Vindicated: But Not Entirely Happy About It
July 3, 2006
7:33 a.m., MT

From Tom, who has a particularly good Ender's Review freshly up this morning, came word of solid evidence of the LP's meltdown as the party of principle:

Normally, the platform retention vote is merely a formality. This year, however, the majority of the just under 300 delegates voted to not retain a majority of planks in the LP Platform. ....

Ballots have been handed out for the second, confirming vote on the platform retention (i.e., a second chance for the planks not on the above list). There are three hours for voting, and we may or may not hear the results before the convention ends.

No updates as of this writing at the official LP blog, from which that quote was taken.

Yes, it's true—I never was an LP partyarch, never got into the spirit of the let's elect ourselves more freedom ideology ... which will probably lead some readers to infer that I shouldn't be commenting on this development. But this inevitable outcome reveals precisely why I'm unable to support electoral politics as a means of government.

For those who don't like that argument, let's think about it more fundamentally. Have you ever had a meaningful relationship with another person in which you agreed on everything? Seriously, really, deeply agreed? On every thing?

If you're being honest, you have to say no. Each person is different—values things a little differently, frames challenges and problems differently, sees opportunities and solutions differently. Now scale that up by adding just one more person, and things get more complicated, not in a simple additive manner, but in a multiplicative way. Of course, by the time we take this exercise to the level of just a small group of friends, there are so many complexities that there's no way to herd the cats. Most of us are familiar with that saying, but I think many fail to grok its full implications. (I'll leave it as an exercise for the interested reader. Especially since I'm not sure I've accomplished that.)

It took me a long time to realize it, and I think I'm still grokking at deeper levels, but at last I understand that there's no way a group effort will consistently sustain one's liberty, let alone advance it. Certain groups can do a lot of good, make no mistake about that. But if one were to rely on that approach as the primary way of protecting and achieving freedom, one's guaranteeing failure. No group, nor constellation of groups, will—or can—have an individual's interests at heart. (And I'm sure I'm not alone in being unable to fully articulate what all my own interests are at any given time.)

That's why I'm an unflinching advocate of individualism and voluntaryism. I don't join many groups, and haven't—for as long as I can remember—placed a lot of faith in even the ones I have joined. I contribute what I want to them, and get out things of value to me—and that's all. I don't rely on any group to serve all my interests and needs; I rely on myself.

And when I let myself down, it's an appropriate use of my power to call for change, make some improvements ... and try like hell to make sure the changes are improvements.

Sunni

Comments: 9 people have contributed to the conversation

On Monday, July 3rd, at approximately 9:42 a.m. Mountain time, NeoWayland said:

rousing cheer from the sidelines

You go gir!!

On Monday, July 3rd, at approximately 9:58 a.m. Mountain time, Michael said:

Of course you should comment on this! As someone who is, sorta, kinda a "partyarch"...(recovering due crap like this current debacle)...I can say that we need the Sunni's of the world stand outside and comment. The, when the inevitable voice pipes up about not being able to comment we can see who the enema...enemy...really is. Unfortunately, I saw this one coming and have railed against it for some time now, (right up until yesterday when the Reformista pulled off their coup).
The "list" at the LP site is what remains of the platform. What the Reformista will add now is up in the air. Given their penchant for gov luv, tho it won't be pretty. These folks have wanted to federalise all police in this country, go figure. I think the days of the LP are quite likely done, now. While it wasn't possible to "elect ourselves more freedom" there was a possibility (slim) of at least trying to avoid more tyranny. Now, tho? Only time will tell. I think I'll just go and tend my garden...I have some mulching to do!

On Monday, July 3rd, at approximately 10:54 a.m. Mountain time, Sean Haugh said:

The map is not the territory. The platform is pretty much meaningless no matter what it says. What has meaning is what our candidates and other party reps say. For all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on about this weekend's events, I have yet to hear one word about anything put into the LP platform that *isn't* libertarian. That would be my only concern.

