Why I rarely discuss libertarianism
March 1, 2008 by ElfNinosMom
I thought I’d take a few minutes here and there to fill people in on the subjects of humanism and liberatarianism (since I am a humanist libertarian). Don’t worry, I’ll try not to bore you too much.
Let’s start with libertarianism. First, you can probably forget whatever you’ve been told.
I bet when you think “libertarian”, you think of politics and the Libertarian Party. Or maybe you think of pot-heads.
Let’s get that latter misperception out of the way immediately. I am not a pot-head. I haven’t smoked pot since college, and have no desire to do so. While I think that the issue of medical marijuana should be left between the doctor and the patient, and I think pot should be legalized and sold like liquor, I don’t think any other illicit drugs should be legalized.
As for the political end of the perception, libertarianism is a philosophy, at its basis. I am a philosophical libertarian, in that I agree with the basic principles, but I find the politics of the Libertarian Party to be so nonsensical as to be intolerable. Therefore, although I do vote, and I do get involved in politics and find politics interesting, I rarely get involved in the problems inherent in the Libertarian Party.
Believe me, when I say problems, that’s an understatement. The problem is that libertarians are a motley bunch of people with very little in common. You have libertarians with centrist beliefs, libertarians who lean to the left or who lean to the right, to anarchists, and everything imaginable in between. In any group that diverse, you will also attract political misfits, and they are usually misfits for a reason. If you put those people in a room together at a cocktail party, it would make for a very interesting evening. If you put those same people in a room together in a political party, you’ve got a disaster of epic proportions.
Don’t believe me? The Libertarian National Committee was actually supporting a Republican presidential candidate until recently, although there were several serious libertarian candidates for that same office. An LNC member has a Republican PAC, and supports Republican candidates even when they are running against libertarians. It’s like they’re running their own version of the Chewbacca Defense, only applied to a political party. It does not make sense.
Want less lofty examples? Read the comments section of pretty much any popular libertarian blog. Sheesh, I feel like I need to carry a virtual sidearm before getting involved in the ongoing debates, because you never know what little thing you might say which will set someone off. Normally that’s not a problem, since I tend to give as good as I get, except that there are a lot of libertarians who are nutty. And when I say “nutty”, I mean bat-shit insane, you-don’t-want-them-to-know-where-you-live nutty.
That’s where I come in. I poke fun at the nutjobs, and there’s never a shortage of material among libertarians. Even most of the libertarian presidential candidates are nutjobs. I don’t write about most of the goofy libertarians I run across simply because, if I wrote about all the libertarians I find amusing, I’d get nothing else done.
Don’t get me wrong; there are some normal, average guy/gal libertarians, but you have to look for them because most don’t get involved in the libertarian blog debates on a regular basis. That’s mostly because (1) unlike many libertarians, they actually have a real life outside the libertarian movement, and (2) they’re smart enough to know they’re wasting their time arguing with people who have nothing more important to do with their time. Besides, I tend to align myself with philosophical libertarians, as opposed to political libertarians.
So that, in a nutshell, is why I rarely say anything about libertarian politics, with the exception of the nutjobs, even though I identify with libertarian philosophy.
[...] Grasscity.com Forums - Marijuana Growing and Smoking Community wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptWhile I think that the issue of medical marijuana should be left between the doctor and the patient, and I think pot should be legalized and… [...]
Hello there.
Just found your site. Great job!
I like it much.
look here http://live.com
While you are correct about libertarianism being a philosophy (and thank you for addressing the pot-head issue), your analysis of the Libertarian Party is somewhat half-baked.
While the Libertarian Party certainly has its fair share of problems, they don’t seem any worse than those of the Democrat or Republican parties. The difference is that the Libertarians DO tend to address and resolve their problems well.
Where you describe Libertarians as “a motley bunch of people with very little in common”, I describe them as a diverse group of people sharing a common desire to promote and create a libertarian society. Where you describe left, right or centrist beliefs within the party as being devisive, this has to do with topics where libertarian philosophy allows for debate. This is natural for a philosophical-based political party.
You are incorrect when you stated that the LNC “was actually supporting a Republican presidential candidate” (i.e., Ron Paul). The LNC DID pass a resolution asking Dr. Paul to seek the Libertarian Party nomination if he did not receive the Republican nomination. Dr. Ron Paul has been in good standing as a paid member of the Libertarian Party for over 30 years (Dr. Paul was the Libertarian Presidential candidate in 198
and Dr. Paul has consistently voted libertarian in Congress for his ten terms there as an elected Republican. With tremendous popularity among Libertarians, the LNC acted under pressure from their membership to extend this invitation to Dr. Paul.
You are correct in pointing out that an LNC member (Bob Barr) has a Republican PAC, and supports Republican candidates even when they are running against Libertarians. Wanna take bets on Barr being re-elected to serve on the LNC? Libertarians gave Barr a chance - and he blew it. The smart money says that Barr is going to be voted off the LNC at the National Convention in Denver.
You talk about the “Libertarian Blogs”. Geez. Any nut case can create a BLOG. If you read the posts, you will see the same small group of individuals repeatedly making nutty comments. Most of the average guy/gal Libertarians don’t post to BLOGs.
BUT, let’s not confuse “real” libertarians with anarchists posing as libertarians. Personally, I consider anarchists to be nuts. And just because some nut-job anarchist joins the Libertarian Party does not make him a libertarian. As you so aptly point out, these nut jobs give the Libertarian Party a bad name. But I find their influence diminishing as the LP grows (most of the anarchists I know have shifted to the Boston Tea Party).
In Colorado, where I live, the LP is currently growing at a rate of over 20%. As the LP grows here, I see the quality of Libertarian activists dramatically improving. I believe that the Libertarian Party is finally growing up.
Hi, Richard. I see your points, and perhaps I was a bit harsh in places. However, I do think the LP has a lot more problems than the Democrats or the Republicans, and I think those problems are based primarily in the radical and anarchist movements within the LP.
Personally, I think the LP needs to rid itself of the anarchists once and for all; the recent Ruwart controversy proves why this is not only desirable, but necessary if libertarians want to be taken seriously by mainstream America.