The Libertarian Party
It seems that some disaffected libertarians are trying to start a Libertarian Party.
Its interesting that this is being started, especially given the Libertarian Alliance’s position of not starting a political party, a position which was also the position of the winning Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize essay.
One of the main reasons for this rejection is that it is bound to result in internal strife. Libertarians tend to be rather a fractious bunch, despite a common commitment to individualism and self-ownership, they differ a lot in opinions and tactics. Its not just between the anarchist and the minarchist, its between agorist, geolibertarian, Rothbardian, Friedmanite (that’s David Friedman not Milton), mutualist, natural rightists and utilitarians and many many more. The LA seems to attempt to be a home for all sorts of libertarian, a political party on the other hand will become the home of one particular view, or descend into eternal squabbling.
I, for one, am not contemplating jumping ship, even if the party had some success. I agree with the aim of reducing government, of holding abusers of power to account and restoring our civil rights, but the Liberal Democrats offer the latter two and the first is well within our scope (if its not focussed on today), and the LibDems offer a far better platform for these ideas.
The vision is then sullied by anti-EU jingoism and militarism. These both leave a nasty taste in my mouth. They are too pugilistic. The EU has many faults which we should be addressing, but I still find the EU-nihilist view too extreme for the moment (perhaps I’m too optimistic about the possibilities of reform), the militarism - well, I agree the government treats our troops abysmally, but to place them at the centre of policy seems a bit much and rather like national willy waving. (Of course, some minarchists would argue that legal system and military are the only purpose of the state and so they would naturally be at the centre of policy).
I think this new party, if it gets up and running seriously, will just be just like the libertarian wing of UKIP, some good ideas, but with a strong reactionary right wing element. I suspect it will also serve to drag down the name of libertarianism even further into the quagmire of right wing slurs from which it suffers.
I’ll watch with interest, but I don’t hold up much hope.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Tristan,
You raise some very valid points, particularly about the diversity of opinion that is labeled ‘libertarianism’.
However, this should not be seen as a reason to ignore the potential benefits implicit in the creation of a national political party. After all, we are all unique human beings, and unanimity of thought is simply not possible in any walk of life. In this regard - and hopefully this regard alone - the Libertarian Party will be similar to all other parties; providing a suitable environment for a diversity of thought and philosophy.
I am also well aware of the LA’s long-standing embrace of the approach posited by many libertarian thinkers in the 20th century - to adopt the tactic that worked for socialism/Marxism; attempting to slowly win the ‘intellectual’ debate. I agree that this is a valid approach, but there are others; forming a political party being but one. Whilst there is a general lack of awareness of even the term ‘libertarian’ in our country, anything that may help change that is, in my mind at least, all to the good.
Finally, I’d ask that you do not prejudge what values we might be espousing, and what policies we will be putting forwards, on the basis of Ian Parker’s posts. Ian is obviously enthusiastic about the prospect of the party coming into being, but he is not an official spokesman, and his comments reflect only his personal view of what he hopes that we might be standing for as a party.
You say that you’ll watch with interest - please do. When we officially launch early next year, you’ll be able to make your own mind up about where we stand, based on the facts.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I doubt that the new libertarian party will gain much support. But the bright side is that it is likely to gain more support from the Conservative Party and UKIP than from Liberal Democrats.
BTW, strange that they have the “UK” part in their domain. Libertarians usually are republicans, and I would have expected that such a party would have prefered for instance the form “British Libertarian Party” to “Libertarian Party of United Kingdom”.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Out of interest what label is best for referring to Ayn Rand and her followers? I object to using the term Objectivist, obviously.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Anonymous: This country is the United Kingdom - I assume they hold the option to campaign in Northern Ireland, which is not part of Great Britain.
Republicanism is not a prerequisite for libertarianism either, there is no reason not to have a monarch if they limit themselves (some libertarians even take the view that a benign monarch is better than a democracy…).
Joe:
Randroids? Or being a little more polite Randians…
December 6th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
“This country is the United Kingdom”
I know. But could you imagine a party called “United Kingdom Republican Party”?
“Republicanism is not a prerequisite for libertarianism either, there is no reason not to have a monarch if they limit themselves”
Not in theory, but in practice I can’t imagine a monarchist libertarian (a real libertarian, I mean.) It is true that monarchy can be limited to a purely nominal role, but why would such consistent people as libertarians content themselves to it?
“some libertarians even take the view that a benign monarch is better than a democracy”
I don’t consider Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his followers libertarians, whatever he calls himself. If he says, that a sovereign wouldn’t have a motive to limit the liberty of his subject, I wonder where were all those benevolent sovereigns of the history who didn’t limit the liberty of their subjects in any way? His reasoning has always had large holes, and he definitely isn’t a libertarian, either.
Actually classical liberalism was born to oppose the unrestricted power of sovereigns, and people like Hoppe, who have forgotten this, have forgotten the raison d’être of classical liberalism and of libertarianism as its descendant, and don’t deserve the name of “libertarian”.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
BTW, Ayn Rand and her circle called themselves (meant to be ironic, but perhaps nevertheless more apposite than they understood) “The collective”.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Anonymous: The Prince of Liechenstein is an example of a libertarian monarch. I agree that the idea is almost an oxymoron, however; the “enlightened despots” may have embraced the Enlightenment, but they were still despots!
I am surprised that the Libertarian Party want to associate themselves with a Nation State, however.
Joe: You may “object to using the term Objectivist”, but are you being objective when you do so?
On a general note, I doubt that LPUK have any hope of making progress. There are dozens if not hundreds of political parties out there and only a handful avoid losing their deposits. UKIP works because by poaching votes off the Tories is forces them to respond. LPUK is never going to attract enough votes.
This is partly because libertarianism just doesn’t appeal to the British. On the one hand, it is an alien name and up to a point an alien concept. OTOH, the British may be a bit too pragmatic to be drawn to a party that would be philosophical in orientation.
If they manage to raise their profile at all (and they will probably be completely ignored by the media) it’ll be interesting to see what they say and do, and what the reaction is.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:19 am
“The Prince of Liechenstein is an example of a libertarian monarch.”
I have the understanding that Liechtenstein isn’t libertarian in every respect. Anyway, even if the monarch is relatively liberal or libertarian, that might change in the next generation.
I was thinking about the “enlightened despots”, like Catherine II of Russia and Frederick II of Prussia, who were in correspondence with Voltaire and wanted to convince him that they were enlighted, but in the end it was just a lot of words. Frederick II of Prussia for instance forbid Immanuel Kant to publish his religious views in “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”, which Kant therefore didn’t publish before Frederick’s death. Just the first example that I can think about, but there are more.