North Texas Objectivist Society (NTOS) Message Board › The Problem with the Libertarian Party...

The Problem with the Libertarian Party...

A former member
Post #: 6
IMO, is that they focus too much on the "fringe": Legalization of Drugs, and Gay Rights. Everyone I talk to about being a Libertarian brings up these two topics. What the party should really focus on if they want to get their philospohy across to the public is ECONOMICS, and BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, and the creation of indvidual self-sovereignty as a result thereof.

Mike
Chris J.
gearjammer351
Dallas, TX
Post #: 15
You have a good point Mike. Often Libertarians focus on a pet issue of theirs rather than on the larger principles. As a Libertarian I often find myself playing to the audience. I tell people about a particular issue that they may be interested in. For example, I tell my gay friends how the Libertarian party supports gay rights, and I tell my religious friends that it supports religious freedoms, and so on. I know that not everyone will accept the message, but I only want to get someone interested enough to look into it for themselves. I am neither gay, a drug user, nor religious, and like yourself I am more interested in the economic benefits that would result from a less intrusive government. Those of us on this board are probably aware of how a strong economy is good for everyone, but it is something that will not necessarily inspire someone else to look into an alternate political party. The Republicans and Democrats promise a better economy too. I do agree that it is a huge waste of time to try and sell people on the idea of gay rights and legal drugs if these things do not affect the individual. In my experience when I talk to most people of economics they switch off, it's simply dull to the average person and choosing a topic that they may be concerneed about is more likely to get them interested.
A former member
Post #: 7
...In my experience when I talk to most people of economics they switch off, it's simply dull to the average person and choosing a topic that they may be concerneed about is more likely to get them interested.

You are correct in the above quote, and this is also my observation.

However, I believe that they get turned off because they see themselves as pawns in the game of Economy & Business, and most do not realize that self-sovereignty is achievable in a free-market society, just like self-sovereignty was achieved in Rand's fictional account for those who went behind the mountain.

Most are content (or I should say "discontent") to work in collective organizations and "manage a career" as opposed to providing a product or service directly that would liberate them from the confines of traditional organizations. Hence many are left with this nawing sense of being unsatisfied - Even if they are living in upper middle class America a la two-storied house, two-car garage and two-toned Chevy.

Mike
Santiago V.
sanjavalen
Dallas, TX
Post #: 46
Libertarians, by necessity, focus on "fringe" and "pet" issues. They have no actual ideals per se, but are more of a confederation of different individuals who agree loosely on a few implementations and spend more time squabbling than getting anything done.

You cannot advance any "cause" when your group is a bunch of people with completely difference causes.
Chris J.
gearjammer351
Dallas, TX
Post #: 21
I have had this discussion before, and in my observation both exist. I have met with others who are Libertarians and there seems to be two groups, one which believes in a government that protects and respects free markets and free individuals; this is the group I am in. Unfortunately there are those who have become Libertarians simply because they want to leagally use drugs, or marry a duck, or something like that. Although there are some in the party that I don't agree with, they are still better than the Christians in the Republican party who want to bring back stoning as punishment for adultery. If you don't think that they're out there go to a meeting of the Republican party sometime, they are scarier than Libertarians by far!
Santiago V.
sanjavalen
Dallas, TX
Post #: 56
Thats still no reason to join a powerless party and associate yourself with said drug users, duck marriers, etc.

I vote republican in most elections, on the basis that for the most part they're likely to do the least amount of damage in the areas I care most about, and maybe even a touch of good here and there. But I certainly can't imagine why I would join the libertarians. The people who you speak of, the "part" of the libertarian party you belong to, do themselves a disservice by thinking that they have anything to gain from associating with the scum.

Here is the plain fact of the matter. Politics is arithmatic. The libertarian party does not have enough votes to get anywhere, and it will not have any traction until some group begins to spread the proper ideas, ideas which the libertarian party will then champion. The problem is, of course, by their free association with said individuals, the libertarian party dilutes its ideals into nothingness and makes themselves powerless to affect real change.

I would urge members of said party to get out of it. The company kept here is too good for such a disgraceful political party.
Chris J.
gearjammer351
Dallas, TX
Post #: 25
The same arguments could be made about both Republicans and Democrats. I cannot in good conscience vote for those who would use the rule of law to impose rules from a religious text that I don't believe in. Even the fringe elements of the Libertarian party agree to leave me alone to live my life as I choose-a concept the Democrats have never embraced and the Republicans have abandoned. The Libertarian party promotes smaller, less intrusive governement and individual liberty and I cannot vote for anyone who doesn't. When you can convince the Republican party to put down the bible and spend less than 'liberals' I shall vote for them again.

I lost faith in the Republican party after the election of '94. All the rhetoric about opposing the Clinton administration went out the window when we elected a huge number of Republicans to congress. Over the next six years Clinton got his way nearly all the time, while the Republicans in congress practically rolled over. This indicated to me that they have no real interest in changing the way things are done in the government, which I think needs to be done. I have also been somewhat dissapointed with the Bush administration, which has a sympathetic congress. When someone runs as a Republican who makes me believe that they geniuinely believe in what I do I would vote for them. My ideal Republican is best illustrated in this statement by Barry Goldwater.

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests, " I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

If the party could field a candidate like him, I would join and pay dues to the party!

You say that the Republican party supports what is most important to you. I believe that both economic and personal freedoms are important, and that a reduction of government goes hand in hand with that. A government that becomes too large and omnipotent cannot help itself-it is a self feeding monster that seeks more and more power. I simply do not see any evidence that the Republican party is interested in changing this. Voting for them because they support %75 of what you want is as pragmatic as me being a Libertarian because the party supports %90 of what I believe.
A former member
Post #: 2
I was a candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1982. The first election for that party in Texas history. I obtained 11% of the vote in District 9 for the Texas Senate. I was the first Libertarian to run for office in Waco's history. I was defeated by the now famous Chet Edwards. However by the next year the forces against Ayn Rand gathered in the form of advocates of Arthur Schopenhauer. They advocated anachro-capitalism or stateless capitalism. In effect anarchy, the final form of Marxism. Anarchy is communism. In 1984, Murry Rothbard while in Austin crossed the black flag with the red flag. Anarchy as the justification for communist agression should be met with response. Somila (the kingdon of somiland) is an example of stateless capital. Quote from Blackhawk Down" Sir their shooting at me. Well shoot back". Stateless communist aggression should be met with proper defense. Marxist use of anarchy as a mask for their violent revolution should be exposed. John L. Harrisdevilish
Powered by mvnForum

Suggested Annual Donation

$10.00 (after 6 event visits)

This covers: Supporting operating expenses and advertising for new members!

Payment is accepted using:

  • PayPal
  • Cash or check - “Please give any cash or check to any Organizer at an event. We also accept BitCoin: 14sioRkdEBcvvQavE4zbDbSwbsvscPAvF9 Thanks!

Your organizer will refund you if:

  • Each event may have a specific refund policy based on the nature of the event. General donations are not refundable. We may rely on any payment, so if you have any questions please ask an Organizer BEFORE making a payment!

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy