Are Libertarian Parties bad for Libertarianism?
Bruce Bartlett writes on why he thinks the (US) Libertarian Party is bad for the cause of libertarianism. He believes that libertarian-leaning activists have been drawn away from the Republican Party and the Democratic Party by the LP, leaving the major parties with fewer libertarians.
He also calls the Libertarian Party essentially a debating club where only one question is ever debated — who is the purest libertarian and what is the purest libertarian position?
His solution is to wind up the Libertarian Party and replace it with a lobby group, which would hire lobbyists, run advertisements and donate contributions to candidates supporting libertarian ideas
I know of quite a few US libertarians who would agree and don’t think having a Libertarian Party helps their cause. Likewise in the UK, the Libertarian Alliance has a long standing policy of not contesting elections but being a society where libertarians of all strands can discuss and promote ideas.
Something that would be useful in NZ (regardless of whether the Libertarianz stand or not – a decision purely up to them) would be a libertarian guide to candidates and parties, perhaps giving each of them an average libertarian score. Rodney would probably be 9/10, Don Brash 7/10 etc and at the other end Jim Anderton 0/10, Winston 1/10, Helen Clark 3/10 etc.
On an entirely selfish front I enjoy having the Libertarianz stand candidates. In Wellington Central hearing Bernard Darnton advocate for the total removal of the state from health in response to a question on how to reduce waiting lists was wonderful to hear the audience gasp. He got the best response in Aro Valley where the dozens of anarchists there were very supportive of some Libertarianz policies.
I’d be interested to hear views especially from Libertarianz members and candidates about whether they have recently debated whether they think they can achieve more by being a party or just being a lobby group, and what they see as the pros and cons.
Hat Tip: The Volokh Conspiracy
December 26th, 2006 at 11:39 am
You point makes sense in an FPP-style election but here in New Zealand with MMP smaller parties can gain seats in Parliament.
Perhaps the Libertarianz should vote ACT in elections though in a UF/Outdoor Recreation style arrangement.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Jim Peron had the same idea, but it didn’t really work out.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Pacific Empire – indeed but without wanting to get into a full blow by blow review of what happened, how much of that was what we might call personality clashes rather than a flawed concept?
December 26th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Ranking the candidates on their “libertarian” quotient might be useful for ACT.
From what I can see, the Libs would possibly rank him a 6, not 9, due to a rather purist view they take on such matters. That might help him be perceived more moderate than the left wing interests who label everything near centre “far right”.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Helen Clark 3/10? She isn’t even 3/10 when dealing with her own cabinet! They can’t even do what they want 30% of the time.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
The NZ problem is that the Libertarianz have been run as a personality cult attacking anyone and everyone who is either not pure enough for them, disagrees with them or doesn’t work with them. They are not just useless but destructive.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Yeah, in the States he is probably correct, only because the entire system of governance enforces the two party state. Here, less so. Although I also agree with Newguy that there is a fair amount of eletism within the Libertarianz – which, of course, is basically the point.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Any small pressure group does better as part of a larger party particularly if they stand no chance of reaching the 5% threshold.
Pure libertarianism like communism sounds good in theory but will not work in practice. Neither of them will ever get voted in in a democracy.
BTW- what score would you give John Key?
December 26th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Hamish, you misunderstand me. I could handle elitism if that were the only problem. It is viciousness I’m talking about. These are the kind of sectarians who unleash their worst hatred for people most in agreement with themselves because they are convinced that they alone have the total truth and anyone similar to themself, but not 100 percent with them, is a worse enemy than the total opponent. If you look they spend a lot of time attacking libertarians not only in NZ but around the world. And since they (unlike most libertarians) are a sect of the Randians they also spend a lot of time attacking other Randians. They make the Exclusive Brethren look sane.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
The faction sectarian problem with Libertarians is not just a local one.
When I first went on the Internet there were only 70,000 of us and for whatever reason a number of us were of Liberarian persuasion.
So we quickly set up usenet groups and other forms of chat rooms round the world and even on MacWorld for as long as it survived.
But no matter what the intentions or the rules or whatever they were soon blown apart by either vicious attacks on the purity or lack of purity of contributors or were hijacked by people who wanted to discuss only guns or abortion or drugs – and nothing else.
If a group member as much as asked a question about some matter of faith they would be dumped on for asking questions which implied heresy.
