Interesting take on the Libertarian Party

[Strings]

ok fistful: I was just trying to see where those two issues were "libertarian", that's all...

[ArmedBear]

take the long view and build a voter base from the ground up by starting with town councils, county commissioners then state legislators etc etc. I might take 50 years to achieve any level of representation in National Politics but so what.

"So what?" Let me show you what.

Totalitarians have two advantages over libertarians:

1. Totalitarian government enforces its own rules, making it far more difficult for a libertarian revolution to occur. The opposite, of course, is true when a government is libertarian. Would-be totalitarians find it far easier to organize and take over, if the government can and will do little to stop them.

2. Totalitarians are faster. If there's a crisis, we libertarians don't HAVE 50 years. We don't have 50 months, or even 50 days, necessarily.

How long did it take for countries to be taken over by Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Gaddhafi, Khomeini, Hussein? Certainly not 50 years! Have those who crave more power over individuals ever desisted even in the US, the UK, Australia, or any other place that has been a model for libertarian ideals in one way or another? Has their power increased or decreased in the past 50 years? Is the average citizen of the US, UK, Australia, or the EU freer or less free than 50 years ago?

Either we look for ways to influence things here and now, or we look at the reality that we can't win over 50 years, either.

[The Rabbi]

Huh?
So the only choice is libertarian (or "Libertarian") or totalitarian??

[ArmedBear]

Huh?
So the only choice is libertarian (or "Libertarian") or totalitarian??

No.

However, as you may note with a lot of things in life, we're either moving in one direction or the other. There is no stasis in our world, just the illusion of it for a short while.

Either we're going towards liberty, or away from it. We can go pretty far from it in 50 years, or we can go pretty far towards it.

If libertarians take ourselves out of the game while trying to get some dogcatchers elected, rather than influencing our government, a turn for the worse can occur VERY quickly. World history gives us many, many examples of this.

When this happens, either slowly or quickly, it becomes much more difficult to make a net gain in the libertarian direction, both because power resists change, and because the baseline from whence we start is far closer to authoritarianism. Therefore, spending 50 years on the sidelines is not a realistic option, since the world won't just sit there and stay as it is right now, waiting for us to come along and do some great things someday. That's not how the world works.

[Werewolf]

If libertarians take ourselves out of the game while trying to get some dogcatchers elected, rather than influencing our government, a turn for the worse can occur VERY quickly.

No one is saying to take ourselves out of the game. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult if not impossible to get into the game of influencing our government without having elected and appointed representatives as a part of it. As it stands right now the libertarians aren't even in the game. At best they are little more than spectators in the stands and IMO what they really are is the little kid watching the game with a set of cheap binoculars on the hillside a half mile away from the ball park.

To get into the game libertarians must get elected to government and the reality of present day politics is they aren't gonna just jump in and become the president, or congressmen, senators, judges or even appointed bureauscum which is what they seem to want.

It's just not going to happen without paying their dues and that means that first the libertarians have to make the electorate know they exist, shed their reputation as nut jobs and get elected to local offices where they have to convince fewer people and thus spend less money.

The Fabian Society started out in the 30's with a 50 year plan to turn the UK into a socialist paradise. They had the long view, they planned and executed and look at the UK now - a socialist paradise.

You don't just graduate from HS and become the President and CEO of GM (though lots'a kids today seem to believe that they can and are actually amazed when they get smacked in the head by reality - but then that's another discussion entirely). It takes time, work and the proverbial paying of the dues to get there.

The libertarians aren't gonna just jump in and take over the government without taking the time, doing the work and paying their political dues.

[ArmedBear]

The libertarians aren't gonna just jump in and take over the government without taking the time, doing the work and paying their political dues.

That's true.

And in this country, barring a cataclysm, this means "taking the time, doing the work and paying their political dues" within the two-party system that exists.

Furthermore, libertarians HAVE influenced government. Mostly, they weren't "ideologically pure," and they weren't Libertarians.

We have allies in Congress RIGHT NOW. Voting against them in order to vote for Libertarians is not a good way to gain influence for our values and ideas (I don't give a *expletive deleted*it about a party, any more than the Founders did -- I want liberty, not a party).

Hence, I agree with the author of the article. The Libertarian Party (Founded 1971, BTW) is doing far more to siphon off libertarians from the real world of politics, than to get any of us into it. It's sad, but it's true.

[doczinn]

Ron Paul is an example of another issue in that he does an outstanding job diagnosing a problem but really sucks at offering a viable therapy.

He offers plenty of treatment. The problem is, no-one in power listens.

[Strings]

Another aspect of the "let's go for the Presidency right away!" thing is this: let's say (for discussion) that Mr Libertarian gets elected as Pres. He can now do... what, exactly? Does anyone here honesty think a Lib Pres would get ANY kind of support from either Dems or reps in either House or Senate?

 Yes, they should keep trying. But they also need to try getting folks elected at all levels of the field; local, state, AND federal...

[meinbruder]

Another aspect of the "let's go for the Presidency right away!" thing is this: let's say (for discussion) that Mr Libertarian gets elected as Pres. He can now do... what, exactly? Does anyone here honesty think a Lib Pres would get ANY kind of support from either Dems or reps in either House or Senate?

 Yes, they should keep trying. But they also need to try getting folks elected at all levels of the field; local, state, AND federal...

One comment, which keeps getting brought up, is the lack of Libertarian candidates on the ballot.  Here in Oregon there is normally one in each of the state office races from Governor on down, we must be a more involved state than most.

Hunter Rose is absolutely right; there would be zero support from the two parties for a Lib President.  However, consider the Executive Order process.  Every President has the ability to issue an executive order.  Some are frivolous and just for show, others can be contrary to the constitution but no one complains, and still others revoke prior executive orders.  A Libertarian President could literally stand the FedGov on its ear in the first twenty-four hours by revoking some of the more odious.  Google the EO list, some folks will be horrified by what they find. 

One the other hand, a sitting President with no co-operation from the legislative branch would be a shining beacon holding the spot light on the gridlock of the two party system.  It just might be the catalyst to get more people to stop voting for the status quo.   

I will agree that the lack of candidates at the entry level of government office is a major problem in the partys success.  One stumbling block for any third party is the rejection of any candidate not a member of the two party system, there is no reason to run if no one will consider even for a second to vote for the candidate.  A couple of Libs here in Oregon, have re-registered as Repubs to gain acceptance by the proletariat. 
}:)>

[Perd Hapley]

Third parties can run all the local and state candidates they want, but they still won't get traction until they quit putting all the attention on the Presidential race!  Don't even run candidates that stand 0 chance of winning.  How many Lib or Const. partisans even know which local or state candidates their party is running in their district?  How many of them campaign for such people, even with yard signs or bumper stickers?  But they all have the name of the big loser on their campaign material.  I.e., Brown, Badnarik, Phillips, Peroutka, Nader, etc.

[Standing Wolf]

Damn pit bulls are barking from my neighbor's yard again... Time to go out and fire up the tweeter array again... 2,500 watts at 22,000 hz...

Tell me more, please, Bogie!