[priv8ter]

So, as I sit here at work and catch on my High Road reading, I got thinking a little bit of politics.

There is a lot of talk right now about the Libertarian Party, and also of Ralph Nader. And how Nader had more sucess as a Green Party candidate than the L.P. candidate had last presidential election, mostly due to name recognition.

I think of myself as a (lower case letter) libertarian and anarchist. I voted for a Libertarian every time I have seen one's name on the ballet the last 4 years. But...saying that, I'm still not sure who I will vote for this fall come the big election. I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote for Gary Nolan or Michael Badnarik.

What the Libertarians need to do, is get someone with name recognition, and run him for the highest office he has a chance at winning, to get legitimacy for the party as a whole.

So, President is out(for now...but watch out in 2028!).

So, I had a crazy thought. California! They like actors! Look at Arnold! And, most of them seem to be okay with the 'gay marriage' thing! And I bet most of them would be okay with legalized drugs! What better place would there be to run a Libertarian Canidate for Governor, than California!

And the man for the job?

How about Kurt Rusell? Everything I've read about him says he is one pro-RKBA son-of-a-gun!

Man...somehow, I've got to ahold of the L.P. honchos...I've got gold here...

or, it could just be I'm trying to spice up a boring Saturday morning.

greg

[Chris Rhines]

I'd settle for the LP picking some counties with low population densities and getting local councilmen and school board members elected. I don't much care for local politics, but it is undenyable that small groups can make a difference at that level.

Sadly, I doubt that the national LP will ever go that route. Do otherwise intelligent people go through some kind of genetic change when they enter national politics?

- Chris

[dischord]

Kurt Russell would be good.

I agree that the LP needs a celebrity party on the national stage. It is unfortunate but true that the media will not pay attention to a third party candidate who doesn't have name recognition.

[MacPelto]

He'd have to move back to the US first. On another note, he was Ted Nugent's best man...that might get some votes!

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Not even celebrity will overcome the message. Can you imagine a candidate standing there and telling the masses that THEY are responsible for their own well-being? Can you imagine the ammunition that the D & R candidates would use to scare the masses?

They will allow everyone to have a gun!
They will end the "safety net."
Social security will end and seasoned citizens will starve!
30 years of environmental, health and safety regulations will be rescinded causing belching factories, amputees, and death for all!
Drugs will flow onto the streets and drown the children!
The rich will not pay their fair share!
Your neighbor will be able to do anything he wants with HIS property!
ad nauseum......

:eek:

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

oops

[dischord]

7.62FMJ:

Hey, I'd be happy if people actually rattled the cobwebs and thought about such matters.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Dischord,

If the LP was half as successful with their message as the "two chickens in every pot" message the left has been selling for 70 years, then we could win.

[dischord]

7.63FMJ:

Yep. That's why a celebrity candidate would be a good idea -- at least the message would be out there.

Even candidates who are barely celebrity, like Ralph Nader and Pat Buchannan, get more attention than the LP candidates.

[Sean Smith]

The Libertarian Party is just not media-savvy. They are media-incompetent, if anything. How hard is it to grasp that people don't vote for folks that they have never even heard of? That's the bottom line: outside THR, most folks aren't aware that the LP exists... they are just another bunch of cranks that show up on the ballot. The answer might not be a celebrity candidate, but it definitely lies in getting media exposure SOMEHOW.

I also think that Libertarian Party folks, and some libertarians on THR for that matter, are too obsessed with being perfect little libertarian ideologues, and denouncing everyone that doesn't take libertarian philosophy to its logical extremes, and not enough with figuring out how to get political power. That's a great way to be an irrelevant crank, but not real effective if you actually want to change the federal government sometime in the 21st century...

[dischord]

The Libertarian Party is just not media-savvy. They are media-incompetent, if anything. How hard is it to grasp that people don't vote for folks that they have never even heard of? Yep. :(

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

It is a shame when liberty and freedom have to be packaged and marketed.

[D_Burchfield]

Sean Smith,

I agree that at this time the Libertarians are not media savvy. One great voice of the party is Neal Boortz, who is nationally syndicated on radio. The left hates him and the right is wary. The party still holds to the concepts of personal choice and personal responsibility, but there are those who need to be led by the nose.:scrutiny: Down here we're working to strengthen the party at a local level and run some candidates for county offices. The local platform may or may not include national party planks so long as Libertarian principles are the driving force. I feel that more work at the grassroots level will eventually drive the party to national prominence. Just my $0.02

Best,

Doug

[Chris Rhines]

Libertarians are different from Democrats and Republicans, in that the term Libertarian describes both membership in a political party and adherence to a certain set of social principles. Not so with the other big parties; as a party, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any real core values.

The most important principle of Libertarianism* is the non-aggression principle. To wit, that it is immoral to initate force against other individuals. People who believe in and follow the non-aggression principle can be libertarians; but people who do not adhere to the NAP are not libertarians, no matter what they claim.

This makes for some interesting problems, where a person can be a member of a political party but not adhere to the philosophy that the party exists to promote. Neal Boortz is a case in point; he claims to be a libertarian, but he advocates the initation of force against others (war protestors, in his case.)

