AHC: Wank the Libertarian Party

In my younger days I was a libertarian, and as I age I am more of a constitutionalist. Essentially, I am a republican that doesn't like bombing random people and corporate welfare.

That being said, Libertarians are friggin' weird. I remember being involved in the NY libertarian party in 2005 and they were splitting at the seams over the issue of circumcision. Apparently, REAL libertarians wanted circumcision to be illegal, because it deprived the rights of infant males. In fact, this is such a sore subject with libertarians, that if you raise it up it will become a friggin conflagration. I couldn't believe they found such a stupid issue so important and split the party over it. They say getting libertarians to organize is like herding cats. However, it is more accurate to say that organizing libertarians is like herding retarded cats.

Just look at this election cycle. Ayn Rand Paul was running for President, and his fathers own followers did not coalesce behind him. It was not because of his voting record (as he actually voted exactly the same as his father), but rather his rhetoric. THey did not like that he would try to play a little politics and not phrase everything to piss off regular Republicans. So, libertarians are such cry babies, they got pissed because Paul did not want to piss off the people they hate. THe result is they failed to support him and his campaign never gained steam.

So, for libertarianism to succeed, their movement has to be about substance rather than style. People might take serious an ideology that is cohesive and not stupid. Further, the main POD to make it possible is if Ross Perot dons the Libertarian mantle, something he may do if the Libertarians did not screw up their own brand and work with the man. Ron Paul was a closed border libertarian, so Ross Perot on the majority of his issues is very close to libertarian. If Perot runs a more serious campaign in 92, then you have all the requirements that are spoken of in the OP. FOr the heck of it, you can have Jesse Ventura run for President in 2000 under the LP mantle and then maybe DOnald Trump after him. LP can be a pretty strong brand with respectable electoral showings. THe problem is they siphon conservative votes, because ultimately people vote with their wallet. So, unless the LP coopts Republicans, which in time is possible without the national security scare after 911, maybe it can happen.


QUite frankly, if Bernie Sanders and Trump win the nomination, expect Bloomberg to run. The Republican party might never recover as their establishment totally lost control over who can win a Republican office.
 

tenthring

Banned
Libertarians:
Lazy Stoners that will never accomplish anything political
Single Middle/UMC white male nerds that are usually in STEM

Not Libertarian:
women (apart from architect majors that get wet thinking about Howard Roark)
non-whites
working class whites
elite whites
anyone who has a family and isn't single or a DINK

How much success are you going to achieve with that?
 
Libertarians:
Lazy Stoners that will never accomplish anything political
Single Middle/UMC white male nerds that are usually in STEM

Not Libertarian:
women (apart from architect majors that get wet thinking about Howard Roark)
non-whites
working class whites
elite whites
anyone who has a family and isn't single or a DINK

How much success are you going to achieve with that?

Probably enough to pick up a few House/Senate seats and a decent amount of state positions, maybe a mayoral position or two of major US cities. If you changed the voting system of the US somehow (let's ignore the fact that neither Republicans or Democrats would ever support such a change, since it would cripple their power), you'd guaranteed have the Libertarians pick up a few seats at the expense of the Republicans, since quite a few people are socially liberal yet fiscally conservative, which is a simplified description of what the Libertarians support. That could help to build a decent-sized movement without compromising too much of what the current Libertarian Party supports. I don't think the Libertarians in their current form could ever be a major party in the US, but they could easily be the most successful third party since the Socialist Party of the early 20th century. They basically are the most successful third party as it is, although granted third parties are much weaker nowadays than in the past.
 
That being said, Libertarians are friggin' weird. I remember being involved in the NY libertarian party in 2005 and they were splitting at the seams over the issue of circumcision. Apparently, REAL libertarians wanted circumcision to be illegal, because it deprived the rights of infant males. In fact, this is such a sore subject with libertarians, that if you raise it up it will become a friggin conflagration. I couldn't believe they found such a stupid issue so important and split the party over it. They say getting libertarians to organize is like herding cats. However, it is more accurate to say that organizing libertarians is like herding retarded cats.

Thomas Sazsz, the libertarian critic of psychiatry, wrote a book about the medicalization of sexuality, which included a passage thundering against circumcision. I can't remember all his arguments(apart from the obvious coercion involved), but he did state that a relatively large number of baby boys die from the procedure.

