Skip to main content

Yet another Libertarian Party survey ...

... and I'm beginning to think they're clueless.

The Libertarian Party Platform Committee is at it again, with a turgid rehash of old bits and pieces of party platforms thrust out in a survey that appears (to me, at least) intended to stifle any reform movement within the party.

There are three fundamental problems with the approach to this platform:

1) It is absolutist to the core, recognizing no special situations in which ideology might have to bend to pragmatic solutions in times of crisis or change. That's not a political platform....

2) For a party of personal responsibility it places all the onus of what NOT TO DO on government, and actually accepts little if any personal responsibility at all. According to the revised platform, governments may not discriminate based on race, creed, gender orientation etc etc, but American citizens are free to do so to each other. That's a problem.

3) It's also a problem that this platform hides corporatism under the veneer of individual rights. You cannot--with any intellectual consistency--argue for personal responsibility and then seek the out of corporate limited liability for all your deeds. Just like you cannot so narrowly define initiating force as physical force and ignore all the various forms of coercion that are employed by governments, individuals, and corporations to accomplish the same end: unwilling compliance with policies or procedures that are at odds with an individual's self-interest.

If Libertarians want to become a legitimate political power, then they're going to have to grow up and really enter politics, instead of continuously rehashing the absolutist ideological mantras that have never worked in the past....

Comments

Anonymous said…
The consumer advocate made the announcement today on NBC's "Meet the Press." He says most Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties ... From HUbe

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...