Just give it up already. Those who are holding onto the dream that the LP will be able to wield any significant political, or cultural power have not thought this through. An ideology of non-aggression and voluntary interactions has no place in the political sphere unless they are willing to become like the other two parties. Their message is that we are not like them. It is one of incompatibility when it comes to Machiavellian power structures.
I used to think Pete was just a curmudgeon about this LP stuff. But then at about 8:40 this morning a member of my state’s LP’s leadership committee (or whatever they call it) asked over group text if we should switch to zoom for tonight’s meeting instead of using Uberconference - which is what they have been using. They are still arguing about it.. right now. No end in sight.
I've noticed that a lot of libertarian-minded people, while well-intentioned, have a misunderstanding of how political and social change, at least the kind that moves in a more libertarian direction, actually works. Obviously, there is never going to be a Libertarian government elected to office that immediately says, "Okay, we're libertarians and we're the government now. But we don't believe in government so let's dissolve this whole thing."
It's the same way apocalyptic revolutions always have the effect of creating a more authoritarian government than the one that came before (see Cromwell, Washington, Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, Khomeini, etc.)
Real change in a libertarian direction does happen sporadically, intermittently, and often paradoxically. In US history, for example, we've certainly seen changes in a more libertarian direction in some areas: abolishing slavery and compulsory apartheid, abolishing the draft, repealing Prohibition, the growth of the home school movement, ending electroshock therapy as a "cure" for homosexuality or lobotomies as a cure for mild psychological disorders, etc. But during the same period, we've seen expansions of authoritarianism in other areas, such as the growth of the public administration state, drug prohibition, overcriminalization, the prison-industrial complex, etc. Taxes are more pervasive than they once were but aggregate wealth is also higher.
On an institutional level, we also see changes that create zones of autonomy periodically (for example, the American Revolution's institutionalization of Enlightenment ideas like church/state separation or freedom of the press in the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment ban on compulsory self-incrimination).
On a more macro-level, we also find societies both historically and contemporarily where the levels of liberty are certainly higher when compared to others. Authoritarian institutions tend to evaporate once they lose their legitimacy and popular consent is withdrawn. The collapse of the Communist parties in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is an obvious example.
It's possible for liberty to both expand and contract. Too many libertarians get caught up in "end of history" scenarios where the libertarian "last man" reigns forever. Real change is incremental, sporadic, intermittent, and often paradoxical, cyclical, or random.
Of course, it is possible for civilization-wide paradigm shifts to take place as well. It may be that at some point in the future the consensus of popular opinion will reject the state and other authoritarian institutions in the same way that the Abrahamic religions eventually superseded the older pagan religions or that the Enlightenment superseded Christendom.
But on the other hand, are not the Libertarian party tarnishing our names by being the way they are? I could see it as a good survival strategy to taut the fact that Sarwark and other fuckheads at the LP slandered guys like Tom Woods and Scott "End Every War" Horton as fucking Nazis. I'm also on the side of Konkin tactically, but I don't think I've ever seen eye to eye with the anti-vote mentality. Is voting, even in something as deranged as the LP, going to provide you a political platform to influence policy? Probably not. Seems deranged to even suggest you could change the beast by playing its game. But for all the rejection I have of Liberalism in general, I can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. So long as my opinion is heard at the ballot, I don't have to make it known with lead. In the case of voting, it's one relatively (but not ultimately) peaceful solution I have to try and effect change as peacefully as possible. I don't have to hold out hope that it will actually work, and by the end I need to be ready for the war they will inevitably start and go the Agorist route anyway. But starting something like a Mises Caucus as a means to protect your own image? Seems useful. I don't particularly want to be associated with proto-commies like Sarwark or Nick Gillespie, but it could also somewhat be a defensive posture to utilize whatever platform there is to call attention to the slander and maybe hopefully at LEAST rehabilitate the idea. Ultimately we need to build our own platforms, and even I think the idea is mostly a foregone conclusion. But I'm not terribly interested in stepping on toes of people at least attempting varying tactics that operate within the same general framework as us.
I agree with your assessment of the Libertarian Party, and politics in general. Politics is by nature divisive, and the wielding of political power is an obvious contradiction of the NAP. Instead, I prefer that people work to diminish the power of the State and increase their personal autonomy through education, the development of their individual skills and talents, and by voluntary and peaceful interactions with others.
It is unfortunate that the LP has the word "libertarian" embedded in its name. This can be confusing to outsiders who are unfamiliar with the Non-Aggression Principle as the blood sport of politics is the antithesis of the NAP. Perhaps we need a better name for those guided by the NAP (Nappies? NAPsters?). I generally refer to myself as a "little L" libertarian but also like the term voluntaryist, though that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
For my part, I am focusing my efforts on educating young people, particularly those in high school and college. I am putting the finishing touches on a visual guide to the NAP called the "Beginners Guide to Peace". It can be found at my site https://TheNonAggressionPrinciple.com, a domain I staked out years ago. If you get the chance, please give it a view. Images are an important part of the guide, and if they only skim through the pictures I think that newcomers will get a very good introduction to our philosophy of liberty and non-violence.
