Why don't libertarians form their own party?

[CFLarsen]

If so many libertarians are libertarians, but don't like the Libertarian Party, why don't they form a party of their own?

Edited by Darat: 

Content deleted.

So why don't the rest of you band together? Don't you want political influence? Don't you want to see your political ideas carried out in life?

The premise of the thread is appropriate for the "Politics…" section however the personalisation is not. There is no need to single out a specific Member, and to by way of implication insult that Member. If you continue to breach your Membership Agreement further action will be taken, which may include suspension.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Sushi]

Jesus ****ing Christ, Claus, do you have some sort of homosexual crush on shanek or something? Your posts (as well as TCS's) are starting to seem more and more like excuses to find a way to make a petty jab at shanek (who does need to tune his rhetoric).

Anyway, it is because most with unpopular views feel hopeless politically and that the only way to keep "loonies" out is to play pick-and-choose on who can enter, which would make it little more than a hypocritical elitist club. At least that's my take.

However, I find the LP to be by far the best political party the united states has. I'd be much happier with them if they cut down their platform significantly and kept it just as an ideological party, with less reliance on saying how a policy could benefit everyone in particular (economically, for example). I don't think that wide-sweeping statements such as "government is always less efficient than the free market) to be very useful even if it is mostly or even 99% of the time true. I'm not an absolutist in that sense--I think most issues like these are extremely complex and often rely on situational factors. That does not change my ideology, however.

This post was reported. It is in breach of your Membership Agreement, continuing to breach your Membership Agreement may result in further sanctions, including suspension.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[The idea]

[...] the only way to keep "loonies" out is to play pick-and-choose on who can enter, which would make it little more than a hypocritical elitist club.

If you are a student at a college or university, then are you a member of a hypocritical, elitist club?

If you are a judge, then are you a member of a hypocritical, elitist club?

If you have a driver's license or a CPR certificate or a first aid certificate, then are you a member of a hypocritical, elitist club?

 

[drkitten]

If you are a student at a college or university, then are you a member of a hypocritical, elitist club?

If you are a judge, then are you a member of a hypocritical, elitist club?

If you have a driver's license or a CPR certificate or a first aid certificate, then are you a member of a hypocritical, elitist club?

Does this post have any relevance to the thread?

 

[Freakshow]

If so many libertarians are libertarians, but don't like the Libertarian Party, why don't they form a party of their own?

As I understand it, only shanek actually votes for the Libertarian Party, and actively defends LoonyTunes Badnarik and his politics.

So why don't the rest of you band together? Don't you want political influence? Don't you want to see your political ideas carried out in life?

Because sometimes, one has to accept that their views are in the minority, and that there is virtually no chance of getting the rest of the country to agree with you. We don't all get what we want.

I knew from day 1 of the campaign that Howard Dean did not have a chance of being elected president, and probably didn't have a chance of getting the Democratic party nomination. Because his views are too extreme. His supporters always talked about getting the message out, getting heard, etc. It has nothing to do with getting the message out or not. In fact, more people finding out about his views is a BAD thing for an extremist's campaign, not a good thing. Because most of the country doesn't agree with an extremist.

It is almost impossible for a political campaign to change the minds of a significant majority of the voting public. That's why politicians talk for hours and never really say anything. Because once they make a strong stand and actually say something, they start isolating people.

So I accept that my views are a tiny minority in this country, and that it is virutally impossible for me to change that. We don't get everything we want in life. It's okay. I get plenty of other things in life that I do want. That's the way it is. You win some, you lose some.

 

[drkitten]

If so many libertarians are libertarians, but don't like the Libertarian Party, why don't they form a party of their own?

Part of the problem is structural. The way it works in the US government (and indeed, by design, law, and court order, at all levels) is that 51% of the voters can control 100% of the government power. There has been quite a bit of work done on the mathematics of electoral systems (indeed, I believe Ken Arrow won the Nobel Prize for inventing the field), and this appears to be a general problem with any system based on "winner-takes-all" or "first-past-the-post" voting (as opposed to something like the Australian STV system, which has its own problems).

Any FPTP system will almost inevitably end up in a two-party system, with the third (and further) parties being reduced to dread "historical footnotes." A small-l libertarian party that somehow managed to get 20% of the votes would, paradoxically, have the effect of guaranteeing that the large-government apparachniks would have an even larger hold on the government.