Jim Peron tried to broaden the church and indeed at the conference in Rotorual a key note speaker was an American who argued the case for tolerance strongly and elequently.
But Jim’s strong distaste for any form of religious belief meant that any Libertarian who happened to be a Christian was attacked and when we tried to discuss the English tradition of Liberarian thought tempers rose because Locke etc failed to meet the test of atheism etc.
When Roger Douglas and a group of us set up Act (the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) in Taupo we he had no intention of setting up a Libertarian Party – it was if anything a classic liberal party.
But as the policies were developed and a constitution laid down the Libertarians launched massive attacks against Act for not being a Libertarian party – which it had never set out to be.
I am afraid this seems to be an endemic problem and international and ongoing problem not helped by the strong schism between the Libertarians and the True Objectivists.
Peter Cresswell seems to be doing a good job of keeping these temperatures cool and I wish him well.
But no doubt some purist is lurking in the wings, waiting to bring him down for some subjective slip of the tongue.
Owen
December 26th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
“But Jim’s strong distaste for any form of religious belief meant that any Libertarian who happened to be a Christian was attacked and when we tried to discuss the English tradition of Libertarian thought tempers rose because Locke etc failed to meet the test of atheism etc.”
That’s bullshit Owen and you know it.I saw all the debate that raged on Free student network between Jim and the Flannagans ,who gatecrashed the group and its real purpose which was planning and organising Liberal/Libertarian action to spread the ideas. I know Jim’s views on this personally etc and it was never about if Christians could be Libertarians, which they certainly can be but are forced to confront the contradictions between the authoritarian aspects of their faith and supporting individual freedom.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
“Pure libertarianism like communism sounds good in theory but will not work in practice. Neither of them will ever get voted in in a democracy.”
Unlike Communism which requires huge resources to implement force to control human action Libertarianism simply requires leaving people alone…and a small but strong government to make sure that happens.
Libertarianism basically runs itself…Communism has to run everything!
December 26th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Libertarianism to me means that people should have the right to live their lives however they choose (as long as so doing doesn’t mess up other peoples lives), so if some people want to subject themselves to the rules of a religion – that’s surely their business. Telling them that they are wrong for doing so sounds more like fascism to me.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
now..i support libertarian policies on mind altering substances..
but i’d prefer the gummimt to give them to me..eh..?
so..where does that leave me on the ideological spectrum..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 26th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Libertarianism to me means that people should have the right to live their lives however they choose (as long as so doing doesn’t mess up other peoples lives), so if some people want to subject themselves to the rules of a religion – that’s surely their business. Telling them that they are wrong for doing so sounds more like fascism to me.”
No…its called debate and free speech Andrew.Many of the religious have no qualms about pushing their views onto the non religious…but they recoil in horror that their own fantasies can ever be challenged.If force was being mooted against the religious I and every other Libertarian would stand along side the religious to defend their rights to believe and worship as they wish….while still disagreeing with those views.
Would you say that Richard Dawkins should be banned from making his case against religion…? Would not that action be truly “fascist”…?
December 26th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
….”I and every other Libertarian would stand along side the religious to defend their rights to believe and worship as they wish….while still disagreeing with those views.”….
…Unless those Libertarians were Christians themselves of course…;-0
December 26th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Suggest you read what Ayn Rand said about LIbertarianism David.
“The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism, the ‘libertarians’ are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivism and chaos of anarchy. To co-operate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one’s future” ~ Harry Binswanger (Associate of Rand)
Rand hated libertarians – she thought they were seeking power on an intellectual shoestring. Which they are. Look at how they court the stoner vote. Sheer whim-worshipping subjectivism and the apotheosis of the primacy of reality that Rand promoted.
PC tries hard to sit on the fence about it – but ultimately fails.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Possibly James, your above posts examplify the problems that the libertarian movement faces, the obsession to argue for arguments sake. You seem to both agree and disagree with me, if people want to worship their God, what fucking business is it of yours or anyone else, that’s all I said, why do you need to argue?
December 26th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
I meant opposite – not apotheosis!!
December 26th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
David
I agree there may be some value in ranking candidates by how libertarian they are, the good old fashioned political quiz that is on the Not PC blog is a good start – but probably needs some editing.
