Huff Post Live: Libertarianism Redefined
By Jill Pyeatt on May 7, 2013 10:47 PM
Jill Pyeatt
Jill Pyeatt is a small-business owner and jewelry designer from Southern California. She currently serves on the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of CA. She can be found on Facebook and Twitter.
Yeah, I’m not big on that one.
RC @ 18: “Untruth needs to be challenged and undone, as the truth shall set you free.”
I completely agree.
17 bh quoting LS: Libertarians need to practice a kind of “conversational intolerance” within our movement, exacting a social penalty every time a person tries to hijack our message with false and nonscientific claims.
me: Not sure I like the term “conversational intolerance,” but I do like the sentiment. Untruth needs to be challenged and undone, as the truth shall set you free.
When half-baked, paranoid ramblings are positioned as the L position, it damages the brand. Standing for Truth, not faux truth, always works every time, even if it doesn’t seem to prevail in the short term.
Liberty will not win out when (seemingly well-meaning advocates) muddy the message with distractions and self-marginalizing stances….
From the manifesto of the Skeptical Libertarian blog to which she is a contributor:
But the more the spotlight turns toward the “liberty movement,” the more concerned libertarians should be about the unsavory, conspiratorial, and pseudoscientific beliefs being spread under the banner of the libertarian and antiwar movements. For too long, libertarians have ignored the problem and pretended that it has no impact on our credibility, believing that open opposition would be too “divisive.” This has proved to be a mistake–and an increasingly costly one.
Instead of trying to silence or ignore the crazies in our midst, we ought to confront them and expose the lunatic fringe for what they really are: peddlers of fear, falsehood, and paranoia, just like the politicians they claim to oppose. We cannot sit passively next to the people in tinfoil hats screaming about chemtrails and FEMA camps and still expect to be listened to when we try to speak about our real concerns on foreign policy or personal liberty.
What discredits and defames libertarianism is not the belief that government is corrupt, exploitative, or conniving. Rather, what hurts the cause of liberty most is when its alleged proponents lie, libel, and twist the facts. As skeptics, we realize that the evil perpetrated by our government mostly results not from the plots of secret cabals, but from the unintended consequences of bad ideas. In the name of opposing those ideas, we must not let ourselves become a carrier for another set of malignant beliefs.
Libertarians need to practice a kind of “conversational intolerance” within our movement, exacting a social penalty every time a person tries to hijack our message with false and nonscientific claims. We must make the libertarian movement inhospitable to the crackpots and conspiracy theorists if we hope to move the philosophy of liberty from the margins to the center of public discourse. It needs to be crystal clear to everyone that our ideas based on–and defended with–facts and evidence, not superstition and innuendo.
We are libertarians because we believe it is the political philosophy which most closely reflects reality. The lessons of economics, science, and history lead us to be distrustful of moral busybodies and central planners, and to defend individual liberty, personal responsibility, and spontaneous social order. This philosophy is not grounded in dogma or tradition, but in reason, tolerance, and respect for human dignity.
I’ll definitely look up what she has to say. I’m always looking for new sources of information here for IPR.
@11 I believe Lucy Steigerwald is the daughter of Bill Steigerwald, who was an L. A. – area Libertarian years ago, but he moved to Pittsburgh, where he is an author and newspaper columnist.
I see LS is an anarchist…
I found amusing Kokesh’s assertions about what inspires people. It’s true that Manson likely was quite inspirational for The Family, but it doesn’t follow that Manson-like comportment is indicated, nor is it the “only” way to inspire. I, for ex., find more inspiration from more chill, sober figures. Fist-pounding firebrands make me wonder about their stability….
Thanks for the info, Tim @ 11. I’ll check her out.
tk, I’d say it certainly WAS news. Not everyone is up on the news. One mention in the news is easily missed by most. To get many’s attn, the drum needs to be banging with some frequency, yes?
@1
“Has anyone heard of “Libertarian blogger” Lucy Steigerwald?”
She contributes to Reason.com and has her own website at:
http://thestagblog.com/
She is fairly good. Concentrates mostly on civil liberty abuses by LEO IIRC.
RC @ 9,
“My guess is that few NMans even knew that GJ was on the ballot.”
Yeah, because it’s not news or anything when your former governor runs for president.
7 0m: …demonstrated that even have a popular and tested candidate is not enough for the mindless masses.
me: Can’t say I agree that it “demonstrated” that. It to me demonstrated that getting people to protest vote is difficult, even for a favorite son.
My guess is that few NMans even knew that GJ was on the ballot. Maybe, what, a third of the voters there knew? Most of THEM still couldn’t pull the lever for GJ, as it would have been “wasted.”
One observation “proves” nothing….
more…
I could even imagine him/her being the catalyst for the GOP (probably) to implode. Many Rs are not especially happen about being beholden to the social cons first, and the neocons are fading, too.
#5, While receiving a nice portion of votes in NM for a candidate that is not in The Big Two, I think it was still a pathetic showing for the people of NM and demonstrated that even have a popular and tested candidate is not enough for the mindless masses. They still support Democrats and Republicans even if being lead off of a cliff.
MC, could be that GJ in NM is not the optimal opportunity. I happen to think that – with the right preparation and team – he COULD get far more support for a winnable situation. His 12 run was slapdash and last minute, an afterthought in some ways.
A credible L in either house of Congress COULD be a huge player, as I see it. S/he could paint the picture of what the L prize is (far more liberty) AND play the role of arbiter between the Rs and Ds. I see it as a potential game changer, actually, if properly done.
GJ seems to think that he can’t do any good in congress. I tend to agree, in the sense that one L in congress is unlikely to have much of an effect on legislation, unless the congress is nearly equally split between Ds and Rs. However, I absolutely think that the election of an L to congress would be a huge step forward for the LP and Lism. I think it would be a much bigger deal for the LP than 2% in a POTUS race.
Unfortunately, I think his time has passed for successful congressional or senate campaigns. Once he ran for POTUS as an L, and fell way short of his goals of getting into the debates, and 5% of the vote (as most of us knew he would), he lost a huge number of potential donors who likely saw him as something “better” than just another L politician.
Admittedly though, I don’t know much about NM politics.
The second guy in studio gets it. Is L-ism canonical and doctrinal, or is it opportunistic, or is it both? He suggests both, and I agree. Keep your eyes on the (sometimes amorphous) prize while doing what you can, one day at a time.
He also floats the idea of GJ as Sen., which I like, too, although I’m still thinking MC…depending on – dare I say it – the opportunities that present themselves.
Thanks Jill. Ron I liked. Rand not so much. But time will tell.
I have heard of her.
Has anyone heard of “Libertarian blogger” Lucy Steigerwald?
Let’s be clear: Rand Paul is a Republican. He may be on the libertarian edge of th GOP, but he makes a clear distinction.