taxes and deregulation, supporting cultural tolerance, opposing invasive police searches, and advocating the rest of the familiar libertarian manifesto.
“Structural Libertarians (SLs) are much rarer in modern times than PLs, although the opposite used to be the case. Structural libertarians include Patri Friedman, Mencius Moldbug, David Friedman, Murray Rothbard, all libertarian Public Choice economists, Lysander Spooner, and the classical liberals that libertarians have adopted as intellectual ancestors. SLs often have the same moral and policy beliefs as PLs, but they focus their energies on the alternative ways to structure a government and the effect that government structure has on its incentive to adopt good policy. At their most extreme, SLs barely sound like libertarians. Under a market-based government system (a common SL proposal), the architects of Singapore would likely find plenty of customers for a burbclave that is incredibly prosperous and clean, but where communists are sent to jail and litterbugs are viciously beaten with sticks.”
I think the essay puts Ron Paul and the CP in the wrong category. I think they are structuralists.
I think the constitution party is incrementalist, at best.
They are structuralist – just not the structure I most prefer.
No, they are not. They are policy libertarians, if that. They want a set of policies for the existing government, or as much more government as they believe is constitutional, that are consistent with the constitution as they see it. (A first amendment that doesn’t protect pornography is not much of a first amendment, for if they cannot be seen supporting free speech for people they abhor, they aren’t really for free speech.)
A structuralist would want a structure for liberty. Clearly, the constitution we have, as Spooner noted about 1874, has either authorised all the tyranny under which we suffer, or has been powerless to prevent it.
The constitution party does not seek to change the structure, at least not the overt, popularly imagined structure. They seek only to impose policies and eliminate policies that would be consistent with the constitution as they understand it.
A structuralist would want a structure that is consistent with liberty. Neither the constitution as it exists nor as the constitution party imagines it, is consistent with liberty.
No, they are not. They are policy libertarians, if that.
They aren’t libertarians at all. There are other types of structuralism besides libertarian: green, socialist, monarchist, fascist, etc.
The CP is not so much focused on specific policies as certain structures: strict constructionism, opposition to strict separation of church and state, support for states rights and opposition to a strong federal government, opposition to internationalism.
you can be a monarchist and a libertarian
No, they aren’t focused on structures at all. They like the structure of the status quo, as they see it. They are focused, in fact, on policies which follow what they regard as strict construction of the constitution. Policies like banning porn and banning abortion. They don’t want a constitutional convention to change the structure. No. Eh!
Um, was that a refutation? You can be a monarchist and a libertarian. This is how. This is my land, you can stay here as long as you take me as your king. If not, you leave. Isn’t that a perfect example of an anarchic-monarchy?
Same for socialism. You say, here we don’t use money, we all are assigned jobs, we all share, etc. or else you leave.
The idea is not evil, it’s the usage of violence to coerce the unwilling that is evil.
No, they arenâ€™t focused on structures at all. They like the structure of the status quo, as they see it.
Not in my experience. They tend to see the current structure as one where the constitution is not being followed.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *