So Bob Barr got the LP's nomination at their most recent convention. There is a lot of dirt on this man from a libertarian perspective, ranging from his past support for the drug war and actually being the author of the defense of marriage act. Like all political oppurtunists, he has claimed to have changed his position since then in order to appease the demands of his consistuency. Like all political oppurtunists, this does not mean that he is sincere or that he does not still hold to those positions or would not support them pragmatically.
In the two-party system, politicians usually move (I.E. flip-flop or oppurtunistically change their position) towards "the center" in order to get more support. In the libertarian party, politicians usually move to a more radical position (rhetorically, that is) in order to shy away from their blatantly unlibertarian or even anti-libertarian past. In the case of "Big L" libertarians, this is usually in the conservative direction (their past, that is).
To me, this just proves what I've been trying to tell libertarians for a long time: that the movement is being infiltrated by conservatives and that the party is a waste of time that becomes less principled each year. The libertarian party has become little more than a mini-GOP that some old disguntled conservatives have flocked to out of disillusionment with the Republicans and neoconservatives.
On the other hand, with people like Mary Ruwart aside, the closest thing to a libertarian "left" within the party now is Mike Gravel, who isn't even a libertarian at all in the philosophical sense. Not only is the LP being infiltrated by conservatives, but the "left-wing" of the libertarian party is essentially non-existant. Since I'm a "left-libertarian", this makes me dislike the party even more.
While I'm not in favor of the party or political strategies at all, putting myself in a cost-benefit analysis mindset for a moment, Mary Ruwart was probably the best option presented (even though she's been chided by the conservative elements of the movement for her position on/against the age of consent, which really should not be controversial at least within libertarian circles). She did get close at first but Barr moved past her by the end of the convention.
Brainpolice: So Bob Barr got the LP's nomination at their most recent convention. There is a lot of dirt on this man from a libertarian perspective, ranging from his past support for the drug war and actually being the author of the defense of marriage act. Like all political oppurtunists, he has claimed to have changed his position since then in order to appease the demands of his consistuency. Like all political oppurtunists, this does not mean that he is sincere or that he does not still hold to those positions or would not support them pragmatically. In the two-party system, politicians usually move (I.E. flip-flop or oppurtunistically change their position) towards "the center" in order to get more support. In the libertarian party, politicians usually move to a more radical position (rhetorically, that is) in order to shy away from their blatantly unlibertarian or even anti-libertarian past. In the case of "Big L" libertarians, this is usually in the conservative direction (their past, that is). To me, this just proves what I've been trying to tell libertarians for a long time: that the movement is being infiltrated by conservatives and that the party is a waste of time that becomes less principled each year. The libertarian party has become little more than a mini-GOP that some old disguntled conservatives have flocked to out of disillusionment with the Republicans and neoconservatives. On the other hand, with people like Mary Ruwart aside, the closest thing to a libertarian "left" within the party now is Mike Gravel, who isn't even a libertarian at all in the philosophical sense. Not only is the LP being infiltrated by conservatives, but the "left-wing" of the libertarian party is essentially non-existant. Since I'm a "left-libertarian", this makes me dislike the party even more. While I'm not in favor of the party or political strategies at all, putting myself in a cost-benefit analysis mindset for a moment, Mary Ruwart was probably the best option presented (even though she's been chided by the conservative elements of the movement for her position on/against the age of consent, which really should not be controversial at least within libertarian circles). She did get close at first but Barr moved past her by the end of the convention.
Exactly; the LP has more or less reached it's pent-ultimate status as the "hip new conservatism" that will seduce libertarians into joining for the sake of being "more moderate, more approachable, more palatable" to the masses' general tastes. What bother's me more is that many libertarians, and even an-caps, will simply foo-foo such blatantly obvious observations, such as the conservative infilteration & co-opt of the libertarian party & political libertarianism, as being nonsense, furthering forgetting original concepts that are in dire need of attention, but being more than happy to engage in word-soup & political checkers with the statists.Yet another thing politics is managing to ruin, imo.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict:Yet another thing politics is managing to ruin, imo.
Politics ruins everything it touches. Since the LP is by it's nature political, I'm surprised it took so long. I learned some things from my involvement with them, but that's all it was worth.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
What bother's me more is that many libertarians, and even an-caps, will simply foo-foo such blatantly obvious observations, such as the conservative infilteration & co-opt of the libertarian party & political libertarianism, as being nonsense, furthering forgetting original concepts that are in dire need of attention, but being more than happy to engage in word-soup & political checkers with the statists.
