Actually, I tend to think liberals are closer than conservatives in many ways. The liberals have good ends, but choose means that attain the opposite. Republicans are smarter - they have some ends, they know the means that lead to them, but they can’t successfully on them (corporate welfare) so they run on different means - free markets, without having any intention to act on it. But if you look at the kind of world the conservative tends to want, his ends, I don’t think libertarianism can give it to him - and neither does he, but he thinks relatively libertarian positions on some issues can get him elected.
Now, for the OP - the idea that a strong LP hurts the GOP is really only a strong argument if I’m supposed to like the GOP better than the Dems. But, if anything, I like the Dems better (not really though.) In turn, I’m supposed to like the GOP better because they are more “free market.” But this free-market idea in GOP hands means corporate welfare, which I consider to be more harmful than socialism - and it’s also harmful to the free-market cause in general, because people don’t really like corporate welfare and when the GOP comes to power and does that kind of thing, they blame it on markets. Look at Greenspan running around telling people his mistake was trusting too much in markets, Bernake claiming to follow Friedman, Friedman giving us the withholding tax,…
I think liberty candidates should be running as Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats. We are a movement after all, not just a political party. The Libertarian Party could gain in importance if it had a serious candidate run once in a while.
As you said though, the liberal Democrat platform could be described as “Don’t worry, if you can’t get it for yourself, the government will give it to you.” Which seems to me to be totally at odds with the pro capitalist views of Libertarianism.
That doesn’t sound like something I’d say, but if I said it, I said it. The platform, though, is the means. What I’m talking about here is the worldview, the desired end. It is true that such a platform is at variance with those ends - it will not produce it. It also is blatantly immoral. But to condemn the Dem platform as blatantly immoral and therefore believe that the GOP is better is fallacious. I’d also have to look at the GOP platform. If both are blatantly immoral, then the immorality of one is not a reason to favor the other.
Based on what I’ve read here, it seems split between a “run as a third party” and “run under all banners.” My personal take on this is that the “run under all banners” is a nice idea and it would be great to see Libertarians in all parties but I personally don’t see how the Dems would square their tax and spend and welfare state agendas with the libertarian concept of at least minarchy not to say anarchy.
I understand that there is a lot of hatred for the Republican party out there. But as a loyal Republican, and a big believer in the limited government message of conservatism, I would like to see more conservative Republicans win elections. So I’m biased. But I do think the Libertarian party has a lot to bring to the table for the Republicans and so my hope is to see the two ideologies fused into one under the Republican banner. But that would require libertarian participation which, if these responses are representative of modern libertarian views, doesn’t quite exist yet.
Liberal democrats have a desired end of…something like “everyone gets everything they want no matter how scarce the resources are” or something like that. And while they could be considered the party of the big heart, I often consider them the party of the small brain because they never seem to realize that their desired end is at odds with their means.
That being said, the Republican party could be described as the “we’re conservatives who made a deal with evangelical Christianity that often negates our conservatism” party. So the GOP platform is schizophrenic. At one level, they advocate economic freedom, at the other level, they want to ban gay marriage and abortion and marijuana. So they’re conflicted in much the same way Dems are. I tend to think the Republicans and the Democrats are equally oblivious to the contradictions in their theory. But if I had to choose one conflicted party over another, I’d always choose Republicans.
running under Dem., Rep., or all is a preference of status quo or not. Dem’s probably need the most waken up to liberty, so, admittedly that’s where most of the work would have to be done. Thus the more that join the Dem. way, the better. If I put on my political government cap on, where the most work needs to be done is where more people would need to go. When a hole in a dam is opening the crew need not focus on the pin-hole anymore, but all run down to where the big hole is gaping open.
besides the biggest gaping hole is where liberty exists so that’s where I’m running to… also I don’t see any of this ending without self-defense happening more and more…
Going the liberal Dem route would be an interesting strategy for libertarians because they will be contending with the Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Frank liberals who, despite their claims, seem to be for anything other than liberty and freedom.
yeap, so that needs the most work. How else is that ‘party’ going to understand liberty if nobody of liberty brings it to them? If nobody does, one way or another, then they will only increase in their strength that anti-liberty gets them elected and thus the people support such measures. It will NEVER go away without anybody waking them up to liberty.
Welfare is interesting. As a system it will always fail, but in terms of liberty it’s not bad as long as it is voluntary for all contributors. If a welfare advocate argues that it shouldn’t be voluntary, because some people need to be forced to help others, we can say, “Why us? Why not Canadians? What is it about living in this particular territory in close proximity to welfare recipients that necessitates that we have to pay while Canadians don’t? Why don’t we force Canadians and wealthy Chinese to pay, using our police, military, etc.?”
The Reid bill supposedly contains opt out language for the healthcare reform plan, but that is only for states, not for individuals. In fact, the individual mandate that was in the Pelosi bill (and I believe the Reid bill, I’ll have to go check) is literally a law that says everyone HAS TO buy certain coverage that the government deems acceptable.
