Do you think the Libertarian Party should try to become a viable third party?

bloomj31 · November 29, 2009, 5:32pm

You might be right. Hopefully he’ll get through the primary and get the nomination and we can see how he does against Dodd. I hope he wins.

Snowflake · November 29, 2009, 5:43pm

Voting sucks. The philosophical community has unanimously dismissed christianity and almost all agree on non-theism… and yet 3/4ths of Americans believe in god.

If we can’t convince people that Christianity is a piece of sh*t how can we realistically expect folks to stop believing in government… Democracy will probably never lead to anarchy in 1000 years.The only times we’ve had minarchy has been secession. This is the only realistic answer: to bail on the whole thing.

bloomj31 · November 29, 2009, 5:50pm

I understand your frustration but if we don’t get involved it’s guaranteed nothing will change.

Snowflake · November 29, 2009, 6:01pm

There are secession movements. We should support these instead of trying to influence mainstream elections.

The mainstream election is just rigged for and by the power elite. We need a new game.

wilderness · November 29, 2009, 6:05pm

I am being responsible. You are rallying around other people, like Schiff and others, to do the work for you within a system that is broken and is beyond repair - because the system was never logical to begin with. It failed upon inception. Your whole discussion in this thread has been completely about what OTHER people will do for - NOT what you will do. That’s immature. That’s not taking responsiblity for your own life by panning it off on others.

bloomj31 · November 29, 2009, 6:10pm

I already participate. I vote for the people I believe in.

wilderness · November 29, 2009, 6:12pm

You are not doing anything. You are panning off all the work on other people that will never represent you.

bloomj31 · November 29, 2009, 6:15pm

I’m not panning off anything, I’m having a discussion with the people on this forum.

Nitroadict · November 29, 2009, 6:45pm

Ignore what others say, as we all like to think our own ideas & strategies are superior than others.

Most sensible people will admit more than one strategy will be required (and they do not necessarily conflict, despite armchair assertions from either minarchist or anarchist sides) though, so it’s useful that some prefer some strategies over others.

The market process will eventually sort out which are not usable, and which are,anyway.

wilderness · November 29, 2009, 7:00pm

Well, you brought up this first:

“I understand your frustration but if we don’t get involved it’s guaranteed nothing will change.”

And then you equated ‘getting something done’ with ‘voting’. Is that correct?

that you are

wilderness · November 29, 2009, 7:02pm

I disagree with this. If you ignore what others are saying, then dialogue never happens and each individual would end up only thinking of him or her self. But not to interrupt… proceed.[;)]

revolutionist · November 29, 2009, 11:44pm

Conza88:

The Libertarian Party is pathetic.

When the platform is less radically libertarian than a “Republican”'s, you have a very big problem.

Granted, it is pretty hard to be as good as Ron Paul when publicly running for office.

That’s what the Libertarian Party needs to be though, more radical - otherwise it is a joke and will remain as such.

What it needs to do is follow the Rothbard caucus, just as Ron Paul has done. It’s sparked the revolution.

http://www.lprc.org/tenpoints.html

The Ten Points of the Libertarian Party Rothbard Caucus

1
Principled Populism—The Libertarian Party should be a mass-participation party operating in the electoral area and elsewhere, devoted to consistent libertarian principle, and committed to liberty and justice for all. The Libertarian Party should trust in and rely on the people to welcome a program of liberty and justice and should always aim strategically at convincing the bulk of the people of the soundess of libertarian doctrine.

2
Rights Are Primary—The central commitment of the Libertarian Party should be to individual liberty on the basis of rights and moral principle, and not on the basis of economic cost-benefit estimates.

3
Power Elite Analysis—American society is divided into a government-privileged class and a government-oppressed class and is ruled by a power elite. Libertarian Party strategy and pronouncements should reflect these facts.

4
Resistance & The Oppressed—The Libertarian Party should make a special effort to recruit members from groups mosts oppressed by the government so that the indignation of those who experience oppression is joined to that of those who oppose oppression in principle. The Libertarian Party should never approve of the initiation of force, nor should it rule out self-defense and resistance to tyranny.

5
No Compromise—The Rothbard Caucus insists that all reforms advocated by the Libertarian Party must diminish governmental power and that no such reforms are to contradict the goal of a totally free society. Holding high our principles means avoiding completely the quagmire of self-imposed, obligatory gradualism: We must avoid the view that, in the name of fairness, abating suffering, or fulfilling expectations, we must temporize and stall on the road to liberty.

6
No Particular Order—The removal of a harmful government policy should never be held up as a condition for removing another, for this throws self-imposed barriers in the path of liberty and removes potential pressures for change. For example, saying that borders may be opened only after welfare is eliminated is unacceptable; the proper position is to push for both changes. Should we succeed in achieving open borders only to find that welfare burdens are increased, this should be used as an additional argument to abolish welfare.