There has been extensive debate in Libz about lobby group vs political party, and the party has acted as a lobby group for a few years now as well. It presents submissions to select committees etc, and tried to lead debate on issues. There have been a couple of major problems which have been overcome (failure to stand in 2002 and lack of effective leadership and direction), but I think things are better than they have been in some years. I think for a party of small finances and membership not far short of 1000, it manages to get noticed at times when it is alone (e.g. census, drugs) and also challenges the status quo philosophically. In short, it helps make people think without the politicking that weakens the philosophical commitment of ACT, let alone National.
On other comments. The Jim Peron created ILV certainly had some merit, but i think it faced two problems. The first was personal and I wont go into that. The second was the resources of those interested were likely to be spread too thinly. The core of NZ libertarians are objectivists and I think there are two projects worth pursuing. One is the political one, which is about how less government is moral and practical. The second is cultural, which is about reason, self esteem, valuing life and celebrating that which is the embodiment of life, beauty and the pursuit of happiness.
Newguy “The NZ problem is that the Libertarianz have been run as a personality cult attacking anyone and everyone who is either not pure enough for them, disagrees with them or doesn’t work with them. They are not just useless but destructive.”
If you can say how in this has been since Bernard Darnton has been leader then please feel free – you are talking out of your arse. If you look at press releases from spokesmen you might notice the times Libz have agreed with almost all main parties in NZ from the Greens to ACT. However it also reserves the right to criticise them, and when parties which talk freedom then gleefully vote for the opposite, there is good reason to point out to voters how hypocritical that is.
Owen – ACT never for a moment uttered a word about individual freedom at a personal level, on matters such as euthanasia, drugs, sex, censorship or even private property rights until quite recently. Early ACT was very much a party of Roger Douglas’s Unfinished Business, which was an economic and social policy prescription – it was liberal from the business roundtable perspective, which is valuable in itself – but it would be silent on people being detained without trial for example.
On the Christian point, one of Libertarianz’s regular candidates in Hamilton for Parliament and council is a committed Christian. Libertarianz is not an atheist party, though it has many atheist members. It also has many gay members, but that is neither here nor there either.
Ruth, indeed Rand did not like libertarians, yet she espoused support for exactly the type of government supported by many libertarians. I’d be happy with an Objectivist party but its politics would be no different from a libertarian one, it could damn any religionists personally but would never do anything about them. That is why I believe it is appropriate to have a libertarian pro-capitalist political party, with separate objectivist movements.
Andrew W – Yes people can worship their God, people can eat deep fried bananas too – I wont interfere, but if they try convincing me of its merits I’ll tell them how much I disagree and why. After all many Christians harbour the belief that everyone who isn’t is wrong or morally inferior or at risk of burning in hell. It is no different from me saying worshipping non-existent beings is irrational, and a waste of time and money – much like i think spending hours in a shoe shop is. However, the religion matter is nothing to do with libertarianism – that is politics, not a complete philosophy.
December 26th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
I think that you could substitute “christian” for “libertarian” and it woudl still be a fairly good question.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
All minority political movements have activists that spend alot of their time attacking their fellow supporters.
Marxist parties are notorious for infighting. The US paleoconservative movement also has similar problems, with some traditional christian conservatives like Lawrence Auster spending too much time attacking scientific conservatives.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
I think it’s more that most liberals are bad for liberalism. Most equate liberalism with lifting the constraints imposed by society, yet reality places constraints on people that cannot be broken by any means. Are you free to sprout wings from your back and fly around the room? Of course not, freedom is not nessesarily about what you can and cannot do. Capitalism creates a dishonest influence which is detrimental to what freedom really is.
http://girocandsinofar.blogspot.com/2006/12/value-of-influence.html
December 26th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
owen/ruth/david you probably have not read not pc trying to raise the temperature of debate. apparently if bloggers support john key they must be socialists. even dpf sits on the red team now according to not pc
http://pc.blogspot.com/2006/12/key-to-my-blogroll.html
from what i can see libertarians in nz are no different from elsewhere. Any time i read detailed debates among libertarians “life of Brian” springs to mind
December 27th, 2006 at 12:03 am
To me if it was a straight choice between Labour and National now I would vote Labour. There is too little difference between them economically, and as a liberal, Labour’s sentiments towards things like party pills are more appealing. John Key does not represent enough of a change for me to want to see him as Prime Minister. So what PC says is fair enough.
