Monday, May 21, 2007

Are You a "Mainstream Libertarian"?

Could I be considered a Mainstream Libertarian? Let’s find out by comparing my views to the official Mainstream Libertarian’s views.

Lower Taxes!

Federal income tax rate reductions, as well as cutting back on all state and local taxes. Making federal income tax rate reductions permanent. Scaling back of capital gains taxes, and an immediate end to estate taxes.

I can live with lower taxes, but what’s up with the priorities on tax cuts here? I would prefer to dismantle the federal government altogether, but if I had to cut taxes gradually, I wouldn’t necessarily start with the estate tax, for crying out loud. Or the capital gains tax. I’d start by eliminating taxes on lower income workers and make my way up the socioeconomic scale. There’s nothing particularly “libertarian” about favoring rich people over poor people in the tax cutting scheme. Given some of the other positions we’ll get to later, it doesn’t look like the tax cuts we’re talking about here amount to much since the government will still need lots of money for the massive Mainstream Libertarian government programs.

Stop the Over Spending

Balanced Federal Budget through spending cuts, not increased taxes. Broad cuts in rates of spending increases for all federal, state and local governmental programs. Reform of Medicare, Social Security and other entitlement programs through greater reliance on private alternatives.

Cuts in the rate of spending increases? Are you kidding me? Balancing the budget? What about slashing the budget? What the hell is “libertarian” about this?

Growing the American Economy

Getting the Government off the backs of small business, and corporations by scaling back OSHA, the EPA and other restrictive Federal Agencies. Right to Work legislation that protects workers and spurs economic growth. Workers' comp. reform that protects small businesses against huge lawsuits and endless litigation.

What does the government have to do with growing the economy? Just get the government out of the way, and watch the economy grow. And some of the other Mainstream Libertarian programs are going to be a huge drag on the economy. The first thing I would do would not be to scale back OSHA and at the same time reduce the remedies of injured workers and their ability to organize! Workers Comp already protects employers from lawsuits, so I don’t know where this is coming from. A libertarian who advocates legislation that favors business owners over workers?

Pro Independence Energy Policy

More self-reliance. Lower gas prices through increased refining capacity and allowance for drilling for oil in Alaska and Coastlines.

WTF is “libertarian” about this? Why would I support government’s tinkering with gas prices and refinery capacity? Are Mainstream Libertarians really Libertarians for Central Planning?

Property Rights

Absolute opposition to Eminent Domain laws when used by local governments to transfer lands from one private entity to another.

That’s it? That’s the Mainstream Libertarian position on property rights? This should be one of the biggest planks in the platform.

Choice in Education

School vouchers and tuition tax credits. Greater emphasis on private and home schooling as an alternative to failing public schools. Opposition to affirmative action laws, and minority preferences.

This is just more government schooling via contractors instead of getting government out of the business of schooling. I’m still getting robbed and mooched off of in this scheme. Minority preferences would be up to the private schools in my libertarian world.

Individual Liberties

An end to petty laws that harass Americans such as restrictions on free speech, bans on religious expression, unreasonable regulations of sexual lifestyles for consenting adults, clogging up our court systems with low level marijuana cases, smoking bans in restaurants/bars, and ticketing law-abiding safe drivers for not wearing seat belts. Also, no federal mandates for speed limits or drinking age laws. Repeal gambling restrictions such as internet gaming ban.

Again, that’s it for civil liberties? “Petty” laws? What about big laws? Only “unreasonable” regulation of sexual lifestyles is of concern? What would a Mainstream Libertarian see as “reasonable” regulation? “Low level marijuana cases” are the only aspects of the war on drugs that bother a Mainstream Libertarian? In a nutshell, the Mainstream Libertarian supports legalization of stuff he likes to do like not buckle up, light up at a bar, have a few bong hits, and gamble. Otherwise, he is all for regulating stuff.

Gun Rights & Supporting Sportsmen

Full rights and protections to keep and bear arms. Protecting rights of hunters and anglers. Lessening of licensing fees. More access for off-road recreational vehicles and other sports enthusiasts on public lands.

Seriously, why would a libertarian want the government to favor “sportsmen” over any other subjects of the state? Open the public lands to homesteading! Lower licensing fees? I dispute the legitimacy of the whole licensing scam! If the Mainstream Libertarian were an avid bird watcher, would he advocate bans on off road vehicles because they disturb the birds?