For this reason, sensible small-l libertarians try to work within the existing political parties. In the United States, that's not that difficult a task, but it's time-consuming. Most candidates are selected, for example, by local caucuses or primaries that have very low turnouts and can be influenced by a small, determined group. This is how the Religious Right has, over the past thirty or so years, established effectively total control over the Republican party. "First they came for the dogcatchers and the school boards, and no one spoke up.... then they came for the city councils and county treasurers,....." et cetera. (WIth appropriate apologies to those actually affected by the Nazis of course.)

If the small-l libertarians would actually show up to the county Republican Party caucases, they would have a very good chance, almost immediately, of being able to influence the local candidates for election. Since these local politicians eventually grow up to be regional, state, and federal politicians, they will eventually be able to make their mark on the Republican party at a national, platform, level.

Unfortunately, here we come into the other problem. The small-l libertarians, by and large, don't like government. They don't like how it operates, they don't like the political aspects of it, and most of them (the real ideologues) don't like the necessary compromises that must be made. So very few are interested in putting in the necessary time, effort, and trouble. That's one of the reason that the large-L Libertarian presidential candidates are all wing-nuts. The few Libertarians with sense don't want the job. They know they will spend lots of time, money, brains and effort in an election they are guaranteed to lose, and even if they got lucky and won, they would hate the job once they had it (and do a poor job of it, because of the rest of the bureaucracy they would be fighting).

Basically, libertarians are hoist by their own petard. Any profession is dominated by those who like the profession -- if you hate law, you're not going to become a lawyer. If you hate teaching, you will not become a teacher. And if you hate government, as libertarians by definition do -- you will never govern.

 

[The idea]

Does this post have any relevance to the thread?

I suppose you could argue that any political organization that is selective about who may become a member is little more than a hypocritical elitist club, but that another kind of organization may be selective without being little more than a hypocritical elitist club.

Given the above formulation of the unstated premise, one could argue that the examples of a driver's license or certificate are irrelevant.

Some jurisdications try to limit handgun ownership to people who are not "loony", so even though all people who legally own handguns in a given jurisdiction may not be literally members of some "club" or "organization", there is a quite relevant kind of selectivity involved (relevant to both handgun ownership and to this thread.)

 

[The idea]

And if you hate government, as libertarians by definition do -- you will never govern.

What definition of "libertarian" are you using?

 

[drkitten]

I suppose you could argue that any political organization that is selective about who may become a member is little more than a hypocritical elitist club, but that another kind of organization may be selective without being little more than a hypocritical elitist club.

Well, let's think about this for a second. (Or, perhaps more accurately, let me think about this for a second, and you can join in when you know the words.)

A political organization by definition exists to influence (or to control) government at some level/region, or in other words, to exert some degree of control over people who are not members of the organization itself. For some political philosophies, such as Fascism, the idea that some group of "superiors" should, by their very superiority, exercise authority over the lesser beings, is part and parcel of the philosophy as well as the hoped-for fact of their exercise of control. So I'd say that, no, fascist political organizations that restrict membership to the "superiors," while by definition elitist, would not be being hypocritical.

However, one of the fundamental tenets of libertarianism is that people should be as free as possible from involuntary restrictions and governmental control. So the basic political philosophy says that people should not be "controlled" without their consent and participation, while the fundamentals of being a political organization require that one "controls" those not in the organization without their consent and participation. So a libertarian political organization that restricted its membership would indeed be hypocritical. ( I'm willing to stipulate "elitist" if the excluded members are regarded as unworthy of membership, for example, being "loonies." It's hard to regard that term as anything other than pejorative.)

 

[New Ager]

If so many libertarians are libertarians, but don't like the Libertarian Party, why don't they form a party of their own?

So why don't the rest of you band together? Don't you want political influence? Don't you want to see your political ideas carried out in life?

If so many atheists are atheists, but don't like the Democratic or Repbublican Parties, why don't they form a party of their own?

So why don't you atheists band together? Don't you want political influence? Don't you want to see your political ideas carried out in life?

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Why don't libertarians form their own party?

If so many atheists are atheists, but don't like the Democratic or Repbublican Parties, why don't they form a party of their own?

So why don't you atheists band together? Don't you want political influence? Don't you want to see your political ideas carried out in life?

Atheists do not share political ideas.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Re: Re: Why don't libertarians form their own party?