What bothers me the most right now is that, according to my observations and personal experience, most anarcho-capitalists are political libertarians. And as you say, they'll foo-foo the radical voices of objection and go right along with the conservatarian mantra. Some of my favorite market anarchists who I consider to be otherwise very good about just about everything, such as Walter Block and even Roderick Long, are political libertarians (although Long is mostly anti-political but was rooting for Mary Ruwart; he clearly still clings to a small kernel of faith in politics as at least an educational mechanism for liberty). I remember a little while ago on LRC when Block wrote a defense of Ron Paul and voting that I found pretty weak and almost downright disgusting. All of this bothers me because you'd think that the anarcho-capitalists would be anti-political at least to some significant extent, but I'm forced to conclude that many function as minarchists in practise due to their heavily political approach to libertarian strategy.
Brainpolice: What bother's me more is that many libertarians, and even an-caps, will simply foo-foo such blatantly obvious observations, such as the conservative infilteration & co-opt of the libertarian party & political libertarianism, as being nonsense, furthering forgetting original concepts that are in dire need of attention, but being more than happy to engage in word-soup & political checkers with the statists. What bothers me the most right now is that, according to my observations and personal experience, most anarcho-capitalists are political libertarians. And as you say, they'll foo-foo the radical voices of objection and go right along with the conservatarian mantra. Some of my favorite market anarchists who I consider to be otherwise very good about just about everything, such as Walter Block and even Roderick Long, are political libertarians (although Long is mostly anti-political but was rooting for Mary Ruwart; he clearly still clings to a small kernel of faith in politics as at least an educational mechanism for liberty). I remember a little while ago on LRC when Block wrote a defense of Ron Paul and voting that I found pretty weak and almost downright disgusting. All of this bothers me because you'd think that the anarcho-capitalists would be anti-political at least to some significant extent, but I'm forced to conclude that many function as minarchists in practise due to their heavily political approach to libertarian strategy.
Indeed, it seems to me that libertarianism itself is becoming increasingly muddled from it's original concepts, and hence, prone to become further irrelevant and/or damaged by these developments.At this point, I would heartily answer Roderick's "dissembling the leviathian" with a strong no, as it seems those attempting to destroy leviathian from the inside eventually become part of leviathian itself.
Brainpolice:Block wrote a defense of Ron Paul and voting that I found pretty weak and almost downright disgusting.
Interesting. The point at which I think I "flipped" from political to starting an inevitable move away from it was when I decided to write a pamphlet for the local LP to distribute about why voting third party was not throwing your vote away. I did it, and made a fairly good argument, I think, but realized after that I felt a little dirty doing it. It took quite a while for that seed of doubt to turn into full-fledged opposition to all politics, but I think that was the turning point. I think, more than convincing anyone that a third party vote was not wasted, I convinced myself - through the exact same arguments - that all voting was thrown away.
It took another, later realization about what voting was costing me to complete the job.
Nitroadict:Exactly; the LP has more or less reached it's pent-ultimate status as the "hip new conservatism" that will seduce libertarians into joining for the sake of being "more moderate, more approachable, more palatable" to the masses' general tastes. What bother's me more is that many libertarians, and even an-caps, will simply foo-foo such blatantly obvious observations, such as the conservative infilteration & co-opt of the libertarian party & political libertarianism, as being nonsense, furthering forgetting original concepts that are in dire need of attention, but being more than happy to engage in word-soup & political checkers with the statists.Yet another thing politics is managing to ruin, imo.
Anybody who is putting all their faith in a political party is in massive denial. A political party can achieve at maximum, a small and insignificant deal of change towards the direction of thier ideal society, and thats if the leaders of the party truly believe in the those ideals and are nothing short of political geniuses. Ancaps have to begin organising outside of political parties and not be shy in saying how MUCH WE DESPISE THE STATE! Lets not kid ourselves this is a WAR. We can't be afraid to get our hands dirty at times, sometimes it's the only way. There needs to be action along with theory.
Infiltrated by conservatives is right; It's amazing, libertarians seem so blind to it. Worse yet, conservative libertarians are becoming more and more common. Scares me, it does.