It drives me nuts, and is a major issue with the freedom movement in general.

- Chris

* - There are others, but most of them can be distilled down to, "Don't attack other people, don't steal from them, and don't defraud them."

[Werewolf]

This makes for some interesting problems, where a person can be a member of a political party but not adhere to the philosophy that the party exists to promote.
I consider myself a libertarian. But I don't agree with 100% of their platform just like most demonrats and republopigs don't agree with 100% of their parties' platforms.

I think the Libs stand on immigration and open borders is naive at best and pure insanity at worst.

Their stand on pulling our armed forces all the way back to the US and using them for defense only is short sighted (better to fight on some other country's land, have their civilians killed and their infrastructure destroyed than ours).

Other than that I buy into the whole libertarian platform. Hell I've seriously considered taking on my state legislator here in Oklahoma and running for his seat but the dems are so entrenched and so many okies (who'r really libertarians they just don't know it) vote dem because their daddy and granddaddy and greatgranddaddy did that it'd just be a waste of time and money.

[CarlS]

The most important principle of Libertarianism* is the non-aggression principle. To wit, that it is immoral to initate force against other individuals. People who believe in and follow the non-aggression principle can be libertarians; but people who do not adhere to the NAP are not libertarians, no matter what they claim.
Though I definitely have Libertarian leanings in most of my views, I am not a Libertarian because of the extreme to which the above is carried. Some of the Libertarians seem to forget that Islamic fundementalist radicals attacked this country. I view Afghanistan and Iraq as legitimate national self defense. We were attacked - not by a traditional state - but by terrorists whom are supported by traditional states. I would support military action against any nation harboring, hiding, training, and/or financing terrorism. I had much rather be fighting them over their than burying American civilians from another Trade Towers attack over here. And my surviving son is in Iraq, definitely in harms way.

I agree with the Libertarians that we have no business in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somolia and now maybe Haiti.

This makes for some interesting problems, where a person can be a member of a political party but not adhere to the philosophy that the party exists to promote. Neal Boortz is a case in point; he claims to be a libertarian, but he advocates the initation of force against others (war protestors, in his case.)
I listen to Neal Boortz when I can and I have never heard him advocate using force against war protestors. I have heard him say that people who publically aid and abet the enemy, such as Hanoi Jane and Kerry should be charged with treason.

[dischord]

people who do not adhere to the NAP are not libertarians, no matter what they claim.Chris,

Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but I think it would be better to say, "People who do not believe in and do not attempt to adhere to the NAP are not libertarians." People are imperfect and naturally aggressive. It's in our animal nature, but we try to overcome that with our human ethical discipline -- in this case the NAP. If adherence were required, it would be impossible to be a libertarians when you realize the NAP isn't just limited to physical force.

Pick an argument with your wife because you had a bad day at work, and you've violated the NAP, but you don't lose your key to the secret underground libertarian lair.

Boortz may very well be a libertarian who's made some crass and decidedly non-non-aggressive remarks ... but hey, even the Reverend sometimes sneaks a peek at Miss Muffinpuff's slit skirt in the front pew.

But how did L. Neil Smith's NAP get to be a litmus test anyway? He didn't invent libertarianism by a long shot. If I write a bunch of sci-fi books, do I get to make a litmus test too?

[Justin]

It is a shame when liberty and freedom have to be packaged and marketed. Disagree. Liberty and freedom are commodities like pretty much anything else, ones that many people have paid dearly for.

[Chris Rhines]

Dischord - Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but I think it would be better to say, "People who do not believe in and do not attempt to adhere to the NAP are not libertarians." Okay, fair enough. It is not lost on me that anyone who recieves a tax-funded benefit from the state (most of us) can be said to be initating force against the taxpayers. A good-faith effort to live by the NAP is fine.

My objection is to people who call themselves libertarians but who actively encourage the violation of the NAP. These people aren't libertarians, and I wish they would stop calling themselves such.

But how did L. Neil Smith's NAP get to be a litmus test anyway? He didn't invent libertarianism by a long shot. Nor did he invent the NAP - El Neil was just the first person (that I'm aware of, anyhow) to come up with the cute title. The first reference to non-aggression as a philosophy that I ever saw was in Bastiat's The Law. I'm sure there were earlier ones (in the Bible, perhaps?)

Sorry if my use of the term 'NAP' confused anybody.

CarlS - I'm gonna skip over the whole Iraq/Afghanistan/national self-defense thing, just 'cause I don't want to hijack this thread any more than necessary. If you like, one of us could start another thread or PM.

I was a frequent reader of Boortz's web site up until around 2003. I do very clearly remember him calling for FBI investigation into the anti-war movement in general, and certain individuals in said movement in particular. Presumably that includes me. I think that it is fair to count that as advocating the initation of force.

- Chris

[CarlS]

Good call, Chris; I don't want to hijack the thread either. I would be glad to discuss it with you in a new thread. I learn much from these discussions.



