Can someone repost the link… Could not find it…
I agree, but we are so far from that stopping point that it doesn’t really matter at the moment.
The LP is not bothered by radicalism. It’s roots are in radicalism. I think the majority of people in the LP are just bothered by radicals who scare the public. Most people are not ready for ancap ideas, but if people get the message out about more moderate libertarian ideas, ideas that people can swallow, a lot of people will be more willing to listen to more radical ideas.
I just don’t understand why a lot of radical libertarians have to have every libertarian an Ancap. I agree that the only logically consistent view of libertarianism is Anarcho-Capitalism, but the state is SO huge that even constitutionalists will want to move in the EXACT SAME direction as the ancaps. Why not work with them now and worry about shrinking the government even further when there is even a chance of getting the state shrunk back to constitutional levels.
As far as the LP as a “feel good party,” I would say that the LP has been very sucessful in a few states, like Indiana and Oregon. The LP is in a transition phase right now. After 1983, the LP was basically taken over by protesting hippies that destroyed any credibility that the LP had. At this point, a lot of younger libertarians are rebuilding the credibility of the party. Libertarians are already winning a lot of local seats. The critical thing is that the LP can and will build up its base if it plays its cards right. I see huge opportunities in the next few years, and I really don’t want the liberty movement to make any more strategic screw-ups. The LP has a chance to really grow. Political movements take time, and you have to be willing to take baby steps. Take every inch of liberty that you can grab and keep fighting for more. It will probably be long after I’m dead before the liberty movement gets to the point where it is even necessary for constitutionalists/minarchists and anarchists to make a split. For now, it is perfectly acceptable for them to work together politically.
I still, of course, think that in academic circles you should be revealing about your anarcho-capitalist views, but academic and political spheres are completely different animals, and they must be handled differently.
If I may interject…
(this means tell me to shut up if you do not want to hear it)
The problem with this train of thought is who is suseptable to the message of minarchism…
Disenfranchised republicans, and republicans buying the hype the party is a dead horse…
Disenfranchised Republicans
These people will most likely conform to minarchism as opposed to democrat expansion, but once they realize that all the religious baggage that steals liberty from individuals is moot, they will be disenfranchised libertarians…
Dead Republicans
These ones are really bad, because they will be looking to conform the libertarian party to a statist conservative party, then you have the potential of an erosion from within, supporting the same game we have had for far too long…
I am haveing this issue now, most of the disenfranchised republicans are lining up with me, and when they realize their statist views are not welcome, the fighting starts…
Why placate them? And the LP is not radical.
Again, the means by which it is done. Constitutionalists cling to a document that has long been powerless. Ancaps usually don’t argue FOR the Constitution except for Thomas Woods who just uses it to show how they can’t even follow their own rules. It is likely there are more who do the same but I have seen/heard few who aggrandize the document itself.
And what do you mean by that?
Not really a liberty movement when you want to force immigrants to pay fines and back taxes.
I think that is a lot of nonsense. You are purposely being deceptive in order to con people into agreeing with you. I suggest you practice what you preach to any degree you can.
It depends entirely on if those persons are radical or not. And it makes ALL the difference.
Do You Hate the State? by Murray N. Rothbard
“I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they don’t really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us…”
… When we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.
And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of “Our Enemy, the State” (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo."
Which really sums it up perfectly. I would prefer a radical Thomas Paine to a status quo cosy David Friedman.
The problem is that basically, there hardly exists a radical limited government type anymore. As Rothbard points out. Honestly, I think it is because all those radical limited government folks have in fact been shown anarcho-capitalism is the truth and real deal. All the radical limited government folks of past centuries would have been anarcho-capitalists, had Rothbard been around or someone conducted his same analysis.
Essentially my beef with the Constitutionalists and ALL other types of Libertarians - is with their NON RADICALness.
Thanks. Instead of focusing on the US as much as I used too, it was were the action was during the campaign -I am instead doing my best to translate those principles down under. The beacon of Liberty & thus hope for all humanity is up for grabs.
