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.

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.

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”.

Joe:
Randroids? Or being a little more polite Randians…

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”.

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.