December 27th, 2006 at 1:24 am
Libertyscott makes several statements which can be challenged. As I understand it ILV was adequately funded for the work it was doing. And very little of that came from LIbz people. The argument that resources were spread too thinly might be popular with Libz, who appear to have thought they had a right to those resources, but the facts are different. The conference mentioned in Rotorua had around 130 people there and almost none of them were Libz which indicates that ILV was reaching people Libz couldn’t reach or chased away. That would indicate it was growing resources which is what market theory would indicate as well. But if you believe that liberty is a fixed sum game then the attacks on other libertarians suddenly makes sense — they would be seen as poaching scarce resources not growing them. That explains a lot.
Libertyscott asks “If you can say how this has been since Bernard Darnton has been leader….” Is that an admission that it was run the way Newguy describes before Darnton became leader? A previous party guru might take exception to the implication that under his control, which seems to still exist, that the party was run “as a personality cult attacking anyone and everyone”. All libertyscott seems to be saying is that such attacks aren’t done now where Newguy says “Libertarianz have been run” not “are run”. It sounds as if both Newguy and libertyscott are saying the same thing.
Libertyscott says ACT was very quiet on individual freedom at the personal level “until quite recently”. By quite recently I assume he means over the last couple of years which is not quite as recent as he implies. Two points on that. One is that there was always strong support for personal freedom in ACT prior to the leadership change. Two is that the really big votes on social freedom are relatively recent and ACT’s caucus was strongly in support of those measures though not unanimously so.
He also inadvertently shows the problem with Libertarianz when he says an Objectivist Party “would be no different from a libertarian one.”. Yes it would. Objectivists take positions on everything, libertarians don’t. Libertarianism is a political philosophy while Objectivists pontificate on the morality of art and the “cultural issues” he talks about. Libertarianism does not. Most libertarians in the world are not Objectivists. In NZ most Libertarianz are because those who aren’t got pushed out by attacks by the local Objectivist priest. One clear indication of this difference is that Objectivists tend to love wars — almost any war it seems. And the priests of NZ Objectivism have attacked anyone opposing the war in Iraq. Yet that includes most all the major libertarian groups in the world while the various sects of Objectivism have all supported the war. Objectivism is not the same thing as libertarianism and that is widely known. But the Libz only link it to Objectivism and particularly to the particular version of Objectivism espoused by the real leader of the party. Certainly Rand influenced libertarianism but the major leaders of libertarian theory, except Rand, were not Objectivists — ever. And in modern times alone that would include Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard, LeFevre, Lane, Patterson, Mencken, Nozick, Buchanan, etc. So hardly any of the major libertarian thinkers were Objectivists and Rand’s influence in libertarian circles is shrinking partly because she is dead but to a large extent due to the unpleasant way Objectivists treat libertarians especially those who are not Objectivists.
December 27th, 2006 at 9:05 am
“Possibly James, your above posts examplify the problems that the libertarian movement faces, the obsession to argue for arguments sake. You seem to both agree and disagree with me, if people want to worship their God, what fucking business is it of yours or anyone else, that’s all I said, why do you need to argue?”
I take it that if David Irving was expressing his views on the holocaust or Osama Bin Laden was preaching the destruction of the West you would have nothing to say in response then Andrew…?
“Those who believe absurdities commit atrocities”
.I have no problem with religious people who keep to themselves,maybe try to share their faith but take “no thanks” as an answer and leave it there etc.The trouble is that a lot don’t and are trying to have the word of their “God” put into legislation which will impact on me and many others who don’t want a bar of it.The moment the “word of God” (who’s God?)is given the backing of the force of the State we are in big trouble and bloodshed is invertible.
And what’s wrong with a good debate and challenging ideas? That’s how we progress and develop.May I’m wrong…maybe they are…how are we to discover truth if we never question and allow ourself’s to be questioned in return?
December 27th, 2006 at 9:22 am
I have to agree with “comments” comments…
…bang on.Personally I think Objectivism is the most solid and non contradictory philosophical foundation on which to base ones Libertarian political position on….its just that so many of the Objectivists are nasty arseholes!
ILV was making great strides in reaching “homeless” Libs frightened off by the nastiness of some members of Libz, articles were being printed in the papers,Jim was interviewed on radio about issues , Libertarian books were sold at National party functions for the first time…but for reasons we all know and don’t need to rake over it ain’t happening no more.
December 27th, 2006 at 11:23 am
This is a moot point as the 946 people who voted Libertarianz at the last election could not change the propotionality of Parliament if they voted for a different party.