That's one of the reason that the large-L Libertarian presidential candidates are all wing-nuts.

Do you think Rep-R Ron Paul (Libertarian presidential candidate 1988 I believe) is a wing-nut?

LLH

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Why don't libertarians form their own party?

Do you think Rep-R Ron Paul (Libertarian presidential candidate 1988 I believe) is a wing-nut?

I'm not familiar with him in particular. I would, however, be willing to bet that he is, yes, on the same principle that any given adult male lion is likely to have a mane.

 

[Sushi]

Re: Re: Why don't libertarians form their own party?

If the small-l libertarians would actually show up to the county Republican Party caucases, they would have a very good chance, almost immediately, of being able to influence the local candidates for election. Since these local politicians eventually grow up to be regional, state, and federal politicians, they will eventually be able to make their mark on the Republican party at a national, platform, level.

The Republican party doesn't represent Libertarian principles anymore than the Democratic party does.

Also, trying to change a party would probably have very little effect. It would, basically, just drown any libertarian presence into even greater obscurity.

 

[Libertarian]

Re: Re: Why don't libertarians form their own party?

It is almost impossible for a political campaign to change the minds of a significant majority of the voting public.

Generally speaking, I would say that it IS impossible. There's very little convincing that a campaign is capable of, and as you also said, there is very little they even ATTEMPT to do. Campaigns are afraid to make firm stands because the way to garner votes is to give the public what they think they want.

Which leads to the conclusion that if a candidate or party is not telling the truth, or only saying things that will get them elected regardless of what they really think, WHY are they running for office? Power, obviously.

 

[Sushi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why don't libertarians form their own party?

I'm not familiar with him in particular. I would, however, be willing to bet that he is, yes, on the same principle that any given adult male lion is likely to have a mane.

He's bonkers because you disagree with him politically. Okay.

I can't wait until I seriously see someone here suggest that political dissenters be put into mental institutions for "political insanity". Works in China!

 

[Libertarian]

However, one of the fundamental tenets of libertarianism is that people should be as free as possible from involuntary restrictions and governmental control. So the basic political philosophy says that people should not be "controlled" without their consent and participation, while the fundamentals of being a political organization require that one "controls" those not in the organization without their consent and participation. So a libertarian political organization that restricted its membership would indeed be hypocritical. ( I'm willing to stipulate "elitist" if the excluded members are regarded as unworthy of membership, for example, being "loonies." It's hard to regard that term as anything other than pejorative.)

Nice try, but you won't be lighting up a cigar any time soon. Libertarians want to increase the sphere of freedom for everyone. The only way to do this is to lessen the sphere of government.

 

[Libertarian]

As I understand it, only shanek actually votes for the Libertarian Party, and actively defends LoonyTunes Badnarik and his politics.

Um, no. I know for a FACT that at least twice that number vote Libertarian every single chance they get. And, I'm not sure of the numbers, but if you'd like, I'll go find the links that will demonstrate how hundreds of thousands HAVE voted Libertarian. Where did this notion of shanek = Libertarian Party originate, anyway?

And, I realize that the Republicrats are not exactly shaking in their boots any more than Silvia shakes in her boots whenever Randi brings up the Challenge. If you're proud of being in the socialist majority, congratulations on your groupthink.

 

[CBL4]

new drkitten gives a good prescription libertarians affecting government. The problem is that the Republican Party is no more libertarian than the Democratic Party and libertarians are split between the two.

Also, people want government to help them. It does not matter if they are liberal or conservative, almost everyone has a pet agenda where they want the government to help out. I admit that I am thrilled that my local house of representative is a master of the pork barrel. He has gotten numerous projects funded by everyone else. Did you know that the fish and wildlife department is giving almost 1 million to upgrade my local marina? It's a joke but it is wonderful that my city gets it and not yours.

I vote for him even though he epitomizes what is wrong with our government. But the reality is that if we don't get the bacon, someone else will.

BTW, this is not a phenomom limited to the US. The Economist just had an article about how "liberals" cannot find a home in any of the four major German parties.

CBL

 

[Freakshow]

Also, people want government to help them.

I'm not sure if that is true or not. Would wanting government to do less (and hence, have less influence in my life) be considered my wanting government to help me? I think there is an argument to be made it is, and one to be made that it isn't. It would be helping, by getting out of my way.

Does that fit the statement you were making?