Skip to main content

Libertarians need an agenda, not a platform

Reading Libertarian blogs, watching the fratricidal conflict between the Radical Purists and the Pragmatic Reformers, and keeping an eye on the ever-expanding role of government in what used to be private affairs, I have come to the conclusion that Libertarians need to forget about the damn platform and get to work on an agenda.

Let me explain.

First, reading Australian, British, and Canadian Libertarian blogs I have come to realize a different tone exists among our fellow travelers overseas. They perceive themselves (quite rightly, I suspect) as having already lost the war to the pervasive Nanny State, and they provide a cautionary lesson about what happens when government control reaches a certain "critical mass."

For a selection of no-so-light (as in downright depressing if occasionally quite witty) reading, try these:

Canadian Liberty will lead you through a link to Pierre Limieux's Lost Canadian Liberties, which includes 32 items such as

1) Start a private school.

12) Sell eggs or milk without the state’s permission.

18) Talk publicly about any topic (there are criminal code provisions and “human rights commissions” against certain forms of speech and certain topics).


From Great Britain, the Libertarian Alliance blog discusses the fact that the government has now moved to involuntary organ donation.

The Australian Libertarian Society blog brings us word of intrusive government censorship of the internet, "following the examples of the great liberal democracies like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Burma is a promising start."

What these posts and the others you will find to complement them have in common is that Libertarians appear to have been reduced from a political force to be reckoned with to essentially impotent political and social commentators.

That's not a good place to be, and the shared perception of many American Libertarians, libertarians, and freedom-loving citizens with libertarian leanings is that we're headed down that road as well. Part of the reason that many of Ron Paul's supporters are so passionate--and at the same time so forgiving of (or blind to) his quirks and failings--is that many of them see him as a "last chance" to make a stand against encroaching statism and corporatism.

And in that context it doesn't matter a damn what the Libertarian Party Platform actually says--just like nobody is actually ever going to read the Democratic or Republican platforms, and neither final candidate is going to pay more than transient lip service to it.

What Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, and all the rest have in common is an agenda, a short list of signature items that they each intend to fight for.

The Libertarian Party--except in some states where the local affiliate is an exception [Indiana comes to mind]--wouldn't know an agenda if it appeared out of a copy of Atlas Shrugged and started lecturing the faithful about objectivism.

Here's my current Libertarian agenda. I'm NOT suggesting it as a nationwide or even statewide template, but as an example of the kinds of things an agenda should include. It starts with my personal slogan:

Limited government, combined with maximum personal and economic freedom, creates the atmosphere necessary for America to thrive.

Under the rubric of Limited Government, I want to see:

A) A roll-back of Nanny State regulations that are designed to protect American citizens from the consequences of their own personal choices.

B) A return to a non-imperialistic, non-interventionist foreign policy.

C) A commitment for all governments to live within their means--spending no more than they take in, except for emergencies such as declared wars or massive natural disasters.

D) A principle of resolving inevitable (I cringe at using the word "necessary") government involvement in people's lives at the lowest (most local) level possible. Education comes to mind here.

E) Referendum and Recall at the State level.

What about Personal Freedom? There I want to see:

A) Equal protection under the law for all American citizens (especially including those who are discriminated against based on sexual orientation). Churches sanctify marriages; all the government can do is legitimatize civil unions (for anybody!).

B) A curtailment of the government's power of domestic surveillance, combined with new privacy restrictions on corporations (including health insurance companies) that block the sharing of personal information without a positive (not default) release from the citizen/consumer.

C) A change in emphasis on the use of medication in which the government serves primarily as the provider of information--both positive and negative--about medications, but leaves their actual use up to the medical opinion of our physicians and our own informed consent. Medical marijuana? Of course.

And as for Economic Freedom?

A) A massive simplification of the tax code, with a specific agenda item in that process being the elimination of tax incentives or penalties for engaging in government-approved behaviors. No social engineering!

B) A level playing field for retirement planning: if I have to be shackled with Social Security, then it ought to be good enough for my legislative representatives and all Federal employees.

C) Re-institution of the freedom to fail for corporations. No bail-outs for automobile companies, airlines, or defense contractors!

Now I change from week to week on some of these, but here's my point: candidates and political parties cannot exist without enumerated and aggressively pursued agendas that make sense in the current political milieu.

If American (or Delawarean) Libertarians don't want to look back in a few years and realize that defenders of individual liberty have been reduced to the same social critic status as our brethren and cistern in Australia, Britain, and Canada, then they'd better sit up and take notice.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?