Why I am not a Libertarian
About 4 years ago I was discussing local politics with some of my high school students when one of them asked me “why can’t we get a decent government here like in the United States so more people can be prosperous?” You see, Dominican politics is just plain dirty from top to bottom. That’s not to say that American politics isn’t partially rotten too, but in some strange ways with a $13 trillion dollar economy we can afford to be. Or at least we don’t see the ugly results of any corruption on the personal level that many Dominicans do on a daily basis (more on this in future posts). Anyway, I spent the next few minutes explaining that if you expect the government to make you happy, you will be waiting for a long time. Most Americans are prosperous because our economy, for the most part, provides an abundance of opportunity for just about everyone, and the government has little to do with it.
This was one of the Libertarian Party’s (LP) messages that appealed to me the most; that government should ensure that there exists a level playing field, to the best of its ability, and then stay out of business and people’s private lives. What’s not to like about that? So, I registered as a member of the LP and voted Libertarian whenever I could. There were three reasons why I eventually decided to “drop-out”.
- Although I agree with the idea of very limited government, the LP is unrealistic if they think there is any chance whatsoever of reducing the size of government as much as they’d like to. The IRS, Department of Education, DEA etc. are not going anywhere anytime soon. Can and should they be drastically reduced? Yes, but campaigning on the promise to completely abolish them is kind of like campaigning on the promise to deport all 12 million undocumented immigrants, it just ain’t gonna happen.
- Second, the LP does a terrible job of shaping its own image. Ask the average person what they think of libertarians and they are likely to describe them as drug-legalizing nuts. Again, I actually agree with much of their stance on our current drug policy (and will blog about it soon), but they have let that one issue define them, like Republicans and their obsession with Roe v. Wade (or same sex marriage) which is so strong that they will let that single issue determine their support for a candidate at great cost elsewhere.
- In addition, and perhaps the final nail in the coffin, is my support of universal health care for all American citizens. I’ll never give it up and the LP will never support such a policy.
Ron Paul has some great ideas and, honestly, knows more about foreign policy and terrorism than any other Republican candidate, but he’s perceived as a complete loon. Mike Badnarik was a reasonably articulate candidate in 2004, but his vice presidential candidate, Richard Campagna, has a PhD in metaphysical theology (whatever the hell that is) from an unaccredited paper mill and is an existentialist nutjob. This does not help a party that wants to be taken seriously. Hey, I got ordained online through Universal Ministries as a legit reverend, but I’d never put it on my resume unless, of course, I need some evangelical support. Hey, it’s working for Huckabee.
Anyway, that’s it. Now you know Why I am not a Republican, Why I am not a Democrat, and Why I am not a Libertarian, and why “I dropped out”all together. Comments, criticism, and questions are always welcome.
Popularity: 16% [?]
About the Author: Randall H. Miller is an American educator/blogger. He is also a former U.S. Army officer (82nd Airborne) with a Master of Arts in Diplomacy (focusing on International Terrorism). Use the form on the right to sign up for the "Friday Morning Fix” and other timely updates.
on
Scooter Trash | Feb 12, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
I became a member of the Libertarian Party when the newsletter was published on chemical-scented purple memeograph paper and hand addressed and stamped. That dates me. I was active within the Party locally, and hosted Andre Marrou and Harry Browne during their Presidential bids. Harry Browne is a person I greatly look up to, and the author of How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, a fine read.
But I, too, became disappointed in their lack of progress, and determined it was based on flaws in their philosophy and implementation of their vision.
Classic Libertarianism is based on the premise that all men are reasonable, and reasonable men act in a rational way for their own pursuit of their form of happiness. Well, men are NOT reasnable, and clearly do NOT act rationally. Therefore government exists to establish guardrails; the more irrational the collective individuals, the more narrow the guardrails, and government, populated by unreasonable men, gets to determine what “irrational” means.
