Category Archives: Strategies For Advancing Liberty

Quote Of The Day: There Are No Libertarian Gods Edition

Quote of the Day, Strategies For Advancing Liberty

This is exactly the wrong way to think about a politician, and, ironically, it comes from someone who supports a candidate who has run on a campaign of individual rights:

Ron Paul called for a march. If you are a supporter, youll go or at least try to. Anyone who thinks this isnt a good idea are not supporting Ron Paul. He is smarter than most of you if not all of you.

No politician, not Ronald Reagan, not Bill Clinton, not Thomas Jefferson, and not even Ron Paul is someone that we are required to obey whenever they express an idea. And anyone who cares about freedom and individual rights should reject the idea that any politician is smarter than they are.

Admittedly, this is from one person and not all Paul supporters are like this, but he’s not alone either. All too often, I’ve encountered people coming here to tell me how dare I disagree with the great Ron Paul.

Well, let me just say it.

Ron Paul is a good man, he’s got some good ideas. But, and I bet even he’d agree with this, he’s not perfect and treating him like he is, or like anyone who dares disagree with him is either per se wrong, involved in some wacked-out conspiracy, or worthy of being derided with profanity simply isn’t justified.

Blind obedience to one man, any man, is something that no person who claims to love liberty should ever fall victim to.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

The Libertarian Party — What Is It Good For ?

Strategies For Advancing Liberty

As I noted earlier, the Libertarian Party is making an open appeal to Ron Paul’s supporters to come back to the party:

The Libertarian Party is the last remaining stronghold for liberty in American politics.

Unfortunately, the Ron Paul campaign has unintentionally taken a toll on our party. Many of our members have changed their voter registration to vote for Ron Paul in a primary while others have allowed their support to lapse as they gave all that they could for a candidate that represented their values.

Early on, I made the decision to not interfere or discourage this activity. I felt it was wrong for me to place our party above such an incredible opportunity for liberty that existed with Dr. Paul’s run for the White House.

But today, it’s time to come home.

If you have switched your party registration, allowed your membership to lapse or have put off your decision to join the LP, I now ask that you reverse course and renew your support for our principled party.

Over at QandO Jon Henke asks whether the Libertarian Party is worth the time:

I’m not sure I understand the argument he makes. If you want to feel good about yourself for supporting a somewhat more principled Party, have at and enjoy the warm feelings you might get from it. But bear in mind….

  • The LP has no chance in the short or the long term; libertarians simply are not an electorally viable majority. If that changes, the dominant parties will adjust and the Libertarian Party will be irrelevant; if it doesn’t change, the Libertarian Party will remain irrelevant.

  • Don’t flatter yourself about how principled you are. Unless you agree with every Libertarian Party position (and nobody agrees with other people on every particular), you’re still compromising. There’s nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend that participation in a political Party doesn’t involve compromise – or that unwillingness to compromise is a viable strategy in a contested political system.

On the whole, I think that Jon is right. Outside of the 1980 Presidential Campaign, financed to the tune of several million dollars by the Koch family, the Libertarian Party has never even gotten media notice during it’s campaigns. More importantly, I think he’s right that libertarians, by themselves, are not a large enough portion of the electorate to make a difference — a fact that is borne out by the relative lack of electoral success that Ron Paul has had this year.

Back in 2005, Randy Barnett said this in two posts, here and here, at The Volokh Conspiracy:

In hindsight, I think that the creation of the Libertarian Party has been very detrimental to the political influence of libertarians. Some voters (not many lately) and, more importantly, those libertarians who are interested in engaging in political activism (which does not include me) have been drained from both political parties, rendering both parties less libertarian at the margin

[…]

While some libertarian political activists are certainly Republicans and Democrats, the existence of the Libertarian Party ensures that there are fewer activists and fewer voters in each major party coalition than would otherwise exist. Therefore, each party’s coalition becomes less libertarian. I do not mean to exaggerate the extent of this effect. But even a handful of political activists in local and state party organizations can make a big difference. Whatever one thinks of the initial creation of the Libertarian Party, its continued existence seems to be a mistake for libertarians.

Barnett is, I think, largely correct. Perhaps the Ron Paul phenomenon will rejuvenate the Republican Party’s libertarian wing, and, if it does, then it will have at least accomplished something. If those Ron Paul supporters go to the LP, though, they’re going to find themselves getting even less accomplished than they did in this campaign.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

What Happens If Ron Paul Supporters Infiltrated Other Campaigns’ Delegates?

Election '08, Politics, Strategies For Advancing Liberty, Theory and Ideas

The Ron Paul campaign is increasingly looking like it’s a done deal. With Romney dropping out, it’s likely that we won’t see a brokered convention, the one potential route to his campaign having any more legs. Intrade has McCain now trading at a 95 share price for the nomination, with Huckabee and Paul both trading below a 2 share price.

But, in true form, the Paulestinians haven’t given up hope! After all, what if McCain’s delegates don’t vote for McCain at the Convention? What if, as commenter Kevin Houston points out, they’re really Ron Paul supporters who infiltrated the delegate pool in order to vote for their own man?