7
Strategic Centrism—Avoiding the twin errors of sectarianism and opportunism is key. Simply repeating our basic principles and not proposing transition measures is ineffective in the short run because only a small part of the populace is interested in liberty in the abstract, and hiding or abandoning our principled positions is ineffective in the long run because it fails to sustain us as a movement and attract and retain new Libertarians.

8

Radical Abolitionism --As the word radical means “going to the root” of something, radical Libertarians should not merely propose small changes to the status quo and debate the fine points of government policy with their opponents, but should propose the abolition of State institutions and programs while calling attention to the evil at their base: the coercion, force, and tyranny inherent in the State. Because morality and logic are on our side, the best candidates and spokespersons will sound eminently reasonable while maintaining radical libertarian positions.

9
Anti-Imperialism & Centrality of Foreign Policy—Because the United States government aspires to world-wide control of events, foreign policy is always potentially the most important issue of our time. The Libertarian Party should bring to the public the truth about the continuing threat to world peace posed by U.S. foreign policy. No one should be deceived by the notion that any government, like the American, which has a relatively benign domestic policy, therefore has a relatively benign foreign policy.

10
Anti-State Coalition—The Rothbard Caucus agrees to the view, adopted by the Libertarian Party at its 1974 Dallas convention, that for purposes of party programs and activities the issue of the ultimate legitimacy of government per se is not relevant. We oppose all efforts to exclude either anarchists or minimal statists from party life.

I don’t see how the LP vastly differs from this, at least not in Kentucky. Even though we don’t have that written in stone, the LPKY takes that basic approach in practice.

The LPKY puts a bigger emphasis on party organization and getting candidates elected. In a political strategy, you can’t change anything without getting elected.

The LPKY does not exclude anarchists, any liberty minded person is welcome, but (even as an anarchist myself) I don’t think that it is very smart to take a hard anarchist line at all. I have been much more effective by convincing people on specific issues. I always say that you can be radical without being a hard-liner. Even though I have a radical position, I’m willing to make temporary compromises as long as it’s in the direction toward less government.

Like Rothbard, however, I keep my principles in the front of my mind as a target. It’s easy to get sidetracked because it’s a long road to liberty. There is no overnight solution. It took a long time for government to expand this much, and it’s gonna take a long time to roll all that government back.

I know that in Kentucky, we do use the Rothbard caucus strategy even though we don’t know it. Even though most of the membership might be minarchists or even constitutionalists, we are all working together in the same direction. We are all working to roll back the oppressive state. As I see it, as long as the minarchists and constitutionalists are working with the purist libertarians to go in the same direction, they are more than welcome in the Party.

Conza · November 30, 2009, 3:05am

Bobb Barr. Republican lite.

Fair enough, I don’t know much about the LP’s goings on there.

I disagree. The point shouldn’t be about getting elected, the point should be about spreading the message. That is exactly the Ron Paul strategy in the presidential campaigns. He knows he’s not going to win, but that’s not the point.

How I Won in the Election

Brown Bag Seminar; Recorded at the Mises Institute on February 24, 2005. [1:00:14]

The point is, Ron Paul has a more radical platform than the LP. Ron Paul is a radical. Well why don’t the LP help him out by being more radical than him? The LP lost so many votes it’s not funny last election with Bobb Barr.

The issue, as we’ve been over before is how radical they are… how much they hate the state. There needs to be more arguments from morality, not utilitarianism etc.

Bank_Run · November 30, 2009, 5:24am

I believe if voters had a real choice there would be third parties a plenty. The only thing that will give people a real choice in voting is the option of None of the Above is Acceptable. Without None of the Above there is no choice. The purest form if democracy is market-democracy. Such a model may be prerequisite for the principle of self-rule.

Is the LP one of self-rule, or another puppet to echo what folks want to here?

Amadeus · November 30, 2009, 5:51am

I agree with the LP. But a political party is still a party. Still corruptible. And still creates mindless drones who only listen to there side, and oppose anything the other side says. Yes, all political parties are/will be filled with these. Including the LP.

Laughing_Man · November 30, 2009, 7:04am

I think if the LP doesn’t start owning up to the Tea Party movement [ claiming that it is a libertarian, not republican movement ] then the GOP is going to steal the name and ride the wave on it.

bloomj31 · November 30, 2009, 9:08am

Yes, because in my mind, politics is about getting people elected. I want to get people elected who will advocate public policy that’s in line with a particular philosophical school. Philosophizing in the abstract is fun and talking about economics is useful (especially because it helps me make bets on the stock market) but ultimately my goal is to see an actual change in the public policy paradigm of the US. I do not see how this can be done without electing more people who believe in smaller government.