Strong Defense

Defending our borders, and maintaining a strong and well-equipped Military to protect our nation from any terrorist or foreign state. Using the Military to fight terrorists overseas, when necessary, rather than here at home. Support for the All-Volunteer Armed Forces.

Support for a massive national security apparatus well beyond what is reasonably required for national defense and which is itself a threat to freedom became “libertarian” when? Foreign adventurism? This is why the budget can’t be slashed and why working people have to be taxed out the wazoo. The national security apparatus is a greater threat to my freedom than any of the terrorists in the world. Paying for it keeps me in bondage, and militarism and nationalism make my fellow subjects stupid enough to throw away what freedom we still have.

Humanitarianism

A foreign policy of diplomacy, cooperation and free trade to promote democratic ideals and freedoms around the world. Assisting with the liberation of repressed peoples from the tyranny of fascist and socialist dictators.

This would be fine if the Mainstream Libertarian wanted to volunteer to liberate some oppressed people or to lend his financial support to promoting democratic ideals and freedom. If the democratic ideals he is talking about involve majoritarian tyranny, count me out. But no, the Mainstream Libertarian is talking about stealing money from his fellow subjects by force and using it to advance his agenda abroad, presumably through violence if necessary.

Balanced Immigration Policy & Protecting our Borders

Protecting our Borders from Illegal Immigration through beefed up enforcement, more Border Patrol and fencing. Allowing for a Guest Worker Program for Mexicans who wish to work temporarily in the U.S., with a criminal background check. Citizenship only for those who learn English. Strict measures to stop terrorists from entering the U.S.

This is not one of my peeves. In a perfect world, peacable folks would move freely across borders. Again, it is odd to see a “libertarian” advocating more government spending and restrictions on whom we can hire to do work. Also, it is curious to see support for a kind of permanent second class subject status. Why would a libertarian care what the official language was? He wouldn’t. He’d let the linguistic marketplace do its work.

I reckon I’m not a Mainstream Libertarian. No secret decoder ring for Vache Folle. I also reckon that Mainstream Libertarians are not libertarian. They’re just run of the mill right wingers who like to indulge in assorted vices. They have apparently decided that some aspects of libertarianism aren't "mainstream" enough, like the "liberty" part. The "arian" part they have kept.

Libertarian is being sucked dry of any meaning. The Mainstream Libertarian lists both Jon Stewart and Neil Cavuto as famous libertarians. He also has Tucker Carlson as a libertarian. It’s a bit like being a Christian and having the Westboro Baptist Church also calling itself Christian or the authoritarians on the religious right calling themselves Christians. I like the neologism “Christianist” to distinguish them from actual followers of Jesus. Maybe I should start using “libertarianist” to describe folks, such as the Mainstream Libertarian, who use the term in a twisted way in order to benefit from its positive associations without actually adhering to any of its principles.

6 comments:

Doc said...

why do i have to associate myself with a political faction? CUIP is based in New York - might give them a look. I would like to call myself an anarchist - however, they have been labeled so the term cannot be used. Perhaps a chaotist. Butler Shaffer might have a better term; understanding chaos theory in political terms leads to the belief that we need laws with referees and umpires doing the enforcement, rather than the major teams.

Doncha love the plight of the yankees this year? At least George S. doesn't set the baseball playing rules. My experience with the Reform Party and the Oregon SoS has bittered me on the political game organizational process. Wasn't there once a rule restricting law professionals to the judicial branch? We'd be a lot better off with a true separation of powers. Speaking truth to power is a start.
Good post.

Anonymous said...

This is truly pathetic and you are exactly right that they are just trying to "rebrand" themselves now that so-called conservatives have given conservatism a bad name.

I have heard Glenn Beck refer to himself as a libertarian, yet look how he tried to smear a true one (Ron Paul) when given the opportunity. At least Tucker Carlson voted for Paul in 1988 and had a sympathetic interview of him.

Isn't it ironic how all of these people are doing their darnest to water-down libertarianism while at the same time people are starting to wake up to the appeal of real libertarianism, as Ron Paul begins to get exposure?

Anonymous said...

"l"ibertarianism used to be a philosophy before some group got together and put a big "L" at the front of it. As soon as that group's desire for political power began to outweigh its desire to teach the principles of the philosophy, the principles were doomed. We've gotten to the point now where real libertarians are labeled as misfits to be dealt with by the party liners.