Agreed, it's probably not something you want to make your battle-cry in partisan politics. Then again, libertarians(including Szasz) were among the first to champion the rights of homosexuals, and now you've got everyone from the far left to the moderate right basically agreeing with that, and even the far-right reduced to "Well, we certainly don't want to lock 'em up, just outlaw their marriages".
 
It Almost Was...

Pesky pack-rat memory just recalled in and about 1968-or so - there was a group at a CYR convention from the "Ann-Arbor Anarcho-Libertarian Coalition" pumping the fusion of Anarchists and Libertarians. Such a fusion could have prevented the more semi-Randite worship of Corporations and attracted more who just wanted to be left alone (as opposed to wanting to wank Big Business.)
 
yes, interesting that it almost was. I think the late '60s-early '70s was definitely a potential reshuffle time.

If the libertarians could get past their one-dimensional view of civil rights that no one should tell a business what to do, then we might really get somewhere. That might be a pretty significant hinge point.
 
yes, interesting that it almost was. I think the late '60s-early '70s was definitely a potential reshuffle time.

If the libertarians could get past their one-dimensional view of civil rights that no one should tell a business what to do, then we might really get somewhere. That might be a pretty significant hinge point.

I think that part I've highlighted takes you into the realm of "If Hitler wasn't [whatever], he wouldn't be Hitler".

"You can't tell a business what to do" is pretty much the libertarian credo. Well, maybe "You can't tell an individual what to do", with businesses just seen as extensions of their owners.
 
And then there's ALEC, bringing it to all 50 states, like it or not

First of all, the thread is about the Libertarian *Party*, not small l-libertarianism (even in the modern American sense). Secondly, ALEC is conservative, not libertarian--even on economic issues, the two are not synonymous. An obvious example is the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is championed by conservatives and which necessarily involves state use of eminent domain to force unwilling property-holders to part with their property. http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/24/keystone-pipeline-thwarted-by-individual
 
I'm thinking of the journey Rand Paul took. When he first ran for the Senate in 2010(?), he took the position that you can't tell a business who that can and can't be served. But then he changed this and said racial discrimination was an evil of sufficient magnitude that advancing past it makes it worthwhile to do something which would normally be a bad idea. I think this summarizes his position.

Now, some of us might say, hey, this is only partially sincere for political reasons. Well, maybe, but then maybe libertarians in the '60s could take this same journey more sincerely. Heck, maybe even some libertarians could start thinking this through in the 1950s.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Sazsz, the libertarian critic of psychiatry, wrote a book about the medicalization of sexuality, which included a passage thundering against circumcision. I can't remember all his arguments(apart from the obvious coercion involved), but he did state that a relatively large number of baby boys die from the procedure.

Agreed, it's probably not something you want to make your battle-cry in partisan politics. Then again, libertarians(including Szasz) were among the first to champion the rights of homosexuals, and now you've got everyone from the far left to the moderate right basically agreeing with that, and even the far-right reduced to "Well, we certainly don't want to lock 'em up, just outlaw their marriages".

For one, I forget which faction called themselves the "roundhead alliance," but it is the epitome of thinking with your peener...It never works out in the end.

Further, it deprives certain people time honored religious practices. I think only the mentally ill serious miss their foreskin. How do you even know what you're missing?
 
First of all, the thread is about the Libertarian *Party*, not small l-libertarianism (even in the modern American sense). Secondly, ALEC is conservative, not libertarian--even on economic issues, the two are not synonymous. An obvious example is the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is championed by conservatives and which necessarily involves state use of eminent domain to force unwilling property-holders to part with their property. http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/24/keystone-pipeline-thwarted-by-individual
In fact, I remember one case in which Daryl Hannah, of the movie Splash and others, stood in solidarity with a Texas land owner and engaged in principled civil disobedience. I think both were arrested for trespassing even though they were on the lady's own land. (!) that's how much the state of Texas wants to make a political statement, even though Keystone may or may not go through at this point.

I suspect the libertarians are still going to be in favor of eminent domain ? ? ? Just emphasize that it be done in an ethical way. I mean, how else can you ever do a pipeline or a bridge or a road in any kind of organized fashion ?

And that's what I'd say with civil rights. Not say we can't do it, but find a way to do it.
 
Last edited:
Top