Skip to main content

WWAGD? What would Albert Gallatin do?

A number of libertarians around the country have been thinking about what might replace the national structure of the dysfunctional Libertarian National Committee, and what you call it. Art Torrey pointed out that the Boston Tea Party might be problematic in that regard; what would you call a member? A teaper? A BTPer?

This is actually more of a serious problem than you might think.

There are also some people mooting the idea of a new libertarian think-tank, and similarly looking for a name for that enterprise.

I'm thinking we should create the Gallatin Foundation, after Albert Gallatin (1761-1841), the longest incumbent as Secretary of the Treasury.

I've been wondering what Gallatin would make of the current fiscal crisis. He was the man who pioneered the idea of withholding funds from the Executive branch when it attempted to perform actions not specifically authorized by Congress or the Constitution. He managed to purchase the Louisiana Territory without resorting to raising taxes, and in 1812 when the US Army was invading Canada, Gallatin forced the army [at least temporarily] to turn back because Congress had not appropriated funds for it to operate outside the country.

L. Neil Smith made Gallatin the hero of his alternate history SF novel The Probability Broach, honoring him as the first President of the North American Confederacy that succeeds the United States.

Looking at today's financial crisis, I don't have to wonder too hard to answer the question: What Would Albert Gallatin Do?

Albert Gallatin would not only have refused to intervene in private contracts, he would have begun ruthlessly weeding the US Government of its unconstitutional powers, bureaus, and agencies. He would have insisted that both taxation and government should be reduced to the smallest practical extent, so as not to interfere with the rights of American citizens.

A Gallatin Foundation would be a fitting tribute to one of the first great libertarians in American history.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to name a political party after him, but I'm still working on it.

Comments

Gallatinpots? Galas? Grand Old Gallatin? Parti du Gallatin? We're Not Like The Other Parties, God. Guns. Gallatin. Liberte' Fraternite' Gallatine'

Just some thoughts.
Thomas L. Knapp said…
"Art Torrey pointed out that the Boston Tea Party might be problematic in that regard; what would you call a member? A teaper? A BTPer?"

A libertarian.
Brian Shields said…
Oolongolian?

How about The Sons of Liberty?
Anonymous said…
I think that LNS offers a couple of possible answers as to what to call a member of a party named after Gallatin - namely a "Gallatinist", with the name for policies / actions in the style of the party being "Gallatinite" in nature...

As another alternative is the name of the LP (sort of) equivalent in the original world of the Probability Broach, namely the "Propertarian Party". I was seeing the potential train wreck of the LP coming when I met L. Neil in Denver, and I specifically asked him if he would mind someone starting a "Propertarian Party" using some of his ideas - he thought it would be wonderful, long as he didn't have to be involved.

While I understand the issues that some have with "Libertarian Macho Flashing", I have often wondered just what would happen results wise if we had a major candidate that ran a hard core "Bill of Rights Enforcement" based campaign of the sort that L. Neil has encouraged in many of his essays, and particularly in his novel w/ Richard Zelman "Hope" - (Highly reccommended BTW) - I think such a candidate could potentially pull much more support than our past record of running non-offensive candidates that come across as being only slightly less bad than the D & R offerings (or Worse in the case of Barr / Root)

BTW, thanks for the mention!

ART

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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...