POST SCRIPTS

I would like to see more libertarians get out there. I agree with many of their positions. I consider myself to lie somewhere between libertarian and Republican. Which is why I consider myself to be a "Conservative Republican".

I think the libertarians have done an incredibly poor job in getting their message across by allowing their entire platform to be consumed by their position on narcotics.

I undertand their undelying principles, and agree with them in large part, but they need to emphasize the right things to work their way into the public arena.

Politics is not just about how you feel on issues, its being able to convey your message in such amanner that it resonates with the public, and I think the libertarians have failed thus far, but are showing marked signs of improvement.

Either way, I admire their positions, and enjoy discussing topics with libertarians, I certainly hope that the party gets a better PR guy or gal.

our numbers are small and each of us only have so much time to devote to politics.

I applaud your dedication and sincerity. Politics, especially at the federal level, is a very tough game. It costs a lot of money, it requires a lot of experience and a huge commitment from anyone who expects to compete successfully and win.

After 25 years the Libertarian Party has failed to make significant strides...this should give you a clue. If you want a voice go ahead and keep your Libertarian ideas and join one of the two major parties so that your vote counts. Each party has a basic platform. In any given year you will NOT be happy about something...but 90% of something is better than 1%..or less of something once in a great while. Mostly you get a bag of losing votes.

Press your principles within a party and take satisfaction in being a voice for your ideas where they can be heard...if not implimented.

Just because we believe strongly in the "rightness" of something, doesn't mean we will get our way...that's life.

I would be very interested to know:

What makes choosing one of the two parties so difficult or distasteful that a person would throw away their vote? Anyone?

I think this is a great quote from Edmund Burke concerning political parties and associations:

"It is not enough in a situation of trust in the commonwealth, that a man means well to his country; it is not enough that in his single person he never did an evil act, but always voted according to his conscience, and even harangued against every evil design which he apprehended to be prejudicial to his country. This innoxious and ineffectual character, that seems formed upon a plan of apology and disculpation, falls miserably short of the mark of public duty. That duty demand and requires, that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated. When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect, it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it. It is surely no very rational account of a mans life, that he always acted right, but has taken special care, to act in such a manner that his endeavors could not possibly be productive of any consequence.

Edmund Burke
"Thoughts on the Cause of our Present Discontents"
(1770)

Libertarians live in a bubble. "They can take care of themselves, thank you very much," but they are not all there is to society, and this they cannot comprehend. And so, for all their fervent belief ... they CANNOT take care of themselves. Talking to them gives me a headache.

And the fringes do not throw away their votes. They vote their convictions, and being in the minority, they lose. But they preserve their integrity, which is no small thing.

Thankfully, we live in a county where you can be in the minority and live, more or less, unmolested. Praise be to the Goddess.

Libby.

I think you’re right Nick that the Libertarians have done an �incredibly poor job of getting their message across�. Yes, many vocal members of he Party have mainly talked about narcotics. This has led a lot of people to think that is what they are all about. They have also done a bad job in publicizing the fact that their new platform has only one small section on the War on Drugs and covers a _lot_ of other issues. If you are interested, it is at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml . Over the many years that I have been a small “l� libertarian I have not chosen to be a member of the Libertarian Party. As you are probably aware, Republican Congressman Ron Paul is a staunch libertarian. One of my heroes, Nobel Prize winner, Milton Friedman, referred to himself as a small “l� libertarian and a large �R� Republican.

Some of the issues that concern me and a lot of the less “vocal� libertarians are about preserving our individual freedom (and the personal responsibility that goes with that.) What seems to be happening is an increasingly rapid loss of our freedoms which are being taken by the various levels of government. To me, the greatest threat is socialism and totalitarianism. As long as the government grows more powerful and finances this by taking more and more of our earnings, we are losing.

I have the impression that you are quite knowledgeable on our founding principles and the distrust our founding fathers had for big government. I think we were very lucky to have such a brilliant group of truly patriotic persons to found our nation. It may be my prejudice, but it seems to me that Jefferson et al were a very libertarian group. At any rate, libertarians believe that you—not the government—should decide how to run your life, checkbook, retirement, education and family.

I’m not sure how to get this to resonate with the public. They don’t seem to be concerned about their personal liberty. They seem to focus on (and vote for) having more and more government programs to “fix� things.

That duty demand and requires, that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated.

This says to me speak loudly and clear of that which is wrong...to defeat, or right, said wrong requires that you are actually in the game. That means you will sometimes lose, but hopefully will return to fight again...and again...to victory.

When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect, it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it.

This is a powerful statement...do what works! We must situate ourselves "with effect" or the point is mute...and possibly dishonorable. Thanks Nick.

Libby you are right...they vote...and lose...but they do effectively discard their votes in the process because they have not really aspired to win. Voting is not the game...enrolling people behind your ideas is the game...why play at all if you cannot move toward the goal?

Welcome back Libby,I hope you'll stay for a while.

I see you have started off with the assertion that Libertarians cannot take care of themselves. Interesting, no proof offered of course.

Please explain what is more to society in your opinion. I for one appreciate the fact that Libertarians believe in personal responsibility and liberty.

America is about options, one of those options is failure. As far as I can tell you seem to think that generosity and assistance must be mandated by government to succeed. I come to that conclusion, because I know of NO libertarian who has ever suggested that helping your fellow man is a bad thing. They do make a powerful point when they suggest that government isn't very good at it, and that it would be accomplished with greater efficiency if handled at the community level.

Perhaps this does not apply to you Libby, but I know too many liberals that seem to think that social engineering is the sacred function of government. That if someone suggests that maybe they shouldn't be paying taxes to support people on welfare, they are cruel and lack understanding of how society works. Maybe they simply feel that it isn't the governments place to redistribute wealth. Mabey they already donate to far more efficient charities, and don't like the government wasting money that they could be spending to help their community.

