Why Not the Libertarian Party?
Elizabeth Michael wrote:
> I’d like to suggest to Mitch and all the other lurkers that we in the Libertarian Party ARE the third party, which can come into the Congress and fix this mess. We are running candidacies to win at the Congressional level this year. Even for you USTP (now CP) loyalists and Reform party activists who are looking for folks to vote for, I’d like to suggest voting for us: we are probably in 80 to 90% agreement with you on your issues.
>
> Elizabeth Michael
> Acting Chair, Libertarian National Congressional Committee
> Candidate for Congress CA27
>
> “And when they play, ‘Hail to the Chief’, Lord, they’re pointin’ the cannon at you……”
> ……from “Fortunate Son”, Creedence Clearwater Revival
Elizabeth –
A good question, which I had not thought through. So I went through the process I did when deciding to leave the GOP for the Constititution Party (then the USTP) – I went and read both their platforms. I would encourage everyone to do the same and read the Libertarian Party Platform and Statement of Principles.
I don’t think we who believe in the principles behind the CP can ever support the Libertarian Party (LP) or its candidates. PLEASE NOTE, this does not mean we cannot ever have an ALLIANCE with them to achieve some common goal, like defeat or enactment of a piece of legislation. An alliance is very different from positive support for an organization which doesn’t share – or even rejects – your principles.
And that is the basis of the case against our support for the LP. Let’s look at some of their principles: “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives … The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.”
The foundation of this country is based on the principle that individuals ARE NOT sovereign over their own lives – God is! This difference in the source of governmental authority shows up quickly as the CP and LP derive policy positions from their respective authority sources. Both believe in liberty – but true liberty is derived from – and governed by – God’s authority. Libertarian liberty rests on no absolute authority, so it is only a matter of time before it is hijacked by the sinful predisposition of men.
A glaring example: Abortion. We in the CP believe in the right of people to make their own choices within the constraints of moral liberty. But since we believe that every person has that right, and others, from a Creator, we cannot usurp the Creator’s authority and take the right to life from His weakest creatures. WE do not tell HIM when HIS creatures may have the rights He has endowed them with. The LP makes its policy by placing the mother’s desires over the rights of the child – which does one of two things: Decides the unborn child has no rights, i.e, usurps God’s authority with individual will, science, majority vote, whatever; or, attributes rights only to those able to articulate and defend their rights, which bodes ill for the weak and defenseless.
I could address other specific differences, but my goal is to point out the FUNDAMENTAL difference between the CP and the LP. Saying that everything is OK as long as it’s “peaceful and honest” is very, very different than living according to rights AND responsibilities derived from an authoritative source of morality. It is not surprising, given such disparate starting points, that we have some major policy differences.
Supporting the LP because we agree on some issues and LP candidates might help advance some of our concerns, is the same as supporting the GOP for the same reasons. It might be politically convenient at times, but it means compromising our principles.
The great thing about the Internet is the convenience of information. Check out the Libertarian Party Platform for yourself and compare with the CP platform. I think educated decisions will fall in favor of the CP.
-Mitch Turner (Constitution Party of Virginia chairman) . The above was published on the CPVA website.
Here is what the CPVA seeks for in its candidates. The party strongly emphasizes their commitment to Christian principles.
http://www.constitutionpartyva.com/survey.html
Let humans enforce transgressions against other humans and God enforce transgressions against God. Simple division of labor…
IOW for @37: “What use does God have of a starship?” -James T. Kirk
The CP flunks the very first question presented to them in the form of the First Amendment and all of its provisions.
Therefore they are not worthy of support.
It’s really that simple.
Game over.
Constitution Party all the way!
…down the drain.
The target of such a hypothesis isn’t the zealot, it is the followers of the zealot. The idea being to plant seeds of doubt.
Steve M: You do make a good point. I spent a few years as a young adult with Christian zealots, and I suspect their answer to you would be that God is leading them to work toward those changes desired by that politicial party.
Constitution Party all the way!
@0 does a good job of saying what the relationship between the CP and the LP should be.
Yeah, he kinda does
I hate to admit it given the source, but Steve M has a good point there 🙂
If you start with the belief that God is all powerful then why do you worry about using the government to control the lives and behaviors of people. Doesn’t God has the power… Having the government take over Gods desires seems redundant. It might even seem disrespectful to be saying that we will use our interpretation of what God desires because God (creator of the universe) is incapable of carrying out Gods will.
Great. And?
@28
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/justin-amash-doma-repeal_n_2981622.html
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf
Chuck Baldwin received 5,395 write-in votes in Texas. I’ll take Dr. Paul at his word that his was one of those.