Additionally, the LP believes in “all or nothing”. Ron Paul is an excellent example of this. LP members want ALL their platform implemented at one time, or they don’t want any of it. “Incrementalism” is not in ther vocabulary. And, yes, drug legalization is on the quick lips of the majority of the party faithful.
I will remain a libertarian by philosophy, but no longer accociate myself with the LP.
kenzadm
| Feb 12, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
“About 4 years ago I was discussing local politics with some of my high school students when one of them asked me “why can’t we get a decent government here like in the United States so more people can be prosperous?” You see, Dominican politics is just plain dirty from top to bottom.”
This comment doesn’t have much to do with the libertarian party, but more with what you used as an introduction. I mentioned in class today that it is partly our fault that the government is as bad as it is. When people in the US (or Canada, or in Europe..) largely disagree on something, they write letters, they march, they protest. Here we say “Que mal” and move on. I recall two current event articles you gave us lately: one about the higher pay in July for government officials and the other about how the senators here earn 2,000,000 pesos a month (250 more than the average Joe). While YES, it is incredibly unfair, we also just read it and shrug it off as normal life that can’t be changed. The only people that seem to protest here are the publicos - and look how quickly the government changes their mind when they do. Don’t you think that if the population did the same thing, we could have a much more democratical, less corrupt government??
Mike | Jun 20, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
Well, Randall, considering yours and my masters came from a paper mill in the most Libertarian friendly state in the U.S. - coupled with the fact I am a total cynic - you can imagine what my feelings are when it comes to Libertarians. I think you describe people who subscribe to their theories best….well intentioned loons. And not too sound judgmental - but - the candidates are usually of the unabomber ilk…….geniuses…..but socially inept cabin dwellers. That and they never comb their hair - but that is just a “me” thing. Is that catty of me?
RHM
| Jun 20, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
Norwich University a paper mill! Bite your blasphemous tongue, Mike!
The unabomber has more social skills than some of the main-stream Libertarians.
On a side note: do you really think Vermont is Libertarian? In my limited experience there I recall that native Vermonters were a reasonably conservative group, but the state gets a Liberal reputation from all the Massholes who moved up there to be at one with nature.
Dabney Braggart | Jul 2, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
Libertarians, I think, are in love with both the idea of freedom and a simple algorithm for letting us all be more free. I don’t think simple algorithms capture or fit the wide weird swath of human behaviours and motivations.
In particular, the libertarian insistence that negative liberty is the only type that exists. (You should probably implicitly add the words “in our heads”, since none of “liberty”, “equality”, “fairness”, “security”, “liberty”, and so on exist anywhere but in our heads, and since our heads are different…..)
I am much freer being taxed higher than otherwise and living with the possibility of unemployment compensation. I would feel even freer if I were taxed even more (which would raise my marginal rate to ~50%) but my health-care and basic survival needs were guarantied. These political constructs make (or would make, respectively) dealing with my boss a hell of a lot less scary; they reduce his power over me, but he’s not that much better-off and most of my cow orkers are better-off as well. I’d like all budding entrepreneurs to have something like the same advantages (e.g., monetary support for life pretty much guarantied) that Wm Gates III enjoyed—_I_’d certainly be more willing to take risks under those circumstances….
Other people (e.g., my boss) may object to these trade-offs, because they have a different opinion of the relative values of other freedoms, or because they’re hurt somewhat by them; that’s what democratic politics are about. We’ll probably always end up screwing up too much in one direction or another, but at least we won’t be hiding behind the fiction that it’s Not Our Fault, it’s just how the Market works out, so . (It’s a fiction because people who support rules should be held partially responsible for the game those rules produce, regardless of the abilities of the players. Every game we set up would have losers, so we should be willing to establish mechanisms for helping them or (Herbert- or Randroid-like) say that they deserve everything they get, which at least costs us looking like arseholes in public.
Dabney Braggart | Jul 5, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
Duh:
“he’s not that much better-off”—>”he’s not that muc worse-off”