The Passing of the Libertarian Moment?

[wizardwatson]

An economic platform is a non-starter because of the economic illiteracy that plagues America. A freedom platform makes more sense- that would include economics, but not be focused on it - it would also include things like criminal justice reform, non-interventionism, and the like. If your platform appears to be founded on economics, 70% of the country will stick their fingers in their ears and yell “rich white men.” We should also address culture issues like marijuana and marriage by saying get the government out rather than dodging. Having a reset party-wise would be great, but another small government party would just further splinter us. We need to combine the Libertarian and Constitution parties and give it a Ron Paul platform.

If our electoral politics strategy involves removing every appearance of our true substance, perhaps electoral politics is not a proper vehicle for the movement?

We have a strategy problem. A lot of that problem is related to activists thinking that getting "our people" in office, is the best way to further "our people's" agenda. We don't necessarily need to do that. We need to find creative ways to sell the ideas so that even legislators and officials we don't consider "our people" are sold. The price tag for "selling the idea" by building a party, throwing money into campaigns (for what's now been a decade) and battling it out in electoral polticis is on the extreme side of the "most expensive and inefficient ways to sell our ideas" end of the spectrum.

Even if we strictly were just lobbyists, we'd have better success than "taking over a party". We need to get out of elections. It's a drain on our time and attention, it's too expensive, it's too uncertain and takes way too long to really affect change. Toss it out as primary strategy.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

An economic platform is a non-starter because of the economic illiteracy that plagues America. A freedom platform makes more sense- that would include economics, but not be focused on it - it would also include things like criminal justice reform, non-interventionism, and the like. If your platform appears to be founded on economics, 70% of the country will stick their fingers in their ears and yell “rich white men.” We should also address culture issues like marijuana and marriage by saying get the government out rather than dodging. Having a reset party-wise would be great, but another small government party would just further splinter us. We need to combine the Libertarian and Constitution parties and give it a Ron Paul platform.

I don't think that there can be a major libertarian party for the foreseeable future; liberty is too unpopular. At this point, I'd settle for a minority party/pressure group to "carry the flame" (but not the LP in its present form, because they're inept and also tainted by the culture war). I like the idea of combining and reforming the LP and CP, if the mandarins who control those parties could be convinced of the logic of doing so. If not, a new party could be created from scratch.

@wizardwatson

I'd also agree with most of your comments. Electoral politics is fairly hopeless in general. I don't suggest abandoning political parties altogether, but the focus should be on building other kinds of civic organizations: educational, fraternal, philanthropic, etc. We should study how socialist groups came to power (winning elections was the last stage, not the first).

P.S. A major part of this alternate strategy would be deepening our roster. Imagine that, by some magic, we had carte blanche to appoint every official in the government. Would we know who to appoint? Do we even have enough qualified people to fill those positions? Maybe we do, but who are they? Where are they? What are they doing? Would they be willing to serve? What are their areas of expertise? A political party is a government in exile. Our "government" is very much unready to govern, IMO. I hate to compare us to Trump, but he's in a somewhat similar position; not having any institutional connections behind him (think tanks, universities, foundations, etc) he doesn't have a ready stable of candidates to draw from, so he appoints whoever's in the room. Course, he's also an aimless moron, but even if he weren't this would be a problem.

 

[Krugminator2]

I just finally got around to reading this.

First off the author, Kevin Williamson, is an idiotic self-important, arrogant, giant gaping, ivory tower, neocon $#@!.

He is openly hostile to the cause of liberty and looks for any chance to put it down.

Kevin Williamson is the single best liberty writer and has been my favorite writer for any publication for at least the last five years or so.

Kevin Williamson has said his political philosophy is anarchist. He doesn't vote and doesn't think politics is the answer. But he also said major course corrections like that not only aren't likely to happen but probably not advisable. Change should be gradual. Kevin Williamson is a basically a down the line Hayekian in what he writes. Pragmatic liberty. He has said on a number of occasions that Rand was his preferred candidate.

Not to mention, he is more less non-interventionist on foreign policy. There is nothing you can find in his entire writing that would indicate he is a neocon. A neocon? Sounds Lew Rockwell calling everyone a neocon. He represented the fusionist part of National Review.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Kevin Williamson is the single best liberty writer and has been my favorite writer for any publication for at least the last five years or so.

Kevin Williamson has said his political philosophy is anarchist. He doesn't vote and doesn't think politics is the answer. But he also said major course corrections like that not only aren't likely to happen but probably not advisable. Change should be gradual. Kevin Williamson is a basically a down the line Hayekian in what he writes. Pragmatic liberty. He has said on a number of occasions that Rand was his preferred candidate.

Not to mention, he is more less non-interventionist on foreign policy. There is nothing you can find in his entire writing that would indicate he is a neocon. A neocon? Sounds Lew Rockwell calling everyone a neocon. He represented the fusionist part of National Review.

I'm not familiar with Williamson but now I'm curious how you and Collins can have such different views of the man.

 

[CaptUSA]

...liberty is too unpopular.

I know that's a common and easy sentiment to believe, but I don't buy it. Most people want maximum liberty for themselves - just not for the other guy.

I think the real issue is that we have been discussing things on the State's terms. Nearly EVERY politician talks about what government can do FOR you. Ron Paul was one of the few that talked about what government was doing TO you. Libertarianism has absolutely zero chance to succeed in winning the first argument - but it does surprisingly well when the focus is on the latter. It just never gets there because people like to think government can give them goodies.

Freedom is popular, but unfortunately, most people only care about their own liberty. Even in this forum, people don't care about violating the liberty of others if it helps them.

 

[Krugminator2]

I'm not familiar with Williamson but now I'm curious how you and Collins can have such different views of the man.