I appologize for being such a poor communicator myself. I did not mean to imply that the people filling McCain’s delegate slots were true-blue McCainiacs who could somehow be convinced to give their precious votes to Ron Paul.

I meant to imply that the people filling McCain’s delegate slots were true-blue Paulunteers who simply *said* they would be happy to support McCain (or Thompson, or Romney, or whoever) Especially in LA, where McCain had trouble filling delegate slots at the end.

Kind of like what happened in WV, where even though Huckabee ostensibly won all 18 delegates, 3 of those Huckabee delegates will actually be voting Ron Paul at national convention.

I promise you it will happen in my state too. The primary vote doesn’t mean crap. Only 3 delegates are awarded by the primary vote. The other 24 are elected at county conventions. Some of these counties (like mine) don’t have *any* functional GOP organization. It is wide open to the first yahoo that says he wants to do the work (like me.)

It doesn’t matter if Ron Paul comes in 2nd, or 3rd, or even gains enough of a % to be entitled to a single delegate. My state will have at least one vote for Ron Paul (legally if it looks like he can hang on through the first ballot)

So let’s explore this one for a moment. Let’s say that somehow McCain doesn’t win the nomination outright and it goes to the convention. Let’s then say that all hell breaks loose and there’s enough Ron Paul supporters who infiltrated the delegate pools that Ron Paul wins the nomination. What happens then?

If you think the American people in general, and the Republican Party in particular, will take kindly to seeing their nomination process “stolen” by Ron Paul supporters, you’re nuts! Especially if it’s by self-proclaimed libertarians, those who favor the “rule of law”, behaving in an absolutely underhanded manner.

If Ron Paul supporters were to “steal” the nomination for their candidate, it would fly in the face of most American’s sense of fairness and decency. And if the Democrat’s response to the 2000 election is any indication, Republican voters would be so angry over the situation that they would allow Hillary or Obama to reach the Oval Office simply to spite Ron Paul, or McCain would then run as an independent and they’d follow him.

Seriously, guys. It’s over. He’s not going to win. He’s got a lot of supporters, and it’s time to take that support and turn it into a wider movement. Perhaps the Paul Congress movement might be a good place to focus? 30-40 or more people in the House of Representatives with views similar to Ron Paul could go a long way to making real change. It’s time to start working on doing good in other places, because Ron Paul will not be elected President in 2008.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Ron Paul @ CPAC a/k/a Ron Tilts To The Right

Election '08, Politics, Strategies For Advancing Liberty

I’ve got to admit, I’m confused.

For the longest time, Ron Paul was campaigning as anything other than a conservative. He called himself a libertarian, heck he ran as a Libertarian for President 20 years ago, and, as the great F.A. Hayek reminded us more than 40 years ago, there is a big difference between between being a conservative and being someone who believes in individual liberty.

Nonetheless, Ron Paul, the supposed libertarian Republican candidate for President showed up today at CPAC and called himself a true conservative.

Here’s the video, you be the judge:

Introduction by Bob Barr:

Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

On Libertarianism And Toleration

Strategies For Advancing Liberty, Theory and Ideas

Reason’s Brian Doherty has a piece today over at Hit & Run that lends some much-needed sanity to the issues that we’ve been dealing with lately:

I invite all fellow admirers of a tolerant, dynamic, vibrant, liberal, varied and growing world of ideas, expressions, and ways of being to consider, for a moment, that there may indeed have been some wisdom in that famous epigram said to sum up the spirit of Voltaire (though never, apparently, written by him in such words): “I disagree with what this man has said, but I defend to the death his right to say it.”

As ugly and embracing of intolerance as such an epigram may seem in practice, perhaps there are reasons, reasons vital to the flourishing of an interesting, varied, free world of expression, that those summing up the spirit of Enlightenment tolerance did not choose to express the appropriate attitude toward things said with which he disagreed—even strongly and passionately disagreed—like this: “I disagree with what this man has said, and I consider him evil for saying it; furthermore, I consider him having said it the most significant thing about him, and that it overshadows any other accomplishment or statement he has ever made. I fervently wish to have him driven from polite society, and consider that anyone who does not enthusiastically join me in so driving him to themselves be evil, or at least incredibly idiotic and not to be trusted—but don’t worry, I don’t think he should be arrested for saying it.”

It may be that the more famous saying indeed embodies the spirit of a lovable, valuable, rich world of discourse; and that the second one perhaps embodies a less open, free, and dynamic, and thus less valuable and interesting, world of discourse.

In other words, to a libertarian, the fact that you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they are evil and doesn’t make them worthy of excommunication from “the movement” (whatever that is). Yes, there are some issues that are fundamental to liberty (for me, one of those is the idea that each person needs to be treated as an individual, not a member of a group), but, quite honestly there are some that are not, and it doesn’t make sense to attack someone personally because they happen to disagree with you.

For Ron Paul supporters, that means that you aren’t accomplishing anything when you engage what can only be called the tactics of a Paulistinian. For those of us who don’t support Ron Paul, it means that recognizing that not everyone that supports the Congressman is of that group of people who have, quite honestly, given the movement a bad name.

Tolerance is required if civility is going to be maintained, and without civility we’re not going to accomplish anything.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com
1 … 54 55 56 57 58 … 60