[638] in libertarians
Re: Harry Browne for President
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek Rose)
Sat Feb 11 11:54:24 1995
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 12:02:48 -0500
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
From: Derek Rose <rosed@world.std.com>
>|> >I argue CATO has done more than the LP has ever done.
>|>
>|> Yes, definetely. I interned at Cato in the summer of 1992, and most of
>|> them didn't want anything to do with the LP. (hence, they call themselves
>|> "market liberals" rather than libertarians). David Boaz, Cato's exec. VP,
>
>Well, every time I read about Cato in the newspapers (a lot recently)
>they are described as "the libertarian think tank." Everyone from Barney
>Frank to the Wall Street Journal used this term.
Sure, and that is certainly an accurate description. But they dislike it,
because it associates them with the LP.
....
>This is what I mean. The LP has for years tried to couple itself to a
>certain personal philosophical outlook.
Actually, I'd argue that it's _never_ done this.
That makes it seem like the only
>way you can be libertarian is to be a selfish, individualist, atheist. Good
>luck. In fact, libertarianism predates objectivism by at least 200 years.
>You can be a altruist, Christian, and even a collectivist in your personal
>views and still be a libertarian. The reason is that only ones views on
>government are important. A commune is libertarian if it is voluntarily
>funded, but it is never objectivist. The US is about 85% Christian, at
>least 50-60% fairly well comitted to that. Telling people they have to
>get rid of altruism in order to get rid of welfare is dead on arrival.
I guess this depends on what you mean by "altruism." But take a quote that
appeared on the Globe's Op-Ed page this week: "Food is a fundamental human
need and access to food is a fundamental human right." This is essentially
what I'm talking about: the notion that needs = rights. Most people have
come round from this belief because they've seen the havoc its wrecked, but
they still believe that the state owes people a job, or something. Until
people are dissuaded of this belief, we're going to still have a welfare
state in one form or another.
>Anyway, whenever the LP has tried to reform itself into a more realistic
>party it is the hard liners who stop it. The LP tried to get rid of
>the Pledge and the Platform and essentially replace both with stuff
>essentially designed by CATO (such as the Project Healty Choice, Operation
>Safe Streets, etc.) but were accused of "selling out" by the hard liners
>almost all of which are objectivists.
I would really, really object to the word "objectivist" here. Not only
because no Objectivist organization has anything to do with the LP (in
fact, David Kelley of IOS has done some work for Cato and has written for
Reason, both moderate-libertarian organizations), but really their ideas
are not objectivist; "hard-line libertarian" would be a better description.
Rand's basic point, and one I really agree with, is that while there may be
a dozen different philosophical justificiations for "minarchism" ... you
need to pick one and stand by it! I mean, obviously the LP has no hope for
winning at the ballot box in the near future; the organization's purpose
(as I understand it) is to try and persuade people of the virtues of
small/no government.
But, of course, if you attempt to say that the reason people should become
libertarian because of Randian natural rights, you offend the Christian
libertarians; if you attempt to base libertarianism on "utilitarianism" you
offend those who believe in natural rights; if you say we need a small
state b/c God wanted it that way, you offend the atheists, etc., etc., etc.
So what you end up with are these glib, shallow one-liners that really
won't persuade anyone not half-way committed to small government ideas in
the first place -- but hey, at least you preserve party unity, right?
>
>The funny thing is that more an more the country is libertarian but
>there is no political wing for it because the hard liners refuse to
>allow it. IMHO the GOP is joined at the hip with the religious right,
>and the Dems are in total disarray. A moderate libertarian party
>would soar right now no matter what it's name was.
>
Actually, though, a number of GOP pols already fill this role, more or
less: Weld, Guilani, Riordian, Whitman, etc. ... hardly people who are
indebted to the religious right.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Vernon Imrich | market failure, n. The inabilty of the |
>| MIT, Dept. OE | market to recover from a blow by |
>| Cambridge, MA 02139 | intervention. (The Exchange) |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>| MIT LP: http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/libertarians/home.html |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Derek Rose rosed@world.std.com