Because he knows nothing about him other than he made fun of a significant swath of Ron Paul supporters. That is the only explanation can think of.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I know that's a common and easy sentiment to believe, but I don't buy it. Most people want maximum liberty for themselves - just not for the other guy.

I think the real issue is that we have been discussing things on the State's terms. Nearly EVERY politician talks about what government can do FOR you. Ron Paul was one of the few that talked about what government was doing TO you. Libertarianism has absolutely zero chance to succeed in winning the first argument - but it does surprisingly well when the focus is on the latter. It just never gets there because people like to think government can give them goodies.

Freedom is popular, but unfortunately, most people only care about their own liberty. Even in this forum, people don't care about violating the liberty of others if it helps them.

That's certainly true, but I don't know that it much brightens the gloomy picture I painted.

To succeed, we need people to do just what you're saying they don't do (care about the liberty of others).

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Because he knows nothing about him other than he made fun of a significant swath of Ron Paul supporters. That is the only explanation can think of.

Do you remember which ones he made fun of, and why?

 

[Krugminator2]

Do you remember which ones he made fun of, and why?

This is the kind of thing he must be thinking of.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/09/15/ron_paul_plays_hardball_with_national_review.html

He also wrote this article criticizing Ron about Charlie Hebdo, which was very legitimate criticism.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/01/slander-blowback-kevin-d-williamson/

 

[r3volution 3.0]

This is the kind of thing he must be thinking of.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/09/15/ron_paul_plays_hardball_with_national_review.html

He also wrote this article criticizing Ron about Charlie Hebdo, which was very legitimate criticism.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/01/slander-blowback-kevin-d-williamson/

Having read those, I'm now more in the Collins camp (the Hebdo article was not legitimate criticism).

Nonetheless, the whole thing strikes me as more of a personal squabble than anything else.

Williamson does appear to be a libertarian, more or less.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I'd like to see a third, libertarian-ish party as well, but I'm not sure the LP is up to the task.

I think a more economics-focused, culture-war-agnostic, non-hippy party could do a lot better.

Such a party might even draw in some of the big money that's getting nervous with the GOP's turn to populism.

The sheep are inclined to follow emotional and cultural arguments and you want to strip them from our platform..............

That's NOT GOING TO WORK.

Until you get your precious monarchy you have to deal with democracy, we need candidates who know how to lead the sheep.

 

[Krugminator2]

Having read those, I'm now more in the Collins camp (the Hebdo article was not legitimate criticism).

I not only differ, but I also like when people draw Muhammad. If they are attacked, they are zero percent at fault.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I not only differ, but I also like when people draw Muhammad. If they are attacked, they are zero percent at fault.

Certainly, I didn't say anything to the contrary.

The problem with the Hebdo article is that it dismisses the very obvious connection between Islamic radicalization and US policy in the mid-east.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The sheep are inclined to follow emotional and cultural arguments and you want to strip them from our platform..............

That's NOT GOING TO WORK.

Until you get your precious monarchy you have to deal with democracy, we need candidates who know how to lead the sheep.

See post #42

I'm not aiming for a popular libertarian party, because such a thing can't be done, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

[H_H]

People who are pro-liberty are not Trump supporters

Right. Rubio.

as the two concepts are irreconcilable.

ORLY?

And the fact that there are now 3 nearly 99% solid pro-liberty members of Congress up from just 1 in 2008 when Ron launched his Presidential bid.

Ahh, this is our strategy for saving our country? Woohoo! Hail Victory!

 

[H_H]

A political party is a government in exile.

Come on, fess up s-n (or acolyte). What are you playing at? I can't play along unless I understand the game.

 

[Raginfridus]

The sheep are inclined to follow emotional and cultural arguments and you want to strip them from our platform..............

That's NOT GOING TO WORK.

Until you get your precious monarchy you have to deal with democracy, we need candidates who know how to lead the sheep.

What are you replacing progressive mainstream culture with?

 

[DamianTV]

The sheep are inclined to follow emotional and cultural arguments and you want to strip them from our platform..............

That's NOT GOING TO WORK.

Until you get your precious monarchy you have to deal with democracy, we need candidates who know how to lead the sheep.

What are you replacing progressive mainstream culture with?

I think youre actually both right.

Sheep do react emotionally, and tend to not think for themselves. A lot of that tends to come from that progressive mainstream culture. Im excluding the word "democracy" because of the way it is used, a divisive label. We are all of us Americans here. Same team.

If there is to be a replacement, I would like for it to be from a logical thinking non emotional liberty culture. We can draw them in with positive emotional contexts, then encourage them to start thinking critically again. I believe it will be necessary to do so in order to make freedom popular.

AF said time and time again that Liberty is dying because "Freedom is Unpopular".

He is right. True freedom has been taught to scare the shit out of people. People are afraid to take responsibility for their own actions. People are afraid that if others have freedom, it will be they who suffers. That is the change within our group. Thus, it is on us to show them that if they choose to support, or even consider Freedom as an alternative to Tyranny, the benefits of Freedom far outweigh the consequences.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
- Thomas Jefferson

How do both of you feel about making sure that Freedom really is better than Tyranny?

 

[Swordsmyth]

How do both of you feel about making sure that Freedom really is better than Tyranny?

That is my goal.

 

[undergroundrr]

If your platform appears to be founded on economics, 70% of the country will stick their fingers in their ears and yell “rich white men.”

So true.

Every issue has to be presented without compromise, but with visceral emotional force that makes the populace at large want that liberty and want it bad. We liberty lovers, especially on the more voluntarist end of the spectrum, tend to be INTJs focused on dispassionate, objective criteria, so it will take a very special public figure to impassion the electorate about real liberty.

I get people's bristle over the Cruz and Rubio bit in the article. But those two were in fact considerably more libertarian than trump. At this point it looks like Hillary and Jeb were too.