...In which I shamelessly endorse a hopeless third-party candidate none of us can vote for
I've been thinking a lot recently about how the political tide is shifting in our great nation. Now, I'm not one for foreign policy, as Cato could surely attest, but I can feel my way around the domestic sphere without too much difficulty. What I'm sensing, above all, is not a swing from the right to the left, though that will almost certainly occur in the partisan sense. No, what I'm seeing is a divergence away from the structures of the left-right spectrum and into true Libertarianism.
I believe that the Libertarian party could truly emerge as a third party, at this point in history like none other, because it doesn't really fall onto the spectrum itself as the spectrum exists today (in practice.) For instance, I'm one of the most liberal of all Optimates, but I also think of myself, more every day, as a Libertarian. Ten years ago this would have made next-to-no sense at all, but it becomes clearer with each passing moon. That was before the right started pushing for an increasingly fascist power-grab at the expense of our freedoms, and before the leftist nanny-state exanded to include media and other forms of "disagreeable" speech. Freedom no longer exists on this line of thinking, where the question is only about which freedoms should be curtailed, and the moderation tends to compromise by appeasing both sides.
Liberty is just that: liberty. It allows for us to make mistakes, and it trusts in citizens to live their own lives, make their own mistakes, and learn whatever lessons they will along the way. If my liberty encroaches on yours, then laws should come into play. But if my liberty only endangers myself, well, I've made my choice in a free society, and have no one to blame but myself if it plays out badly. Liberty isn't safe, at least by nature. If it should mean anything, than it should be the boldest staement that we as a people can make. It should be steadfast, honest, unwavering, and unimpeachable. If Christian fundamentalists say, "That's not the way you should live," liberty says, "then say so, but we are under no obligation to agree." If Islamic fundamentalists say, "Death to the Great Satan," liberty says, "Come here and worship as you please, but the moment that you harm another citizen, expect to be treated equally under to force of a law which protects the lot of us." If secular liberals (myself included) say, "Keep prayer out of the schools!" liberty says, "Religion must not be enforced or coerced, but neither may it be denied."
Liberty is hard. Liberty invoves accepting that which you yourself detest and taking a stand for rights wich you yourself would never deign to take advantage of. I will remain a registered Democrat, but I fear that my party understands these principles no better than their opposition. To join the Libertarian party is to lessen my personally interest over the primaries, where one's vote matters most. Still, I remain a Democrat because I believe that a well managed government can do good things with the taxes it levees. I badly want the system to be less wasteful, but I think that by helping the least among us to support themselves and their families, our society is healthier, and our economy as well. And it's simply the right thing to do. The Libertarian party tends not to support that view, and so I cannot join, much as I'd like it to become a legitimate third option to be reckoned with.
Then, today, Frithonthehills directed me to a website that she found via Sullivan (or whoever is doing his work for him while he's on vacation.) Sullivan's boy made a joke about him and dismissed him as a crackpot, but I read through the whole thing, and I've never in my life come across a more reasoned, sincere, incorruptable, and noble candidate in my life. From now 'til November, I'm going to do whatever I have to from Brooklyn to get him elected.
His name is James Hill. He's running for congress in the Iowa first district. And he describes himself as a pirate.
I believe that the Libertarian party could truly emerge as a third party, at this point in history like none other, because it doesn't really fall onto the spectrum itself as the spectrum exists today (in practice.) For instance, I'm one of the most liberal of all Optimates, but I also think of myself, more every day, as a Libertarian. Ten years ago this would have made next-to-no sense at all, but it becomes clearer with each passing moon. That was before the right started pushing for an increasingly fascist power-grab at the expense of our freedoms, and before the leftist nanny-state exanded to include media and other forms of "disagreeable" speech. Freedom no longer exists on this line of thinking, where the question is only about which freedoms should be curtailed, and the moderation tends to compromise by appeasing both sides.
Liberty is just that: liberty. It allows for us to make mistakes, and it trusts in citizens to live their own lives, make their own mistakes, and learn whatever lessons they will along the way. If my liberty encroaches on yours, then laws should come into play. But if my liberty only endangers myself, well, I've made my choice in a free society, and have no one to blame but myself if it plays out badly. Liberty isn't safe, at least by nature. If it should mean anything, than it should be the boldest staement that we as a people can make. It should be steadfast, honest, unwavering, and unimpeachable. If Christian fundamentalists say, "That's not the way you should live," liberty says, "then say so, but we are under no obligation to agree." If Islamic fundamentalists say, "Death to the Great Satan," liberty says, "Come here and worship as you please, but the moment that you harm another citizen, expect to be treated equally under to force of a law which protects the lot of us." If secular liberals (myself included) say, "Keep prayer out of the schools!" liberty says, "Religion must not be enforced or coerced, but neither may it be denied."
