Eric, Since apparantly I am a "smarty-pants" and "one of those anti-political Libertarians who would rather Libertarians just sit it out, and stay home, not at all engaging in politics, let alone the most watched political race in the country," it seems that your comments are directed toward me. Rather than blindly attack the antipolitical wing of the libertarian movement, I would recommend that you actually undersand it.
First of all, you should realize that almost all antipolitical libertarians were active in electoral politics: Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorov, Robert LeFevre, myself. We were all political activists and have had a great deal of experience in the political world. This is why we no longer go, as I mentioned before, hat in hand, and upon bent knees, begging to the political institutions for attention and approval for our activities. Whether I would go on about Nock's experience in the Wilson Administration, Chodorov's run as Vice-Presidential candidate for a third-party, LeFevre's run as Republican candidate for congress or my own work in the Republican Party, Peace & Freedom and elsewhere, these simply establish that antipolitical libertarians have gone through those hoops as well. It's just that we learned from our mistakes, as any sensible person does. Making a choice to use our resources to promote libertarian ideals is one of the most important decisions for libertarians to make. What should we give our time and money to? Ballot-boxing is a temporary event. It happens once, and then is gone. Maybe people remember the discussions or who the people were. Maybe not. Libertarians historically have spent a lot of money on such events, and the consequence historically (and here I'm talking about the last 150 years that I've studied) has been almost nonexistent. Parties fold. Politicians continue to lie and collect graft. The LP is too irrelevant to current politics to make any difference. The LRC is fooling themselves if they think they do more than help legitimize the GOP. If a "libertarian" is elected, or a politiciant is elected with libertarian help, it is but mere moments before the libertarian faction is stuck in the corner with a dunce-cap on their respective heads, quickly forgotten. People who pretend otherwise are only fooling themselves, wasting their lives on short-term goals, rather than forming long-term institutions designed to fight statism. What should a libertarian do? Should he/she, as Eric says, "just sit it out, and stay home, not at all engaging in politics"? Eric has invested a lot of effort in proclaiming this strawman as the only alternative. There are many other alternatives, contrary to what Eric says. Liberty in both the social and economic spheres is the polestar of libertarians. Live your life to the fullest! Learn how to maximize your freedom and minimize coercion, whether from an individual, such as a person claiming to be a representative an agency of the state, or from a group, such as a person claiming to be a representative of an agency of the state (hmm, same thing!). Discover for yourself methods to effect the culture toward freedom. Learn the principles of freedom and teach them to your family and friends and any others that you can. Support voters boycotts and help deligimimize the state. Invest your time and money in long term projects such as Mises Institute, Independent Institute, FEE, CATO, and, by all means, create your own! Cheers! Just Ken http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/ http://spencerheath.blogspot.com/ Eric Dondero Rittberg wrote: > So smarty-pants. What do you suggest Connecticut libertarians do? > There's NO Libertarian Party candidate in the race. > > Are you suggesting Libertarians back Republican Aurther Schlessinger > instead? > > Or are you one of those anti-political Libertarians who would rather > Libertarians just sit it out, and stay home, not at all engaging in > politics, let alone the most watched political race in the country. > > Don't bitch, unless you have some alternative plan. > > --- In [email protected] > <mailto:Libertarian%40yahoogroups.com>, Logan Ferree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > I'm glad to see that Cato's David Boaz has offered some common > sense > > to the Republicans and liberventionists that are quick to embrace > Joe > > Lieberman's Independent campaign in Connecticut: > > http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/19/republicans-for-the-big- > <http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/19/republicans-for-the-big-> > government-guy/ > > Boaz is right, only if you allow the Iraq War to trump all other > > conservative issues is Lieberman a good candidate for the > Republicans to > > back. And only if you buy into the liberventionist claim that the > Iraq > > War is libertarian does Lieberman turn into a libertarian. > > > > <><> > > Logan Ferree > > > > Republicans for the Big-Government Guy > > <http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/19/republicans-for-the-big- > <http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/19/republicans-for-the-big-> > government-guy/> > > > > > > Do Republicans still support limited government? Don't laugh-there > are > > still people around who would answer "yes." On this site we've > spent > > plenty of time on Republicans spending like drunken Democrats, > > nationalizing education, expanding entitlements, declaring the > president > > an absolute monarch, embracing Wilsonian foreign policy, and so > on. The > > latest just adds insult to injury. > > > > A lead story > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/nyregion/19conn.html? > <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/nyregion/19conn.html?> > ex=1156132800&en=a6fa5639a3f76d54&ei=5087%0A> > > in the New York Times is headlined, "G.O.P. Deserts One of Its Own > for > > Lieberman." Yes, Republicans are actually supporting the Sore > Loserman > > for reelection rather than their own nominee. More specifically, > > Lieberman is being officially supported by Connecticut's three > > Republican congressmen, Newt Gingrich, and William Kristol. The > White > > House and the Republican National Committee are "staying out of > this > > one." Gov. Jodi Rell and Sen. John McCain are endorsing "the > Republican > > nominee" but not campaigning for him. (His name is Alan > Schlesinger, by > > the way.) Sen. Norm Coleman says, "From America's perspective, it > would > > be a good thing for Joe Lieberman to be back in the Senate." > > > > And that's because Lieberman supports the good old Republican > principles > > of low taxes, less regulation, limited government, and a strong > national > > defense, right? > > > > Well, not quite. He does support President Bush's floundering war > in > > Iraq. But as Robert Novak pointed out > > <http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak14.html > <http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak14.html>>last > week: > > > > Lieberman followed the liberal line in opposing oil drilling in > > ANWR, Bush tax cuts, overtime pay reform, the energy bill, and > bans > > on partial-birth abortion and same-sex marriage. Similarly, he > voted > > in support of Roe vs. Wade and for banning assault weapons and > > bunker buster bombs. His only two pro-Bush votes were to fund > the > > Iraq war and support missile defense (duplicating Sen. Hillary > > Clinton's course on both). > > > > Lieberman's most recent ratings by the American Conservative > Union > > were 7 percent in 2003, zero in 2004 and 8 percent in 2005. > > > > I actually agree with him on a couple of those votes, though I > wouldn't > > expect that conservatives would. The National Taxpayers Union says > > <http://www.ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2005.pdf > <http://www.ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2005.pdf>> that he votes > with > > taxpayers 9 percent of the time, worse than Chris Dodd or Barbara > Boxer. > > > > Only if you believe that continuing to support the war in Iraq > outweighs > > all other issues combined can a conservative reasonably support > Joe > > Lieberman. And apparently a lot of Republicans and conservatives > are > > willing to toss aside his commitment to high taxes, higher > spending, > > more regulation, and entitlement expansion in order to get that > vote for > > Bush's war. > > > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/50836;_ylc=X3oDMTM0b2NsOWVsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI0ODE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDA2MDY4MgRtc2dJZAM1MDg0NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNTYyNTYyODAEdHBjSWQDNTA4MzY-> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJvN2lpYWh2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI0ODE0BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDA2MDY4MgRtc2dJZAM1MDg0NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExNTYyNTYyODA-?act=reply&messageNum=50847> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
