Liberty Alone

Its not just the Democrats who’re having an interesting race for presidential nomination. The Libertarian Party is too.

Various factions are up against each other (in what I’m sure is a fairly common scenario).
A lot of this is probably due to the candidacy of Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman from Georgia. I share the view of many that he is not really a libertarian, but more of a small government conservative. The argument in his favour is that he would not be so extreme as other candidates might, but his candidacy is also seen as an attempt of the right to take over the party.

Personally my preferred candidate is Dr Mary Ruwart. She’s an impressively articulate libertarian and makes the left-wing case for libertarianism very very well (that is the policies will benefit the disadvantaged most). I do understand the reformists point, but I think that education and getting libertarian views heard is more important than just getting votes in an election you cannot win…

Mike Gravel is also standing, having left the Democrats, so in celebration of that fact, here’s another bizarre YouTube video from him…

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.