Welfare, as it stands now, doesn’t seem to allow anyone paying for it to opt out. So while I agree that if everyone wants to contribute to welfare programs, they ought to be able to, that’s rarely how these programs are structured. And the new legislation coming out of the Democrat camp doesn’t suggest to me that they’ll ever move towards anything voluntary like you’re talking about.
No, I don’t consider this to be accurate. That seems to be an attempt to derive their ends from their means - but I’ve already said that their ends are incompatible with their means, so that kind of account won’t work.
So, what are liberals and conservatives about? They’ve changed policy views many times over the years - policy being an attempt to create a certain worldview, and different policies work best in different times - but have not changed their fundamental views. So to understand them, go back to the origin of the terms, when they both were clear and explicit about what they meant by them. The time was the Industrial Revolution, the first time in human history where humans had, in large numbers, access to real choice about their lives and what they would do. Some embraced this change, recognizing its potential to remove traditional hierarchy and create a world of equality and choice. Those were liberals. Others longed for tradition, for the days when a man was born into a class and did not attempt to move out of it, when hierarchy was strict and natural. These were conservatives. At each turn of history, both have pursued policies in keeping with these ends, until today. Today, liberals are confused about what policy will get them what they want. This happened because a Democrat ran on a traditional Democratic platform - strong currency, free markets, and so on - and once in office did the exact opposite, embracing the traditional Republican, Whig, American Plan platform - government funded infrastructure and corporate welfare to keep the hierarchy in place. Because he was a Democrat, opposition to this, although it originally grew in the Dem party, only became organized in the GOP, which felt that his approach was generall right, but he had gone too far - but those who opposed this policy in principle were persuaded to join up with the GOP, associating that party with free markets. The Dems from that point on have simply defined themselves by opposition to the GOP, which realized that the newcomers, mostly liberals, were useful for PR purposes, and so adopted their talking points, while meaning something entirely different by them, and found ways to stretch words to fit their policies once in office. Hence, war socialism became “saving freedom” and the like.
At no level do they advocate economic freedom, other than the level of rhetoric and PR. There is simply nothing in the party’s worldview, or legislative history, to suggest a belief in economic freedom for all. For some, yes - so long as economic freedom is understood as the freedom to earn profits by any means desired, such as socializing losses, subsidies, privilege…the traditional American Plan kind of stuff.
Hence, the pantheon of “great conservative presidents” includes nothing so much as men who took large steps forward in eliminating real economic freedom. Nixon - the closing of the gold window, Reagan - the bailing out of the S&L (there’s no actions taken today resting on this precedent, are there?), Hoover - the prototype of the New Deal, Teddy Roosevelt - too much to name,…
So Alan, what you’re saying is that you agree with the Democrat desired end just not at all with the means they choose to use to go about getting it and because of that you’d be more likely to support a libertarian candidate running under the Dem banner than the Republican banner because you don’t think the Republicans represent anything like freedom?
Right, but this kind of thing matters for what a libertarian would do in order to try to succeed within the Dem party. If I were to run within the Dem party, this is the kind of thing I’d harp on. I wouldn’t talk about opposing welfare, but rather about the values I share with the Dem voters - the general belief in lifestyle choice and against unchosen obligations, and I’d talk about putting welfare into that framework. So too, I wouldn’t talk about laissez-faire, but about specific things that Dems would like to see happen and how we can get those things to happen b having certain policies. Now, of course, those policies would be laissez-faire, but I wouldn’t put it that way.
Yes, if you understand that end as the traditional end of the liberal camp. On the second part, no, I don’t think I’m any more likely to support a libertarian candidate running as a D than as an R. I’ve supported both, and various other combinations, and opposed both, and various other combinations. For instance, I supported Paul, a mainly-lib running as an R. The D examples have mainly been local. By other combinations, for instance - I supported Gravel, a D running as a Lib, and opposed Barr, an R running as a Lib, and currently support Schiff. I’m undecided on Rand Paul - originally supported him, now I’ve largely become indifferent. So, I would make those decisions based on candidates, not parties.
This is a great question and one I’ve been giving thought and study to for a little while. I’ve studied the history of political parties and particularly the demise of the Whig party as second party and the rise of the Republican party. I think that we’ll something similar, and most likely the replacement of Republican Party as second party. The new party, limited government and focus on person freedoms will pull from both the left and right. To be continued…
I support Schiff too. And what Schiff’s cause says to me is that it’s possible for strongly libertarian candidates to run under the Republican banner and still attract a large amount of libertarian as well as conservative Republican support. We’ll see if he’s able to beat Dodd though. If he can, I think it will be a great moment for libertarians as well as traditional conservatives.
Somehow, I don’t think we’ll see if he’s able to beat Dodd. Although I like him, I don’t see him winning the primary, and I’m afraid that there’s a large chance he won’t be on the ballot in the primary.