“paulie // Jun 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm
I’m pretty sure Ron Paul has been voting LP for president since 1988, other than 2008, and I can understand not wanting to vote for Barr. Also, Baldwin was better than most CP nominees.”
I don’t know if Ron Paul actually voted for Chuck Baldwin or not, since Baldwin was not on the ballot in Texas. The only way he could have voted for him would have been as a write in candidate.
I’m pretty sure Ron Paul has been voting LP for president since 1988, other than 2008, and I can understand not wanting to vote for Barr. Also, Baldwin was better than most CP nominees.
Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin in 2008, but he could not have voted for him unless it was as a write in vote (I don’t know if Texas counts all write in votes or not, and I don’t know what their procedures are for write in candidates, if any), because Chuck Baldwin did not qualify for the ballot in Texas, which is where Ron Paul is a registered voter.
I’ve also been told through mutual acquaintances that he did say he voted for Johnson. However, I understand why he did not make a public announcement about that as he had about Baldwin.
“and he kept quiet about his support for Gary Johnson so as not to ruin Rand Paul’s chances in 2016.”
Ron Paul said that he thought that Gary Johnson was “wonderful” in an interview. There’s a clip of it on YouTube. Maybe not the same thing as an official endorsement, but it was close enough.
No, he doesn’t. Compare and contrast:
http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Justin_Amash.htm
vs
http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm
Amash scores as a conservative; Paul as a libertarian. There are lots of details at the two links.
@24
Amash stands the same as Ron Paul on every issue that I am aware of.
Yep. And yet some people want us to merge with folks like that? No thanks.
@23, I didn’t realize that. That’s insane.
“this kind of stupid stuff is the reason why the Constitution Party AND the Libertarian Party will NEVER get any candidates elected!”
No it isn’t. The CP (or its predecessor USTP) did not exist before 1992. That didn’t exactly propel the LP to the next level, though.
“I am sorry guys, but I will take a Rand Paul or Justin Amash, who is IN office, over a Gary Johnson or a Virgil Goode or even a Chuck Baldwin,who can not win a measly 1% any day.”
I’ve yet to see any evidence that Justin Amash is particularly libertarian – what evidence I have seen indicates otherwise – and Rand Paul is a decidedly mixed bag.
” but the number of good Third Party office holders stands pretty much exactly at ZERO.”
That’s incorrect – we do have quite a few local elected officials – and also irrelevant; the main job of third parties is to push ideas in the political marketplace and incrementally push the candidates who do win in their direction. That doesn’t take actually getting elected, only running and getting enough votes and media to put some pressure on the big two.
“So, the CP calls the LP heathen, and the LP calls the CP bigoted, the funny (Not) thing is that probably 90% +, of both party’s members would have GLADLY welcomed the same Man as candidate for President (Ron Paul).”
Maybe so, but I can’t think of anyone else that even close to 90% of both parties would support, and that includes Rand Paul and Amash. So, Ron Paul is not a convincing argument for any merger between the two parties.
“Ron has of course ran as an LP and RP, but as far as I know the only candidate for president from any party he has fully supported since Reagan, was with the CP (Baldwin)”
He supported Browne and Badnarik. He would have kept mum about his choice in 2008 if Barr had not gone out of his way to aggravated him, and he kept quiet about his support for Gary Johnson so as not to ruin Rand Paul’s chances in 2016.
” get at least ONE GUY ELECTED to congress, or state house from the Constitution Party and one from the Libertarian Party”
Both have had people elected to state legislatures already.
@22
Of course not. But more than several people in the CP actually think that.
@2 Are you implying Catholics and Mormons aren’t Christians?
this kind of stupid stuff is the reason why the Constitution Party AND the Libertarian Party will NEVER get any candidates elected!.
I am sorry guys, but I will take a Rand Paul or Justin Amash, who is IN office, over a Gary Johnson or a Virgil Goode or even a Chuck Baldwin,who can not win a measly 1% any day.
Sure, I support 3rd party candidates because 99% of the guys that win the Big Two nominations are complete and total sell outs, but the number of good Third Party office holders stands pretty much exactly at ZERO.
So, the CP calls the LP heathen, and the LP calls the CP bigoted, the funny (Not) thing is that probably 90% +, of both party’s members would have GLADLY welcomed the same Man as candidate for President (Ron Paul).
