Skip to main content

Where are the compassionate Libertarians now?

I'm behind on my reading and posting, so I have kept letting this post by Waldo slip back in the "to do" pile, but I can't let it languish there forever.

He raises the critical point, "Where are the compassionate conservatives now?":

One of the orthodoxies of conservatism for a long time has been that we can confidently cut off governmental funding to the homeless and hungry because back in the day private initiative and churches and charities took care of all that and we all did just fine, and given the chance, they will again- aided, of course by faith-based initiatives money from the feds and exemption from the civil rights laws.

Well, we can all see that in the tanking market situation individuals, churches and charities are hurting too. As the need goes up, their ability to meet it is declining. You can read your local version of the story in your hometown paper.

Even the Gates Foundation has reduced its grant-making plans for next year and the only places in the world you can find more money that it's got is in a Chinese government vault and under an azalea outside Henry Paulson's office in the Treasury Department.


Given that Libertarianism does share with conservatism the premise that more reliance on private, self-organized efforts to provide relief and support to people who truly need it, it's a question that Libertarians as well as conservatives need to answer.

But it's also one I find difficult to answer personally, because I was raised to do rather than to talk about the doing in this regard. Still, it's important enough to bend that rule a bit.

At our household we downsized Christmas this year for three reasons: (A) the economy and our personal financial situation; (B) a growing reaction against the consumerism; and (C) because--with the full input of our children--we decided to significantly upsize our charitable giving, not just during this season but as an ongoing percentage of family income.

I have to say I have rarely been happier with my children. We had explained the budget and divided the possible presents into categories roughly big, medium, and small [and big is a hell of a lot smaller that it was last year]. Within that confine, everybody was going to get two "big," two "medium," and several "small" gifts. At the dinner table the other night, one of my twins suggested that it might make more sense for everybody in the family to forego one of their "big" gifts and add that money to what we were going to do for other people this season. This led to a discussion of what we could keep doing after Christmas.

No, I'm not going to tell you how much money that involved or what we're going to do with it: too much information and none of your business.

But what I am going to do is challenge my fellow Libertarians, both as individuals and as part of Libertarian or Boston Tea Party groups, to step up to the plate and put some money where your ideology is. Yes, we pay too much in taxes. Yes, we have to pay for political stuff, like supporting ballot access or anti-war efforts. Yes, we're strapped like everybody else.

None of which is an acceptable excuse from people who say that if the government would shrink the citizens of America would do it themselves.

So let's step up and start doing some of it--publicly. I mean this especially toward Libertarian and BTP state affiliates.

What has or is the Libertarian Party of Delaware going to do publicly this year for those in real need?

This is critical, because the next time I see Waldo face-to-face I've got to be able to tell him that the difference between compassionate conservatives and responsible libertarians is that we walk the walk.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve,

May I reprint or repost this?

Angela Keaton
Angela
You have carte blanche to reprint or repost anything from DL anytime as long as there is attribution.

Steve
Waldo says: One of the orthodoxies of conservatism for a long time has been that we can confidently cut off governmental funding to the homeless and hungry because back in the day private initiative and churches and charities took care of all that and we all did just fine.

I don't think that it even true. Not remotely true.

It would nice to be some backup on that statement, as it seems to have come out of thin air.
Eric Dondero said…
Funny you would waste time talking about the truly obscure Boston Tea Party, that garnered a grand total of 19,000 some votes in 2008, yet ignored Libertarians in the Republican Party.

Shame on you for your obvious and blatant bias against Libertarian Republicans. And this in a State where some Libertarians ran as Republicans cross-endorsed.
Eric
Get a life, or for once actually read and respond to the content of a post rather than your own fantasy that if you redefine the term "Libertarian" narrowly enough you can apply it to the GOP.
Thomas L. Knapp said…
Far from "ignoring libertarians in the Republican Party," the Boston Tea Party even went so far as to endorse one for election (BJ Lawson in North Carolina's 4th US House District), and adopted as its 2008-10 program the campaign platform endorsed by the Campaign for Liberty, "libertarian Republican" Ron Paul's organization.

"Obscure" we may be, but we elected two candidates to local office our first time out and already have congressional candidates and ballot access efforts ramping up for 2010 (as well as possible local campaigns in 2009).

If the BTP really picked up 19,000 votes, I'm unaware of it (the number I recall is in the neighborhood of 2,500). Got a source for that?

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 ...