I suspect that most Libertarian leaning people are pragmatic enough to vote for ACT, accepting that it is better than the alternatives.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Michael is right. The Libz not only managed to chase away what few activists they had but most their voters. The 946 votes they got was a big drop from the previous election. Most libertarians I knew wouldn’t vote Libz under any circumstance.
December 27th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Alot of people here don’t know their libertarianism or Objectivism.
“So hardly any of the major libertarian thinkers were Objectivists and Rand’s influence in libertarian circles is shrinking”
Many, such as Rothbard and Greenspan, were in her circle early on. Her influence – measured in books sold, is huge and far outweights any economist from the Austrian school (Hayek included). Objectivism is growing in influence, as academics are now publishing books (e.g. Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality by Tara Smith) and journals (The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies) on issues other than her political philosophy. BTW, the liberarian maxim that the the initiation of
force is always wrong came from her too.
“And the priests of NZ Objectivism have attacked anyone opposing the war in Iraq”
This is true at times and is sad. I see no way how a libertarian could support the war in Iraq (how would they fund it? people would voluntarily support such a war???). http://www.ariwatch.com should help avoid misunderstandings of Objectivism.
December 27th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
James G: Greenspan was a friend of Rand and spent a lot of time in her circle of friends. But contrary to the common assumption the same is not true of Rothbard. He only met Rand a total of about half a dozen times in his life. He later exaggerated greatly his relationship with Rand, mainly in order to claim knowledge from that experience to justify his attacks on her. You are also very, very wrong to say that the libertarian maxim about not initiating force came from Rand. This maxim is much older than Rand and various libertarians such as Herbert Spencer for one, have made the same statement over the years. Rand was rather unfamiliar with the writings of these people and may have assumed she came up with it but she didn’t. And most Objectivists don’t read anything outside the faith so they are ignorant of the history of libertarian thought.
There have been a handful of books published by scholars who are Objectivist but this influence is hardly growing at the university level in any meaningful way and JARS is a movement publication not published by a university or academic publishing house.
December 27th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
James, there really isn’t any significant difference between us on this issue.
I personally find debating religion a waste of time, and have never had any problems dealing with people trying to force their religion on me.
I find comparisions between NZ Christians and Bin Laden a little unrealistic.
In terms of NZ libertarians, I’ve concluded that they fall into one of three categories
a. Members of the conservative right who want to be a little bit radical eg. Coddington
b. Fanatics who feel that Libertarianism should be forced onto everyone, whether they want it or not,eg. the leadership of Libertarianz
c. people who see it more in philosophical terms, I might want and treasure more individual freedom and responsibility for me, but I recognise that such freedom and responsibility is actually a burden for many, they would rather live by rules layed down by a clearly defined authority, they are actually more free(secure, comfortable) without the freedom.
Any governing/social system Man devises will only work if it fits together with the instincts that evolution has given us. There has never been a Libertarian state, and I doubt that there ever can be for Humans.
Something to consider; how would one describe the form of government that existed in primative human tribes of a hundred or so people? Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, libertarianism, Democracy/dictatorship?
December 28th, 2006 at 9:41 am
…” Fanatics who feel that Libertarianism should be forced onto everyone, whether they want it or not,eg. the leadership of Libertarianz”
While I can appreciate your point on the mouth foaming intolerance of certain libz leading lights,I would point out that Libertarianism is the ABSENCE of force from human relations…meaning that Libertarianism is what you have by default if human beings are left alone.Force has to be initiated and put upon people….you don’t have to “do” anything to bring about a Libertarian society except preform a negative non action which is simply…leave people alone.
A Libertarian society is already here…we just need to chip off the authoritarian crud that’s been allowed to build up over it.
…” people who see it more in philosophical terms, I might want and treasure more individual freedom and responsibility for me, but I recognise that such freedom and responsibility is actually a burden for many, they would rather live by rules layed down by a clearly defined authority, they are actually more free(secure, comfortable) without the freedom.”
But why do these people get to have their Nanny state at the expense of the rest of us? If they don’t want to exercise their personal responsibility then why should we give them handouts to live a lifestyle not too different from us? It is precisely the bleak and unpleasant consequences of their choices that these people need to experience to wake them up and kick start them into action.If these people want to “opt out” and drift along then lets leave them to it but not raise a finger to aid them in doing so…..that will change their attitude rather sharply I feel…
December 28th, 2006 at 11:02 am
I disagree there can’t be a libertarian state. I don’t think you can convert an existing state to one, but if a state was formed from the beginning on libertarian principles I think it would be a huge success.