Snowflake · November 30, 2009, 10:11am

Government will never give in willingly. The system is bought off and rigged in their favor, and they are the judge in their own case.

Secession as mentioned above. Note: it might be easier to secede when the USG collapses.

Stranger · November 30, 2009, 2:10pm

The U.S. will not survive another ten years. Your strategy is pointless.

K.C_Farmer · November 30, 2009, 3:02pm

The Libertarian Party doesn’t have enough “hot chicks” to convince the drones that they are a serious threat to Republicans or Democrats.

I mean seriously, you might as well vote for the guy with the most “hot chicks” on his side compared to all of the other ridiculous stuff. The entire process is set up this way - style over substance. The entire Obama campaign was conducted in this manner. Obama came out and talked graciously because the media said he talked graciously. If you actually listened to what he said, when he actually said something other than blather for an hour or so, you’d never have voted for him. Years from now people will wonder why America was so retarded to elect a guy as bad as Barrack Obama - or George W Bush. Who’s next in this string of losers?

Topic		Replies	Views
What do libertarians think about voting and political parties? Political Theory	13	2339	October 30, 2009
Time to fight AND win! Submit your ideas and VOTE! Current Events libertarian , republican-party	11	3671	November 13, 2008
The Tea Party Folks: Friends, or Foes? Current Events	41	4489	October 5, 2010
You're wasting your vote General	10	2473	August 30, 2012
Libertarian Editiorial for HS newspaper General	13	2409	February 15, 2009

1		Principled Populism—The Libertarian Party should be a mass-participation party operating in the electoral area and elsewhere, devoted to consistent libertarian principle, and committed to liberty and justice for all. The Libertarian Party should trust in and rely on the people to welcome a program of liberty and justice and should always aim strategically at convincing the bulk of the people of the soundess of libertarian doctrine.
2		Rights Are Primary—The central commitment of the Libertarian Party should be to individual liberty on the basis of rights and moral principle, and not on the basis of economic cost-benefit estimates.
3		Power Elite Analysis—American society is divided into a government-privileged class and a government-oppressed class and is ruled by a power elite. Libertarian Party strategy and pronouncements should reflect these facts.
4		Resistance & The Oppressed—The Libertarian Party should make a special effort to recruit members from groups mosts oppressed by the government so that the indignation of those who experience oppression is joined to that of those who oppose oppression in principle. The Libertarian Party should never approve of the initiation of force, nor should it rule out self-defense and resistance to tyranny.
5		No Compromise—The Rothbard Caucus insists that all reforms advocated by the Libertarian Party must diminish governmental power and that no such reforms are to contradict the goal of a totally free society. Holding high our principles means avoiding completely the quagmire of self-imposed, obligatory gradualism: We must avoid the view that, in the name of fairness, abating suffering, or fulfilling expectations, we must temporize and stall on the road to liberty.
6		No Particular Order—The removal of a harmful government policy should never be held up as a condition for removing another, for this throws self-imposed barriers in the path of liberty and removes potential pressures for change. For example, saying that borders may be opened only after welfare is eliminated is unacceptable; the proper position is to push for both changes. Should we succeed in achieving open borders only to find that welfare burdens are increased, this should be used as an additional argument to abolish welfare.
7		Strategic Centrism—Avoiding the twin errors of sectarianism and opportunism is key. Simply repeating our basic principles and not proposing transition measures is ineffective in the short run because only a small part of the populace is interested in liberty in the abstract, and hiding or abandoning our principled positions is ineffective in the long run because it fails to sustain us as a movement and attract and retain new Libertarians.
8		Radical Abolitionism --As the word radical means “going to the root” of something, radical Libertarians should not merely propose small changes to the status quo and debate the fine points of government policy with their opponents, but should propose the abolition of State institutions and programs while calling attention to the evil at their base: the coercion, force, and tyranny inherent in the State. Because morality and logic are on our side, the best candidates and spokespersons will sound eminently reasonable while maintaining radical libertarian positions.
9		Anti-Imperialism & Centrality of Foreign Policy—Because the United States government aspires to world-wide control of events, foreign policy is always potentially the most important issue of our time. The Libertarian Party should bring to the public the truth about the continuing threat to world peace posed by U.S. foreign policy. No one should be deceived by the notion that any government, like the American, which has a relatively benign domestic policy, therefore has a relatively benign foreign policy.
10		Anti-State Coalition—The Rothbard Caucus agrees to the view, adopted by the Libertarian Party at its 1974 Dallas convention, that for purposes of party programs and activities the issue of the ultimate legitimacy of government per se is not relevant. We oppose all efforts to exclude either anarchists or minimal statists from party life.

Do you think the Libertarian Party should try to become a viable third party?

Related topics