The Libertarian Party *is* the swamp.
It’s just the Playskool My First Swamp version.
I used to think Pete was just a curmudgeon about this LP stuff. But then at about 8:40 this morning a member of my state’s LP’s leadership committee (or whatever they call it) asked over group text if we should switch to zoom for tonight’s meeting instead of using Uberconference - which is what they have been using. They are still arguing about it.. right now. No end in sight.
I've noticed that a lot of libertarian-minded people, while well-intentioned, have a misunderstanding of how political and social change, at least the kind that moves in a more libertarian direction, actually works. Obviously, there is never going to be a Libertarian government elected to office that immediately says, "Okay, we're libertarians and we're the government now. But we don't believe in government so let's dissolve this whole thing."
It's the same way apocalyptic revolutions always have the effect of creating a more authoritarian government than the one that came before (see Cromwell, Washington, Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, Khomeini, etc.)
Real change in a libertarian direction does happen sporadically, intermittently, and often paradoxically. In US history, for example, we've certainly seen changes in a more libertarian direction in some areas: abolishing slavery and compulsory apartheid, abolishing the draft, repealing Prohibition, the growth of the home school movement, ending electroshock therapy as a "cure" for homosexuality or lobotomies as a cure for mild psychological disorders, etc. But during the same period, we've seen expansions of authoritarianism in other areas, such as the growth of the public administration state, drug prohibition, overcriminalization, the prison-industrial complex, etc. Taxes are more pervasive than they once were but aggregate wealth is also higher.
On an institutional level, we also see changes that create zones of autonomy periodically (for example, the American Revolution's institutionalization of Enlightenment ideas like church/state separation or freedom of the press in the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment ban on compulsory self-incrimination).
On a more macro-level, we also find societies both historically and contemporarily where the levels of liberty are certainly higher when compared to others. Authoritarian institutions tend to evaporate once they lose their legitimacy and popular consent is withdrawn. The collapse of the Communist parties in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is an obvious example.
It's possible for liberty to both expand and contract. Too many libertarians get caught up in "end of history" scenarios where the libertarian "last man" reigns forever. Real change is incremental, sporadic, intermittent, and often paradoxical, cyclical, or random.
Of course, it is possible for civilization-wide paradigm shifts to take place as well. It may be that at some point in the future the consensus of popular opinion will reject the state and other authoritarian institutions in the same way that the Abrahamic religions eventually superseded the older pagan religions or that the Enlightenment superseded Christendom.
I hate it when you're right, Pete.
Good thing I can watch kitty vids while loading stripper clips.
But on the other hand, are not the Libertarian party tarnishing our names by being the way they are? I could see it as a good survival strategy to taut the fact that Sarwark and other fuckheads at the LP slandered guys like Tom Woods and Scott "End Every War" Horton as fucking Nazis. I'm also on the side of Konkin tactically, but I don't think I've ever seen eye to eye with the anti-vote mentality. Is voting, even in something as deranged as the LP, going to provide you a political platform to influence policy? Probably not. Seems deranged to even suggest you could change the beast by playing its game. But for all the rejection I have of Liberalism in general, I can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. So long as my opinion is heard at the ballot, I don't have to make it known with lead. In the case of voting, it's one relatively (but not ultimately) peaceful solution I have to try and effect change as peacefully as possible. I don't have to hold out hope that it will actually work, and by the end I need to be ready for the war they will inevitably start and go the Agorist route anyway. But starting something like a Mises Caucus as a means to protect your own image? Seems useful. I don't particularly want to be associated with proto-commies like Sarwark or Nick Gillespie, but it could also somewhat be a defensive posture to utilize whatever platform there is to call attention to the slander and maybe hopefully at LEAST rehabilitate the idea. Ultimately we need to build our own platforms, and even I think the idea is mostly a foregone conclusion. But I'm not terribly interested in stepping on toes of people at least attempting varying tactics that operate within the same general framework as us.
Pete,
I agree with your assessment of the Libertarian Party, and politics in general. Politics is by nature divisive, and the wielding of political power is an obvious contradiction of the NAP. Instead, I prefer that people work to diminish the power of the State and increase their personal autonomy through education, the development of their individual skills and talents, and by voluntary and peaceful interactions with others.
It is unfortunate that the LP has the word "libertarian" embedded in its name. This can be confusing to outsiders who are unfamiliar with the Non-Aggression Principle as the blood sport of politics is the antithesis of the NAP. Perhaps we need a better name for those guided by the NAP (Nappies? NAPsters?). I generally refer to myself as a "little L" libertarian but also like the term voluntaryist, though that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
For my part, I am focusing my efforts on educating young people, particularly those in high school and college. I am putting the finishing touches on a visual guide to the NAP called the "Beginners Guide to Peace". It can be found at my site https://TheNonAggressionPrinciple.com, a domain I staked out years ago. If you get the chance, please give it a view. Images are an important part of the guide, and if they only skim through the pictures I think that newcomers will get a very good introduction to our philosophy of liberty and non-violence.
Peace by with you!