Posted on 08/11/2002 8:44:07 AM PDT by quidnunc
The Libertarian Party is having its national nominating convention at the Marriott Hotel in Anaheim, Calif., from June 30 to July 3.
But there's a much better site in the same city — Disneyland.
What could be more fitting for these laissez-faire visionaries than to convene in the theme park's Fantasyland? Goofy might even be available for their national ticket.
I recently sat down with the man who will likely be the party's presidential candidate this year (as he was in 1996), Harry Browne. An author and investment guru, Browne is charming, articulate and, well, about what you'd expect of a Libertarian ideologue.
The party boasts that there are "over 270 Libertarians serving in public office" nationwide. But its highest elected official currently is a Vermont state legislator. Of course, there is also Art Olivier, who served one term as mayor pro tem of Bell Flower, Calif. Based on his resume, Olivier is now running for the party's vice presidential nomination.
In 1996, Browne drew 485,120 votes. As the candidate of the Green Party (which wants to repeal the Industrial Revolution), Ralph Nader pulled in 651,771 votes.
Still, I'm surprised Browne did as well as he did. I have to assume that most of those half-million voters didn't read the party's platform and were unaware of the nominee's more exotic stands. Libertarians have taken a good idea — opposition to bullying government — and turned it into a crusade for a utopian agenda.
The party's ideal society could exist only in the realm of theory. Its platform calls for "the elimination of all restrictions on immigration." If 50 million Mexicans chose to move to California and Texas, resulting in chaos and the obliteration of national identity, why should that concern Libertarians?
If these new Americans (then constituting a majority in the states where they settle) wanted to secede and reunite the territory with Mexico, presumably Libertarians would not stand in their way.
The party's position on national defense is equally loony. In a Browne presidency, no American soldier would set foot on foreign soil. "What if China invaded Taiwan?" I asked. None of our business, he replied. Well, what if it invaded Mexico? In that case, Browne said he'd fortify our southern border and await an invasion.
Is there never a role for alliances or the use of U.S. forces abroad? According to Browne, even our involvement in World War II was a mistake. The Nazis and Japanese posed no direct threat to us, Browne claims (a la Pat Buchanan).
Libertarian aversion to government often leads to strange dichotomies. Browne assumes "life begins at conception." He believes Washington should be neutral on abortion. (Roe vs. Wade was "an example of judicial activism at its worst.") Sound reasoning.
Abortion policy should be set by states, Browne says. However, "Do I believe the states should outlaw abortion?" the Libertarian rhetorically asks. "I do not."
I said, "You assume that the unborn child is human life, but you don't think government at any level should act to protect that life? What about laws against murder?"
Browne doesn't think much of them, either (look at all the murders despite the law) — though he hastens to add that he's not calling for their repeal.
A Libertarian government would consist of open borders, no troops abroad, no alliances and the repeal of laws against prostitution and drugs. If someone on crack cocaine kills your family, you can go to your private arbitration agency for adjudication.
Impractical? Delusional? Let's just say that if there were Libertarians in the Third Reich, they would have probably been drawing up plans to privatize the autobahns when the Gestapo arrived to take them away.
I done thunk about once or twice.
If there is no ideologically pure Conservatism then Conservatism is not an ideology. What is it?
When the GOP puts "opposition to bullying government" into the party platform instead of endorsing it, no one will be looking to the Libertarian Party as an alternative.
I find no place that the founding fathers believed such... such rubbish.
Abortion policy should be set by states, Browne says. However, "Do I believe the states should outlaw abortion?" the Libertarian rhetorically asks. "I do not."I find it hard to believe that he said this. If this is the LP's platform then they can forget about ever getting more then 2% of the vote.
I said, "You assume that the unborn child is human life, but you don't think government at any level should act to protect that life? What about laws against murder?"
Browne doesn't think much of them, either (look at all the murders despite the law) — though he hastens to add that he's not calling for their repeal.
a.cricket
A Libertarian murdered a policeman in Ohio Friday night over a traffic stop (which are 'a constitutional crisis' according to one looney Libertarian here on the forum), and there's Harry Browne just shrugging over it. They really need to have RICO shut them down.
IMHO, Goofy should sue the author of this article for defamation of character.
Libertarians believe that people are perfectible through reason. In other words, the government is preventing people from acting reasonably because of various laws etc. and all the government needs to do is get out of the way and everyone will start acting like Mr. Spock i.e. perfectly logical.
Liberals believe that people are perfectible through government sponsored "re-education" and "sensitivity training" blah blah blah. They don't like the free market because they believe that it brings out the worst in people i.e. greed, selfishness, and the government needs to step in to redistribute wealth so people won't have to engage in the kind of rigorous capitalism that brings out their worst tendencies. After that's been accomplished presumably everyone sits around, smokes dope and listens to the Allman Brothers.
Conservatives believe that people have a fallen nature and are never perfectible. People are born basically wicked and need to work hard to be good. For instance, I'm in favor of capitalism, but not because it brings an "ideal" society. I'm for capitalism because it keeps people off the street during daylight hours and when they get home they're too damn tired to get into trouble. I'm against a big welfare state because it dulls the propensity to work and thus contributes to disorder (look at South Central LA), but I'm not against worker protections and a small welfare state because the last time we had laissez faire capitalism in America it almost led to a revolution (this is called the New Deal).
Conservatives value social order first and foremost. Everyone else is pursuing fanciful ideals that never work out.
Libertarians believe that people are perfectible through reason. In other words, the government is preventing people from acting reasonably because of various laws etc. and all the government needs to do is get out of the way and everyone will start acting like Mr. Spock i.e. perfectly logical.
I certainly don't believe that. Well, I do believe that often the government makes people act unreasonably. But there are cases where the government makes (or tries to make) people act reasonably that I still oppose. Laws against crack, for example. I also believe that people are perfectible by (not through) Christ., not reason or anything they contain in themselves.
And anyway, I haven't read any of the libertarian greats (Locke, Bastiat, Mises, and so on) saying anything like that. Maybe I missed it. Maybe you were just going by your impressions of a debased popular form of libertarianism.
People are born basically wicked and need to work hard to be good.
There are Calvinist conservatives who believe that people are born entirely wicked (total depravity) and that no amount of hard work could make them good. "Good", maybe, but not good. There are also Calvinist libertarian like me who believe the same thing.
Conservatives value social order first and foremost.
That sounds an awful lot like an abstract premise. If it isn't, it has the potential to be. If you took it and ran with it, you'd wind up like our friend Cultural Jihad.
I also agree that people are perfected by Christ, so we're together on that.
In terms of whether or not people are completely wicked, this is not true in the USA because of our cultural inheratance. But in, say, Afghanistan, this is unfortunately very true.
Cheers, HV
I also agree that people are perfected by Christ, so we're together on that.
In terms of whether or not people are completely wicked, this is not true in the USA because of our cultural inheratance. But in, say, Afghanistan, this is unfortunately very true.
Cheers, HV
This is false. The Great Depression was caused primarily by Government Interventionism, not by Capitalism.
People are born basically wicked
So, we grant them the Power to promote "social order" as their wicked hearts define the term?? Men are born totally depraved. Ergo, a Powerful Magistrate is... just a depraved man with a lot of Power.
The magistrate has no business attempting to promote a self-defined ideal of "social order". His business is to punish Aggression, Fraud, and Coercion -- period. He is the Night Watchman of a republic, not it's King. Republics need no king (but Jesus).
A loony right-wing religionist.
glibertarians!
LOL! Isn't their motto: "Who cares? Too bad! So what?"
So then to be pragmatic is NOT to be anti-liberty?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.