December 28th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Is it just me or are there problems with the site? the threads aren’t showing recent comments. Even though they are showing on “recent comments”
December 28th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
“The argument that resources were spread too thinly might be popular with Libz, who appear to have thought they had a right to those resources”
I don’t argue that, I argue it is people more than money.
““If you can say how this has been since Bernard Darnton has been leader….” Is that an admission that it was run the way Newguy describes before Darnton became leader? A previous party guru might take exception to the implication that under his control, which seems to still exist, that the party was run “as a personality cult attacking anyone and everyone”. All libertyscott seems to be saying is that such attacks aren’t done now where Newguy says “Libertarianz have been run” not “are run”. It sounds as if both Newguy and libertyscott are saying the same thing.”
Well it was never a personality cult since I’ve been a member and I have been a member for over 7 years. There were significant personality clashes between Libz members and non-members a few years ago. I remember actively trying to figure out how to move on from that, and I believe the party has. Given that members of the party on both sides of the debate have been candidates at the past two elections, I think any claim of it being a personality cult is nonsense.
“Libertyscott says ACT was very quiet on individual freedom at the personal level “until quite recently”. By quite recently I assume he means over the last couple of years which is not quite as recent as he implies.”
Yes I agree, though ACT has moved from tough on all crime to being silent on drugs. Things have moved on, and I have been supportive of that – I think the best thing that could’ve happened to ACT is for conservative MPs to have been booted out – the two in there now are the best caucus the party has had.
“The Libz not only managed to chase away what few activists they had but most their voters”
Um well given ACT went from over 7% to 1.2% of the vote, I think Libz suffered from the same loss of minor party support that all minor parties lost exc the Maori Party. As Libz did not stand a list in 2002, the comparison can only be made with 1999 when circumstances were far more in the party’s favour, with Perigo as Leader, with a nationwide radio programme.
In summary, I think that unless ACT does a Libz-lite it has no future, because it cannot survive as a party of economic reform and social conservatism. It is moving in the right direction, but more needs to be done – it is essentially terrified of supporting capitalism. As Libz has stood in local body elections, it has partly done so to raise questions nobody else raises – when does ACT stand in council elections advocating shrinking local government?
There has been an unfortunate history regarding Libz for two reasons- 1. the Jim Peron/Libz split (which largely happened in Auckland but affected the whole party) which was acrimonious and sad, and which could have a book written about it, except there is no value in doing so.
2. Administrative/leadership collapse in 2002. The 2002 election was a farce.
Libz now has a great leader who undeniably has made an significant impact on the political landscape (Bernard Darnton), a competent President running the show and other intelligent, competent spokespeople. It is an open party with members who are also members of ACT and National, and has always been – I could list a few I know. I think that the approach has changed somewhat, and I would rather look forward than backward. National and ACT seem to be doing exactly the same.
December 28th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Who is the Libz Party Preident?
December 28th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
James declares my whole post bullshit – don’t you love the way protestors frequently prove the point.
Anyhow, I turned off from the Flanagan dispute early on. As I said in my post I tried to explain some of the tensions in the US Libertarian movement by pointing out that Liberal thought flows from the French and the British traditions. The French tradition was obviously more anti religion and secular (refer to the French revolution) while the British tradition sat more comfortably with Christian belief. BOth sidesgo along reasonably well because each movement was related to a nation with its own boundaries and which had frequently agreed to differ. Naturally , both streams of thought flowed across the Atlantic to the US where the debate has taken on more of the charasteristics of a civil war.
This was the line of argument I was trying to develop and in passing I gave as an example the fact that the first organised campaign against slavery was started by a group of English Christian Businessmen.
Jim reponded with an absolute tyrade arguing that many christians in the US were defenders of slavery etc which while true was irrelevant to my argument. At that point I withdrew.
That is what I was talking about – nothing to do with the Flanagans etc.
December 28th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
James: “But why do these people get to have their Nanny state at the expense…”
James, I wasn’t refering to people on the dole, I was refering to the majority of people who vote National or Labour, they have their jobs, and contribute to society, but they also want that egalitarian safety net that the state provides, for them it’s as basic as fire insurance.