I was a frequent reader of Boortz's web site up until around 2003. I do very clearly remember him calling for FBI investigation into the anti-war movement in general, and certain individuals in said movement in particular. Presumably that includes me. I think that it is fair to count that as advocating the initation of force.

You are correct, he definitely did call for an investigation. If that is your definition of force, I can't argue. To me, calling for an investigation of something, in this case, the financing of the antiwar movement, is not initiating force. Unless I'm misreading or totally failing to understand, that definition would prohibit the legal investigation of most anything including investigating an armed robbery, a rape, or the Enron scandal.

[dustind]

Some of the Libertarians seem to forget that Islamic fundementalist radicals attacked this country. Whaaaa?? Who is against killing terrorists? I think of myself as a pretty extreme and pure libertarian and I am completely in favor of self defense, including self defense against terrorists.

[GigaBuist]

Personally I'd like to see Ted Nugent run for governor of Michigan on the LP ticket. Actually I'd just like to see him on any ticket. From what I know (limited) he's a member of the Republican party so most likely he'd just saddle up with them.

Sometimes I wish 'ole Ted had a blog or something. He does too much as it is it seems so I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have the time.

[Jay Kominek]

I'd settle for the LP picking some counties with low population densities and getting local councilmen and school board members elected. ... Sadly, I doubt that the national LP will ever go that route.
You have to realize that political parties exist on a number of levels. Where I live, there are three Libertarian Parties that are relevent to me, the National LP, the LP of Colorado, and the LP of Boulder County (Colorado).
It isn't the National party's job to get someone elected as the county comissioner of Boulder County. Rather, they exist to promote national candidates, and the libertarian party as a whole.
But it is, to a degree, the LPBC's job to promote the national candidates within its sphere of influence.
I guess, perhaps, you're saying that the National LP ought to make such things its job. I think that either 1) there isn't a local party, and there just isn't enough support for one, so pushing candidates in that locale is a bad plan or 2) there is a local party, and they just need more local support, rather than mucking about from the nationals.
- my two cents

[dischord]

The first reference to non-aggression as a philosophy that I ever saw was in Bastiat's The Law. I'm sure there were earlier ones (in the Bible, perhaps?) Well, yes, there were plenty of "do unto others" beliefs prior L Neil Smith -- I wasn't saying he origniated the concept itself, but rather its use as a litmus test for libertarians. The NAP (by whatever name) does seem to rise to litmus-test level in libertarian writing in the 1980s after Smith, IMO.

[twoblink]

I think the libs need to run under the campaign:

"Do you really want the people who run the post office and DMV to run your life??"

:what:

I don't know about you guys but that thought alone gives me cold sweat at night..

[Dex Sinister]

Though I definitely have Libertarian leanings in most of my views, I am not a Libertarian because of the extreme to which the above is carried. Some of the Libertarians seem to forget that Islamic fundementalist radicals attacked this country.

The non-initiation of force principle does not (or at least it wasn't meant to) preclude the use of force in response to aggression. That is the entire reason that the word "initiate" is in there - otherwise, there would be no distinction between:

“No one may morally use force against another person,” and
“No one may morally initiate the use of force against another person.”

To call this the "Non-Aggression Principle" is a misnomer to a degree: It should be the "Non-Aggressor Principle" (as in "no first strikes.")

Dex }:>=-

[Tom Bri]

The National LP seems to me to be completely corrupted by money. The last two presidential elections were little more than money making schemes for the candidate and his buddies, and the one before that was almost as bad. The last LP presidential candidate I thought worth supporting was Ron Paul, way back in, what was it, 1988. The closest thing we ever had to a national figure. Pathetic.

Sad to say, what the LP needs is a big money, big name to jump in and save them from themselves. Any suggestions? We have already had Kurt Russel and Ted Nugent brought up. Who else can we name as possibles? One I have heard mentioned is Clint Eastwood, a lib-leaning Republican. He does not seem interested, when asked by interviewers.

Lets have some names, folks...

[HBK]

The LP has about as much influence as the Green Party. Talk about beating a dead horse. Maybe if the Republican Party split and half defected, but it has about as much chance as the old Know Nothing party did.

[Josh]

I wonder if Howard Stern is ready to see the light now that he's feeling the screws of THE MAN. He's got name recognition and a NY carry permit (how many of us can say that?).

He's with the D's on many socal issues & was with the R's in the WAR ON TERROR (tm). Maybe he'll be interested in changing his tune since he's been getting a taste of taxpayer funded, FCC served, knuckle sandwich.

He's not my first pick, nor even tenth, I'm just thinking out loud here.

I bet it would be impossible for the media to ignore him.

Josh

[Mark Tyson]

Howard Stern did run once on the libertarian party ticket for governor of New York. His plan was to reinstate the death penalty, eliminate some road tolls, then resign and let the libertarian Lt. Governor running mate(name escapes me) take over.

But frankly, I can't see the LP taking over 10% of the vote even if Benjamin Franklin were running on their ticket and every voter who identified himself as a libertarian "voted his conscience". The same applies for the other third parties. Not that I think Mr Franklin would be a libertarian, but that's beside the point.