Bryan
libertarianChristians.org

jomama said...

You have just listed an number of
points proving to me why there is
no political solution.

Indeed, good post.

Kevin Carson said...

Somehow I figured I'd find Dondero's odious name on that site, and sure enough it turned out to be the rancid excreta of his bowels.

Anonymous said...

The losertarian faction of the Libertarian Party repeatedly nominates people who are the most radical in their foreign policy. I am a friend of Dondero's even though I don't agree with his stance on Iraq. I also favor limited military responses to terrorist training camps in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

What Dondero says at Mainstream Libertarian is a watered down version of "libertarian". WHy is this both necessary and intelligent? To draw support from the masses of people who are, themselves, "watered down".

In case any of you radical yammerheads noticed, the libertarians usually get vastly less than 1% of any vote. To remedy this, we need to pander, without ideally running candidates who don't know they are pandering. It means doing damage to our enemy, "the omnipotent state". How much damage has any losertarian cost the government? Any government?

I know that the governments of MT, ID, OR, and MO were all put on the defensive by the stellar work that Dondero did on the eminent domain repeal petitions that Eric circulated there. Those petitions helped the people in those states keep their homes. It helped roll back overbearing, tyrannical government. It tied up the resources of morally corrupted judges while those States squealed and moaned about how it would "hurt their ability to plan their infrastructure".

But you guys don't see any of this, because it's dark --where your heads are-- inside your asses.

In 1984, the losertarians ran the most productive people out of the "bigger tent" party of 1980 -result -loserville (340,000 votes with bergland). The Arizona Party shot both its feet off with the same infighting, and overbearing radicalism. SO did the IL Party in 2005 (surrendering ballot access and major party status when all they needed to do was run candidates).

In short -- "Mainstream Libertarian" would not even exist if it weren't for 27 years of "vote for the most radical LP candidate over all others, not matter how much more likely their chances of victory are". The too-radical for victory crowd in the LP created the "watered down" libertarian approach out of sheer necessity.

Now then, I'm a radical libertarian. As such, I support everything that mainstream libertarian does. I support watering down the LP OVERTLY SPOKEN AND COMMUNICATED PHILOSOPHY --because "Americans" or what passes for them these days --- CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

Do I want to lose ALL of my freedoms because the Party I'm associated with isn't smart enough to pander (run people who say what it takes to get elected, then do as they please)? NO, I don't. If we have to lie to people who are pointing guns at us in order to not get shot --let's lie!

It's as morally important that all of you idiots out there understand this concept as it is for you to understand this one: THE PEOPLE WHO SHELTERED JEWS FROM THE NAZIS AND BLACKS IN THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD SHOULD NOT HAVE COMMUNICATED THAT THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW --THEIR DISHONESTY WAS TO PREVENT THE WRONGFUL INITIATION OF FORCE, AND WAS THEREFORE MORAL!!!!!!!!!!

Simple lesson. This is the same reason that Ayn Rand was an idiot not to support the Libertarian Party, and David Kelley's "big tent" concept.

A pro-freedom party cannot be radical. But the people who run under it can.

Moreover, if I have a choice of decriminalize pot via electoral politics or say I'm going to decriminalize all drugs where that's not popular (and thereby decriminalize NOTHING), I'll choose the small victory.

Liberty loses ground to tryanny over the long term anyway, until the next revolution/rebellion.

Moreover, there are better ways to force the state to adopt liberty than elections. Elections are an advance auction of stolen goods, and as such those with the most to steal lose, and those with the most desire to steal gain. Guess which group has the greatest quantity and which has the greatest quality? ---It shouldn't be hard to see that stealing will be more popular.

If you want to cost the state money, in a direct way, RIGHT NOW, while pursuing an in-your-face radical strategy, GET A BUNCH OF FIJA material and get your ass to your local court of lies!

---Ooooops! That takes GUTS! YOu risk getting arrested! You actually have to KNOW YOUR SHIT to do that!

How many losertarians can and will do that?

Virtually none. Coincidentally, they also NEVER want to walk door-to-door in their districts. Or if they do, they don't want to MAKE SURE THEIR CANDIDATE WILL WIN.

That's always too much work.

But sit around and bitch on the internet?

That's EASY. Lots of takers there!

-Jake Witmer