David suggests that a Libertarian state would have to be formed independently of existing states, I guess along the lines of new colonies with people of a like mind. This view is basically one of nurture over nature, I don’t dismiss it but, as peoples life stage changes, so do their atitudes, at certain stages people want more security, when having kids, when they get old. They instinctively expect the authorities of whatever society they live in to provide that security if that authority has the resources to do so.
So the authorities in turn seek wealth from the societies wealth producers.
The aim of Libertarianism would be to cut out the middleman (government), but for those people who are dependent, that means less security.
Historically in the west, as technology has allowed societies to become richer, societies have tended to increase the portion of their wealth that has flowed through the state with the aim of increasing egalitarianism. Another effect of this greater wealth is less strict moral codes, moral codes work to increase conformity in society and reduce the waste that results, when nonconformity occurs ie. Babies out of wedlock, crime, broken families, these things all result in a decrease in peoples ability to function and work efficiently and productively together; to rear the kids, get to work etc.
One solution to the above dilema would be to cut those who are dependent from the electoral role, this would result in more political power in the hands of those in society who produce, result: an immediate swing to the right.
But that’s probably not an option in a wealthy western society.
December 29th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Owen claims that the response to his post on FSN in Feb 05 was to point out the difference between French and English liberalism and that the response he got back was a “tyrade on slavery”. The email that I’ve read from you had a response that said: “this group is open to Christians, Muslims, etc. Belief in Objectivism is not necessary nor is it always desirable I’ve found. : ) Liberty will only succeed when Christians accept it If we must first convert the religious to atheism then the cause is hopeless and you may as well pack up and head for the hills since you ain’t gonna see any improvement in your lifetime.” Hardly, an anti-Christian diatribe.
Owen repeated the same statement a few days later and he received a response which said: “There are strong liberals who are Christians or theists in one sense of the word or another. In 25 years in the libertarian movement I’ve met many Christians who are libertarians… My observation is that Christians from mainstream churches are just as likely to be libertarians as anyone else.” But he said that “people from ‘conservative churches’ tend less likely to be libertarian. The best one gets from them is selective liberty….”
I went through dozens of FNS exchanges on the topic and can’t find the diatribe Owen describes nor can I find emails trying to exclude Christians but repeatedly saying that liberalism/libertarianism must include them. And that hardly corresponds with Owen’s claim regarding “Jim’s strong distaste for any form of religious belief meant that any libertarian who happen to be a Christian was attacked…” for failing “to meet the test of atheism.” The old emails from the FSN discussion on that topic consistently show Jim arguing that Christians can be libertarians and that if liberalism is to succeed they must be made liberals and that atheism is not a prerequisite or necessary as Objectivists were claiming. That is opposite of what Owen is claiming. The discussions I have are long so I don’t want to post them but that is what they say.
December 30th, 2006 at 10:40 am
The Libz’s and ACT’s problem is not philosophical, it’s demographic. The kind of people who are attracted to such deeply ideological views are quite different from the society they find themselves in. This is an observation rather than a condemnation.
So the pressure group idea is a far more practical way for them to exert influence. Highly unpopular views can only flourish in private and secret. This strategy came pretty close to winning the last election, where an internal pressure group within the Nats almost got into power, one that would have been 100 times more palatable to Libz than a Labour led government.
Unpopular ideas are not always wrong – they could just be ahead of their time. But I don’t think Libertarianism is in this boat. It’s a very old idea, and has been tried many times. It’s probably as old as government itself, since it is just a reaction against government. However you want to sex it up, small government tends towards anarchy, then towards small concentrations of power growing into the vacuum.
The collapse of the West Roman Empire was a time of perfect Libertarianism for most of Europe, and of course it meant oppression for the majority of people. Not the organised systematic repression of the Romans, which was mostly peaceful, but rather the sort of world in which King Arthur is set, except without the lovely noble christian knights saving distressed damsels from knaves. It would have just been knaves, distressed damsels and untold serfs. The biggest, meanest knave with the most serfs would get all the damsels he wanted. That’s pretty much the Libertarian model for society, and it’s not ahead of it’s time, it’s well past it’s time. The serfs just don’t want it any more.
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Libertarianism is I think in large part a form of opposition to the “tyranny of the majority” that are a feature of current democratic systems.
Is it possible to have a democratic system that allows people to escape this “tyranny”?
In principle, yes. Can such a system be made stable? perhaps.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 am
A painting by Rene Magritte valued at £350,000 stolen last year is found…