Platforms don't get elected or change public policy. People do that. If a platform can help (or not hurt) them, great, but it's not like we're powerless without one.

On Monday, July 3rd, at approximately 11:07 a.m. Mountain time, Warren Bluhm said:

"I have yet to hear one word about anything put into the LP platform that *isn't* libertarian."

Good parsing of words. Key phrase is "put into the LP platform." If I'm reading that blog entry correctly (entirely possible), here are 4-5 examples of things that got taken *out.* What's up with this?

* The War on Drugs is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order, and to peace in the world.

* Until such time as persons are proved guilty of crimes, they should be accorded full respect for their individual rights.

* We favor all-volunteer juries and urge the assertion of the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

* We favor an immediate end to the doctrine of "Sovereign Immunity" which ignores the primacy of the individual, and holds that the State may not be held accountable for its actions.

* We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right of individuals to dissent from government.

On Monday, July 3rd, at approximately 1:03 p.m. Mountain time, Pagan said:

But the LP will still run on SOME platform -- which means Americans will not understand what libertarianism is in 2008, any more than they comprehended it in 1972, when the LP reared its head. And anyone who calls himself a libertarian (little L) will be thrown in the cuckoo pot along with the LP.

The LP has constantly and consistently compromised the meaning of libertarianism for over 30 years. I would expect the Repubs and Demos not to know what they believe; I do not expect that ignorance from something that calls itself “libertarian”.

Jeez, won’t we EVER get tired of having our values defined for us by some two-bit third party that has no moral sense of what it is?
I resent that the LP is the recognizable defining force for libertarianism by most Americans. I suggest we take back the label and challenge the LP to find itself another name, more in keeping with its ever-changing platforms.

On Monday, July 3rd, at approximately 3:10 p.m. Mountain time, SRS said:

People can be moral or immoral, but all organizations are amoral.
The people who start them and join them may have any ideas they like, but the organization responds only to Darwinian principles. The LP or any other organization may accomplish some of the goals we set for it, but only if those who care about those goals continually fight with the organization's inherent tendency to choose its own propagation over everything else.

On Thursday, July 6th, at approximately 2:14 a.m. Mountain time, Sean Haugh said:

SRS, those are wise words, thank you. That's one of many traps of self-importance any party would face.

Warren, the war on drugs plank stayed in. Mostly the ones on social issues survived. We have 2 years to fix what done got broke, and it should include all of the above.

Pagan, you are onto something. One main reasons why I'm not convinced this is a sign of anything is that platforms don't define libertarians, libertarians define libertarians. So you go out and represent what Liberty means to you and that's the message people are going to get. This is anecdotal but in my partyarch travels I have found that most people here in NC have an opinion of libertarians and it's almost always based on how they feel about the first libertarian they ever met. A political party is a means to organize and incite such activity. Or at least it should be.

Whatever you want to do for Liberty is the right thing for you to do. I'm comfortable with the party, others like our gracious host aren't, but the great thing about Liberty is that you are free to choose your own way and they are all good ones. All I'm sayin' is that what happened to the platform in Portland isn't evidence of the correctness or failure of either path.

On Friday, July 7th, at approximately 7:04 a.m. Mountain time, jomama said:

Thus, many Libertarian voters remind me of my children -- they want magic to be real.

And if wishes were pigs, bacon'd be free.

What worries me is that the LP will win some future election and shortly thereafter, the rest of the world catches up to the idea that the gummint is dead.

libertarianism will most likely be blamed then die completely.

On Friday, July 7th, at approximately 7:20 a.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughtful contributions. Sean, you're definitely on to something I've been thinking about a lot lately, and I appreciate that while you recognize our differences, you know that you're welcome to speak your mind here.

Jomama, you had to pick the one line from that essay that brought me the most ire the first time around, didn't you? Heh.

Home
Previous entry: "Bless You, Bill Bonner"
Next entry: "Another Good Idea That's a Bit Too Late"