Liberty is hard. Liberty invoves accepting that which you yourself detest and taking a stand for rights wich you yourself would never deign to take advantage of. I will remain a registered Democrat, but I fear that my party understands these principles no better than their opposition. To join the Libertarian party is to lessen my personally interest over the primaries, where one's vote matters most. Still, I remain a Democrat because I believe that a well managed government can do good things with the taxes it levees. I badly want the system to be less wasteful, but I think that by helping the least among us to support themselves and their families, our society is healthier, and our economy as well. And it's simply the right thing to do. The Libertarian party tends not to support that view, and so I cannot join, much as I'd like it to become a legitimate third option to be reckoned with.
Then, today, Frithonthehills directed me to a website that she found via Sullivan (or whoever is doing his work for him while he's on vacation.) Sullivan's boy made a joke about him and dismissed him as a crackpot, but I read through the whole thing, and I've never in my life come across a more reasoned, sincere, incorruptable, and noble candidate in my life. From now 'til November, I'm going to do whatever I have to from Brooklyn to get him elected.
His name is James Hill. He's running for congress in the Iowa first district. And he describes himself as a pirate.
posted by Pascals Bookie @ 8:52 PM
5 Comments:
I've actually become both more and less libertarian as I've gotten older. I'll tell you more once I get a computer with Internet!
I think there is a great deal of difference between supporting a regime of legal libertarianism and supporting a culture of social libertarianism. Allow me to explain.
I think the federal government has little business legislating morality. This is for two reasons:
1) In order to enforce the legislation effectively, the government's reach would have to become tyrannical in all matters that relate (even tangentially) to morality. A country of saints would not be worth the complete loss of freedom.
2) Although there is broad agreement on the foundations of morality, there is equally broad disagreement on the particulars. In any legislative setting - where particulars must be voted on and decided - the particular moral view of the majority would hold sway. This would both discredit legitimate believers in that morality and impose it on 'non-believers.'
But, as I said above, there is another side to it. In the absence of legal sanctions against various types of immorality, there should still be societal taboos. This is where I differ with full-blown social libertarians who (to me, anyway) seem like they don't want any restrictions on personal behavior from any quarter. This is nothing more than personal licentiousness dressed up as a philosophy.
I agree with you for the most part, but ask where you would draw the line. I'm not saying I have the exact answer on that, even though my views tend to go towards the "I canswing my fist as far as I want until it touches your nose" quadrant. Gay marriage in Alabama (and, in fact, parts of most of the country) can easily cause stigmatic gossip among the neighbors of the family. Is this harm reason enough to reject the right? Similarly, if a drunk driver causes an accident (or, in fact, is any party to an accident) they are rightly charged to the full extent of the law, but what of the bartender who served them, knowing they'd have to find their way home? And if that bartender was known to be so lenient, what of the distributer who supplied him?
I'm not meaning to straw-man Tacitean, but rather to open up the quesion. Personal responsibility cuts both ways, and we should all be held accountable to it. When another makes us powerless to exhibit this responsibity, then there is a victim, and that's where laws should come into play.
Well this is what I'm talking about. Mark my words that Civil Liberties will be the #1 issue in the next few elections, and it will be because the GOP and the Dems have found them to be the easiest things to sell out. On this forum, as small as our pool of commentators may be, I think that as much as we disagree about issues along the Washington-approved ideological spectrum, we agree on those things left off of it.
When I grew up, Libertarians were the crazy far-right counterpart to the socialists on the left. The LP might still play itself like this, but the current LP is defunct, if it was ever functional to begin with. But the current crop, which I would imagine includes most of us here, is off the map of a left-right paradigm (and yes, I hate using that word.)
I've long said that political difference aren't about values, but about priorities. The new Libertarians, which include the so-called "South Park Republicans" and the decendents of the Youth International Party (Yippies) prioritize the rights to live freely, and for government to be streamlined to the point where it can do it's job most effectively, and that moral issues should not be legislated, but rather be dealt with in an educative sense, that taxes are not necessarily evil, but are necessary and too haigh at the same time, and should be lowered through more efficacious government spending rather than cutting useful programs wholesale on the whim of the powers that be.
The LP is defunct, which is likely why James Hill isn't running under it's banner. Well, that and that it doesn't completely fit his views and he is unwilling to subscribe to any opinions that he doesn't present himself. The LP is done for, but we're not, so I propose this: why don't we overhaul it? We're all young, smart, and eager for change. We disagree, but in such a way as to find the smart compromises. Also, we could form a foreign policy platform that the current party sorely lacks. I don't actually care if it's the LP, the Pirate Party, or anything we just make up, but the more I look at it, the more I understand that neither "prominent" party truly represents us. I've probably spent the least time in New Hampshire of all the Optimates, but I'd bet that a working party with true Libertarian ideals would go over there like gangbusters.
I'm serious. We've got the power amongst us. Why don't we get together to institute real change. We could revamp the LP to fit a profile that people can get behind without feeling like their selling out, or we can create our own, but why don't we put our money where our mouths are?
"I've probably spent the least time in New Hampshire of all the Optimates, but I'd bet that a working party with true Libertarian ideals would go over there like gangbusters."
That actually describes our Republican Party pretty well!
Post a Comment
<< Home