Ron has of course ran as an LP and RP, but as far as I know the only candidate for president from any party he has fully supported since Reagan, was with the CP (Baldwin) which kinda puts him in ALL the camps, kinda like Captain Jack Sparrow.
if you listen to some (not all) of the guys in the CP, we will ALL FALL INTO SIN AND BE CURSED BY GOD if we go the LP way, if you listen to some (not all) of the guys in the LP, we will become (GASP) A NAZI FASCIST BIGOTED ANTI CHOICE VAT OF CHRISTIAN STATEIST CRAP WHERE GAYS ARE NOT GRANTED IMAGINARY RIGHTS BY THE EVER LOVING WONDER FULL GOVERNMENT IF EVEN ONE OF THESE JESUS LOVING SOBS EVER GETS THEIR PIOUS BUTTS IN OFFICE!!!!!!.
but don’t worry baby boys, because none of these bad things will ever happen, every thing will be okay just like it is now, because neither of you gets the toy choo choo train, Mommy and Daddy keep it,because like always you were so busy fighting you forgot to do your chores, so you don’t get the allowance money .
why cant we GROW UP and get at least ONE GUY ELECTED to congress, or state house from the Constitution Party and one from the Libertarian Party and let them duke it out, expose themselves ON THE ISSUES, whatever and let the chips fall where they may.
You both seem to have a rosy scenario of what CP members want, which is not based on reality. They don’t just want to be left alone to practice their religion, they want to use government force to impose it on everyone else.
Mark Axinn makes the best points on this thread. Thanks for echoing my sentiments.
“I think differences are easily reconciled.”
No. They want to use government guns to enforce their preferences. We should not reconcile with that.
“CP believes God authority is supreme; so do many Libertarians. The difference is that we do not believe the government has an role in dictating how an individual should live his life. ”
Correct. And that is not something that can be reconciled.
“If one is a devout Christian, opposed to war and abortion, then clearly the Libertarian Party is a natural fit. No Libertarian will ever support taking one dime from an individual opposed to abortion and using it to promote such practice (we have Republicans and Democrats who do that).”
If someone believes abortion is murder, it’s not exactly enough to say they won’t be forced to pay for it. “We’re going to run a bunch of places where parents can take their kids up to age 18 and have them killed, but don’t worry, we won’t make you pay for it” – would that be OK with you? It would not be OK with me.
But it goes far beyond that. They have a whole set of beliefs based on blind faith – admittedly and by definition not subject to logic or reason – that applies to LGBTs, sexual expression, adultery, and many other things – and they believe the government needs to enforce these preferences on those who don’t agree. They wants courts, government schools, the military, and other government agencies to push their religion on everyone, whether they share that religion or not. They want to aggressively round up and deport millions of people.
These are not trivial issues for them, and they are not trivial issues for me; we are strongly opposed on these issues, which they put front and center.
“Mitch and others–I agree with Elizabeth. Frankly, I don’t see the problem the problem as you do: Libertarianism is the one political philosophy which believes that you are free to worship and live as you want, and not be forced to pay for things like one-world government and abortion to which you object.”
They don’t want to allow other people to worship and live as they want; so there is nothing to reconcile.
It’s a good thing they have their own party. We don’t want people pushing such an ideology through the LP.
D 16, “natural rights” is a fine idea in general, but it rarely works in specific. You could say individuals have a “natural right” to life, liberty and property — which sounds grand– but how does that apply specifically? Does for ex a fetus have the right to life, or not? When property rights collide, who’s individual right prevails over the other?
And as for where “natural rights” come from, it seems impossible to say. They don’t “come from” anywhere, for they are simply a construct. Constructs are neither given nor taken by an external force, they are instead a concept to help us make sense of the physical world and its plethora of variables.
If God gives us these powers, then God can take them away. Libertarians would say we have natural rights that can’t be taken away by God or government.
I think differences are easily reconciled.
CP believes God authority is supreme; so do many Libertarians. The difference is that we do not believe the government has an role in dictating how an individual should live his life. If one is a devout Christian, opposed to war and abortion, then clearly the Libertarian Party is a natural fit. No Libertarian will ever support taking one dime from an individual opposed to abortion and using it to promote such practice (we have Republicans and Democrats who do that).
Mitch and others–I agree with Elizabeth. Frankly, I don’t see the problem the problem as you do: Libertarianism is the one political philosophy which believes that you are free to worship and live as you want, and not be forced to pay for things like one-world government and abortion to which you object.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman of a California Constitution Party
Oops, he did it again!
Cody Quirk at Post # 7
After reading post #10 of Dr. Grundmann, it is very clear he understands what I did at the AIP
event in Riverside, CA circa March, 2004.
He understands the difference between the words “a” and “the”.