Adding onto what I mentioned previously; Ron Paul supporters believe in Secession. Ron talks about it. Now, being logically consistent - a state secedes, why not a city? How about a town or district? Then, for the win - why can’t an individual secede?
There is also the fact that, as Rothbard pointed out in TEOL - limited government supporters are yet to come up with a cognent theory of taxation.
You mean it isnt already? The LP is a party of pot smoking, social left Republicans.
Indeed.
See my post here. Once we expand our strategy beyond simple reformism to include radical strategies like secession and seasteading, then it is no longer true that anarchists and minarchists are working in the same direction. For instance, with seasteading we immediately face the question of establishing a State or a market anarchy. Minarchists will favor the former, anarchists the latter — hence, they’re actually working in totally different directions.
I would rather have the opposite. Anarchists are attacking the root of the state, viz. its territorial monopoly on ultimate jurisdiction. Constitutionalists are hacking at branches; because of this, any success they have will be short lived. As Hulsmann put it in his chapter in The Myth of National Defense,
“The fact is that neither in Europe nor in the United States of America has classical liberalism managed to establish a public order that effectively safeguarded private property and individual liberty for more than a couple of decades. … With hindsight, the real question is not—as most twentieth-century libertarians have assumed—why the happy days of classical liberalism faded away and ushered in a new era of unprecedented government control. The real question is how classical liberalism could flourish even the few decades that it did flourish. (emphasis added) … Clearly, secession avoids all these fatal long-run consequences of “imposing liberty.” It might take a long time before the conditions for successful local secession are given, and secession might then leave many dark (politically unenlightened) spots on the political map. However, at least these reforms would be genuine accomplishments that do not already contain the seeds of their own destruction.”
I think Rothbard made it clear that radicalism is the only way to go. “For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps.”
Sure, it’ll be difficult at first to promote market anarchism. But if we persevere and keep working at it, the mainstream will shift toward our position. This is how genuine progress will be made.
This is a copout. “Never compromise the truth for the sake of persuasion. Instead, be persuasive about the uncompromised truth.” - Peter Boettke
I am talking about the you have the right to follow the rules of my religion republicans…
The United States should be a theocracy republicans
More like ‘exploit the genuinely religious’. I don’t know how many neo-con Catholics I’ve seen try to twist Catholic Just War Theory to match Republican policies.
These are the same difference to me…
It is not only Catholicism, it is also the Pro Israel Evangelicals…
Watch it, I made note of that because I am Catholic.
And yes, the Israel-firsters are a problem.
I would not know if you did not tell me and that is how it should be…
[Y]
I’m not going to flame you, I wrote and did not post a couple times early this morning.
But are you really an ancap if you encourage political solutions?
We’re trying to get people to stop voting, stop encouraging and supporting the state. You are trying to get people voting and control the state.
These ends are not common.
It’s like a pacifist going for firearms training.
Bob Barr.
Speak for yourself LS. I agree with Rothbard on voting.
Voting and politics is one area where I do not agree with Rothbard. I think he was wrong, and I think the LP and the Reagan revolution are part of that misguided approach.
But you are right. I only speak for myself and should avoid using “we”. There is not much of a libertarian or anarchist consensus on any topic, and I certainly have no desire to lead or represent any one or group.
Well in my case it isnt so much encouraging people to vote per se. Basically I consider the most important thing to protect is gun rights. You might call me a single issue voter.
I do agree that the LP is an utter waste of time, as are just about every other election.
Interesting, we concur there.
I’m not too vocal about this around my real-life acquaintances since it would make me look like a gun kook and impede communication. But as far as liberty and self-determination go, gun rights truly are the cornerstone. It’s the canary in the coal mine which indicates when a society is moving away from “mind your own business” to goodie-goodie tyranny.
It also separates fashion libertarians from true rugged individualists. It’s amazing how many self-proclaimed friends of liberty will falter when it comes to preserving the unalienated right to keep and bear arms.
Firearm ownership is just a subset of property rights.