The (Not So) Lunatic Fringe (TIME online)

@Link@

Bonus points for linking to a print version. Sometimes I miss the days of HTML only webpages.

One good thing about the article is that it gets the place of libertarianism in the political spectrum right, and does not paint it as some form of socially liberal conservatism.

-Jon

Ah, yes… the fabled days before AOL and MySpace and YouTube. Before my time, unfortunately. Sometimes I wonder what the interwebz would be like with a much lower n00b population… [:P]

Ever more evidence that the Libertarian Party has little to do with libertarianism.

Basically what I was going to say. I almost didn’t despise Barr until I found out he was running with that populist crapbag Root.

Indeed. A worse possible pair for the LP nomination is hard to imagine. Yet more evidence of the conservative take-over of the LP.

The only really bad part of the article is its title. As if what makes an idea lunatic or not is majority support.

I think the title is great marketing. It sucks in the reader, they are expecting to read about some socially depraved nuts, and end up probably feeling some sentimentalism with the American-Libertarian “leave me alone” nostalgia.

A more sincere title may have been talking down to the reader. This one appeals to the craven self-worthlessness of always trying to find someone who is less socially acceptable or capable than ourselves.

Why is it that people can read the whole article, and pick out one sentence to justify a pre-conceived opinion?

I think as far as promotional, propaganda puff pieces go, this is excellent, and we can largely thank the Barr/Root campaign. Even if we don’t like them or agree with them, TIME is writing about private property rights, people who do not want government interference in their lives, and even the guilty phrase gets the terms voluntarianism, paleolibertarianism etc out.

Most people are not and likely will not become anarchists. Articles like this are tools in the battle to elevate the debate above the right/left standard for electoral politics. Perhaps not perfectly or all of the way, but TIME has helped push the discussion just a little, in our direction.

I would agree if the LP did not purposley prevent the more radical from speaking, and I mean more radical than Rewart (anarchists & apolitical oriented -ists). If the LP & Co. were truly about spreading the message & education, and not for political gains / motivations, they should have no problem with the more radical voices while simuntaneously keeping a distinction between themselves & anarchists.

If anything, minarchists would be doing themselves & anarchists a favor by helping bring attention to not only the fact that Libertarianism does not necessarily equal anarchism (as far as minarchists are concerned), but that also anarchism is simply more radical than minarchism, and is not some ugly child to be left in the basement of human thought.

But seeing as how political gain is important, doing such would be a death sentence for the LP & Co., so I don’t see that happening anyways.

I will admit it is encouraging to see a possible change of view regarding what the mainstream considers libertarian, even if their views are based upon misconeptions.

If you seek perfection, you will always find disappointment. The function of the LP is not to satisfy you, or radicals. It could be, but I don’t think it ever will. Any more than throwing a stone in the air will make it a bird. But a stone has it’s uses, and birds do exist independently of stones.

That enough zen for you? :wink:

Most humans do not want to think. You’re in a minority. You have to accept that minority views will always have an uphill battle. My advice is to learn to enjoy battling.

The radical can move into the mainstream, but that requires a substantial paradigm shift. If someone goes to the Doctor with heart problems, the Dr.'s first course of action is not to bring out a defibulator. I see the failures of anarchists past as an inability to organize and create lasting institutional shifts, the way the statists are absolutely brilliant at. It’s mostly a bunch of lone wolf thinkers who can barely get along amongst each other, let alone in a larger movement context.

That’s a good article to share with more statist associates, family and friends. You can even say, not totally dishonestly, “this is pretty close to what I believe”. People need things to sample and chew on. No one eats a 1/2 pound burger in one bite and doesn’t get indigestion.

Here there are two great pictures from Mr. Root’s site :

This

And Wayne with Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security

The guy surely is a libertarian…

What, did you want a line-by-line analysis?

I think that (the quote I pulled out) is a pretty flagrant example of the LP going down as yet another political party that has abandoned its principles that it once held. I mean, you can sit there and say, “wow, but look at all the good stuff in the article!” but at the same time you must recognize that there, right near the end of the article so as to leave the reader with this final thought, the articles mentions, “oh, by the way, the Libertarian Party is not how it used to be and is basically just another meaningless political party now.”