Do not be too ready to jump to the conclusion that Libertarians "don't get it", because they don't subscribe to your brand of conventional wisdom.

I was interested to hear, Nick, that you also have great admiration for Milton Friedman. Personally, I think that single handedly he (along with his wife) may well have done more to advance the cause of liberty in our time than scores of activist movements, politicians and even the Libertarian party. In a speech to the Cato Institute, he referred to himself as a (small “l�) libertarian and a (large “R�) Republican. Even though the (large “L�) Libertarian party has been around for over 25 years, it’s still pretty small. On the other hand a _lot_ of people who have been libertarians for longer than that. I have observed that a lot of folks agree with Milton Friedman’s ideas and approach. However, there are certain small groups of libertarians who are quite vocal about single issues and way out causes. There are also some who are “libertopians�, who insist on all or nothing. They don’t seem to have any inclination look realistically at steps on how we get from A to Utopia. Milton proposed and fostered a lot of changes to make progress in the right direction.

Moving on – I’m not sure you and I disagree very much on the several of the issues you mentioned. I tend to be too concise in my comments and don’t always fully explain myself. Examples: Not clarifying earlier about small “l� vs. large “L� libertarians. Not pointing out that I feel there’s a difference between using the word “life� and “human life�.

• Illegal narcotics – You raise a good point “I do not believe that our country could survive such a change with the current welfare and medical system we have. Those things would have to change first for me to support legalizing drugs.� It is a sad situation now when our government is in effect encouraging irresponsible drug use by requiring free medical care and even classifying them as “disabled� so they can draw all kinds of public assistance. Some people assume that drug use would go up if the didn’t have the “War on Drugs�. This may not be the case if we eliminate the huge mob of drug dealers out there who, because of the big profits, are salesmen trying to get people hooked. We seem to have been pretty successful in reducing use of the drug nicotine in our society. Also, in the case of the drug called alcohol, I don’t think the use went up that much when we ended prohibition.
• War in Iraq – yes, there are a lot of libertarians and web sites that are against the war. But, I know a lot of us support what the America trying to do there. Because the antis tend to be a lot more vocal, I don’t know how the percentages stack up. At this point, I am dismissive of anyone who is “against the war� but offers no credible alternative plan. Regarding the refrain, "supporting the troops, but not the war", I haven’t heard this from libertarians. It’s a phrase that is a bunch of crap (whoops, should I say disingenuous). It seems to be mostly mouthed now by the rabid anti war protestors after they got shamed for vilifying our soldiers as well as America and war.
• Abortion – Previously I stated “we should have a law addressing the issue of when human life begins�. Also, you referenced “abortion IS the (as CATO called it in his post), "the systematic destruction of innocent human life." It seems to me that there is a religious issue here. That is when is there a human life, not just life. I must confess that I’m confused about this because some religions say at conception, some not until the last trimester and some don’t even allow contraception. Is a birth control pill ok? Is the morning after pill ok? When is a human being’s life being taken? Even if this is a tough thing to figure out, it’s important and so we need define it legally. There is no more important, legitimate function of a government than to protect human life. I feel pretty well versed on a lot of issues, but this is not really one of them. I’m sure there are any number of people out there who more qualified to discuss this. For instance, what’s a woman’s take on this? I’d like to know what Tina thinks. (Nick, you mention a post by CATO – where is that?)
• Conscription – I think libertarians are universally against the draft. It seems to me that the volunteer soldiers we have now are doing great and are more professional and effective than back in the days of the draft when I was in the service. I do want to mention a military /militia idea from Switzerland. They have an interesting way for all citizens to contribute to the defense of their country. At age 18 every able male is required to serve a period of paid military or other public service or pay a tax. Then, after that, they keep the firearm and container of sealed ammunition at home to be used only in the event of a national military emergency. They can mobilize the whole country in 12 hours. That ought to make an aggressor think twice.

Finally, I do believe that libertarians and Libertarians, when elected, will stick with their principles to work towards a smaller, less “taxing�, more constitutional government. An example that comes to mind is person named Maurice McTique who was responsible for a huge amount of downsizing of the New Zealand government. He became the head of bureaucracies and his goal was to drastically downsize them and in some cases eliminate them. One example was when took over one, it went from 17,000 employees to 17. You might be interested hearing him. One of his speeches “Rolling Back Government: Lessons from New Zealand� is available over the internet to listen to or download the file mctigue.mp3 at http://www.uccs.edu/~csgi/mctigue2004august.shtml . So it can be done and it has been done.

Thankyou Nick for all your great insights and the work it must have taken.

Cato's comments were in the post "New Interrogation Methods Cause Uproar"

Abortion: On this point I believe that scientifically, "human life" begins at conception. The reasons I would give for this are the following:
1. We determine species by genetic code. At the moment of conception you possess all of the genetic code you will ever have, there by determining your species, in this case human. I know of no scientist that would claim that a fertilized egg is anything other than living since inanimate objects cannot produce life. There for at the moment of conception, and not before, begins what we would scientifically classify as "Human Life"

2. As far as conscription, I agree that it should be an absolute last resort, but it is never the less necessary.

I completely agree with you about the Freidmans'. I also think that Thomas Sowell is a great voice of economic reason. I have learned a great deal from both of their writings.

I must admit, that if the Libertarian platform was "pro-life" I would probably be forced to come to the conclusion that I have more in common with the Libertarians than modern republicans on many issues.

Thank you for sending me that link, I will be very interested in looking into it.

Thanks again Mike for the info.