So there are two “Constitution” Parties in California. One that Dr. Grundmann is the
Chairman known as just the “Constitution
Party” and is a Political Body within the
acknowledgement of the California Secretary
of State and the other is the “Constitution Party
of California that has Mr. Johnson as the Chairman at is not a Political Body and is not
trying to get ballot qualified in California in 2014.
To: Dr. Jimmy Rustles at post 11:
The 304 electors that make up the Constitution
Party of California showed have gone down in
number since the February 10, 2013 total, because Dr. Don Grundmann changed that political body name. He was short 102,700
in electors for ballot access on February 10, 2013, and was going downward after Grundmann acted.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party of California
“The great thing about the Internet is the convenience of information. Check out the Libertarian Party Platform for yourself and compare with the CP platform. ”
Done did that. Libertarian platform wins, and it isn’t even remotely a close call.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman of a California Constitution Party that has no ballot access and will never come close
As Peter states in #3 the national Chairman of the CP is of the Mormon faith. I greatly appreciate working with him. He does not attack others who may have different positions regarding his faith but instead works with them and, in my view, hence overwhelms and negates any possible negativity which they may have toward his faith by his endless example of working for the good of the nation. He is, through using this unique ability, able to BUILD the CP and to BUILD a fighting force against the enemies of the nation.
In contrast there are those, Ed Noonan of California was a spectacular past example and Cody Quirk a present example, who accuse the CP of being ” anti-X ” ( in Eds’ case, as with Cody, anti-Mormon; an absolutely ludicrous idea ) and use this claim to attack the party and their presumed foes. They do, and did, not have the ability to BUILD, as our current national Chairman does, but they instead use(d) the only ” ability ” which they have – to attack and DESTROY.
They have NO ability to overwhelm opposition, real or imagined, with their ability to work with others but instead attack, betray, and backstab their perceived opponents and this because of their shallowness, immaturity, and choice to embrace hostility and venom; i.e.; their own personal bigotry; rather that cooperativeness.
Riley Hood can have his personal beliefs but the CP advances because the national Chairman can BUILD with Riley instead of attacking him based on any personal disagreement.
That is why the CP can advance and their opponents will fail.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman of a California Constitution Party that, as with our national CP, works on the basis of, and to defend, the Christian foundations and principles of the nation
“The foundation of this country is based on the principle that individuals ARE NOT sovereign over their own lives – God is!”
The CP advocates a Theocratic dictatorship … lovely.
It sounds as though the Constitution Party is opposed to capital punishment.
#3
Too bad you also got people like Riley Hood among your ranks as well.
All moral principles are based on a non-tangible abstraction.
Principles can be based on God, or Nature, or Reason, or Class Consciousness, or Race, or Nationhood, or whatever else.
But in the end, all principles are invisible, as invisible as any god. And all their theoretical bases can be argued forever and a day, without proving anything if a person doesn’t want to be convinced.
In the end, a majority consensus emerges, and imposes its values on an unconvinced minority.
The difference is that those espousing theological principles eventually rely on the “argument” that “God said so.” At that point, no further discussion is productive. Philosophical arguments are subject to debate in a way that theological ones are not. The religious certainty is what makes disputes among those animated by theology so…intense.
@ 1: The problem with theocracy are those pesky disputes over whose theology is the correct foundation of government.
That problem is not limited to theology.
The problem with any set of moral principles are those “pesky disputes” over whose moral principles are the correct foundation of government.
Libertarians, Marxists, Objectivists, Greens — all compete to impose their moral principles upon society as a whole.
Libertarians may say they don’t seek to impose anything, but socialists might disagree. They may see libertarians as imposing a “principled” capitalist power structure upon them.
There is no unique problem with imposing a theological set of moral principles as opposed to a non-theological set of moral principles.
“Thou shalt not kill a fetus” and “Thou shalt not kill an adult” are both moral principles that some in society seek to impose upon others in society.
So too the idea of “theft.” Some say taxation is theft, others say, no it’s not.
All moral principles evoke those same “pesky disputes,” yet every society must in the end imposes some principles and not others. It’s called reality.
@ 2
?
the national CP chair is a Mormon, and there are a number of Catholics in leadership positions on the national committee – as well as people who do not prefer to mix whatever their religious beliefs – or lack thereof – with politics.
I mean, hell, the many even in the CP even rejects Christians, such as Mormons and Catholics. They’ve even tried to ban them from their party.
“Religious freedom” my ass.
The problem with theocracy are those pesky disputes over whose theology is the correct foundation of government. It’s been known to cause a bit of conflict.