On the heels of the controversy about the Libertarian Party poll about troop levels in Afghanistan, the party conducted a second, much less publicized poll on the same issue, giving responders more options. Both polls have now been closed.
The results of the first poll at http://www.lp.org/poll/should-more-troops-be-sent-to-afghanistan:
Should more troops be sent to Afghanistan?
Yes
8% (91 votes)
Maybe
3% (31 votes)
No
90% (1078 votes)
Total votes: 1200
The second poll at http://www.lp.org/poll/should-the-us-presence-in-afghanistan
Should the US presence in Afghanistan:
be increased
25% (45 votes)
remain the same
7% (13 votes)
be decreased
13% (23 votes)
removed completely
54% (96 votes)
Total votes: 177
As a result of our vigilance in raising the issue, in addition to the second poll being conducted, a discussion reportedly has taken (or is taking) place on the LNC list about providing responders to LP.org polls with information about the Libertarian Party position on issues, and staff members are working with members of the LNC to implement a system for doing so.
@15 Hogarth is called an adolescent. Just a few weeks ago, she was saying that I (and several others) showed evidence of not having been sufficiently beaten up in high school, or some words to that effect. Something about role playing games and her retort that reading Penthouse doesn’t make one Larry Flynt.
I guess the shoe is on the other foot, or something. Oh, and Flynt did Hustler magazine. The name you were reaching for, Susan, was Bob Guccione.
Why are the anarchists always at the minarchists throat?
It’s hardly a one-way street. I am currently involved in an email exchange about the concept of a ‘social contract’ (among other things), which started from a simple question I had about the other person’s comments about militias. I asked a question, and was directed to a rather lengthy essay, at which point I said I was to busy to do more than skim his essay for the answer. My correspondent then asked “Too busy, or too lazy?” which I thought rather rude. He did then proceed to give some answer to my first question. When I politely expressed disagreement with him about the concept of the ‘social contract’ and an implied duty toward others, he replied with this comment, which I found to be both rude and condescending:
This example is just meant to show that the ‘at the throat’ aspect is not one-way, and that your perception might be a bit skewed if this is main venue you see Libs interacting in.
Are we really that different?
Well, *yes*, we are. But that doesn’t mean we can’t work well together, and make substantial progress toward freedom, and influence each other’s thought.
Oops, I posted this in the wrong thread. Disregard above!
Why are the anarchists always at the minarchists throat? Are we really that different?
I believe that government sole function should be to protect rights. This belief became even more solidified after reading Hernando DeSoto’s The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. I do understand the anarchist proposition that much of this could be provided by private parties, but at a minimum a standard set of rules needs to be agreed upon by all. How do we go from the complete lack of property rights (because of little government involvement) to prosperity in Africa without government setting up a framework and enforcing contracts?
Does having a disagreement on the level of government involvement needed really disqualify me from calling myself a libertarian?
@9 “there is no lace…”
And sometimes no shoe, either.
@7 You make the rather irrational assumption that states and other forms of tyranny are rational. I don’t agree.
Thanks for the heads up.
I am presuming by government they mean regime, so I voted no.
Todays question is an extremely relevant example of what I was referring to above:
Do you believe there is a necessary and proper role for government in society?:
Yes
Maybe
No
The question seems to imply that there is no lace for libertarian solutions to US problems.
OTOH, the question could have been framed:
Do you agree with democrats and republicans that only increased government interference can play a role in solving societal problems?
Pacem en Terris
Wow. Maybe the Indepedent Political Report can make a difference.
It wasn’t just us – LP Radicals and, I think especially, LewRockwell.com played a role, and one or more LNC members – but yes. We. Can.
@3
You omitted “libertarian” after “rational.” I can think of a lot of “rational” reasons why states would want to go to war against other entities. Despite what the pseudophilosophers say, “rational” ≠“libertarian” and “rational” ≠“social welfare maximizing.”
@5 Irony is its own reward.
Wow. Maybe the Indepedent Political Report can make a difference.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-12-16_085_david_nolan_what_happened_to_the_libertarian_party.mp3
85. David Nolan: What Happened to the Libertarian Party?
The only rational statement in favor of war is a statement that the people in their capacity as sovereigns retain at all times the freedom to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government. As such they are empowered to go to war to bring down tyranny.
And, frankly, no external body of persons is so authorised.
The major problem with the poll is that it allows repondents to express opinions on OUR website that we don’t agree with. Our website should be both an advertisement and an educational tool.
The way the question is worded makes all the difference. The way BOTH questions are worded in the above polls, it looks as if the LP has no opinion on irresponsible wars. The LP clearly does have anti violence, (or at least the non initiation of force) as it’s foundation. Therefore, the questions should be worded in such a way that ANY thinking person will vote libertarian.
If the question above had been:
A. Should the US continue sending Marines and soldiers into the meat grinder known as Afghanistan,
B. Should the US increase the number of widows in the US by increasing the number of soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan
C. Obama should repudiate his earlier promises and bring our troops home
I think the first time visitor to our website would get a clearer idea about what the LP is about by using the above example.
Of course, that is not to say that the there can’t be a good libertarian plank in favor of war. I just haven’t heard one.
Pacem en Terris
The webmaster should scrap the polls. It’s a waste of time, just serves as cannon fodder for anti-LP’ers