Sounds like the same, stoned puffery that turned me off of the LP. It’s also utopian to think 100% liberty is possible.
For [insert diety of choice here]’s sake, government by it’s nature is the antithesis of liberty. To govern means to set up and enforce rules. Rules limit liberty. So yeah, 100% of governments violate liberty in some degree.
It’s hairbrained statements like these that prevent the LP from ever being taken more seriously than the Green party. Jeez.
|
| |
Written By:
Sharp as a Marble
URL:
http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
|
Good luck getting a response from the LP. I don’t think they’re particularly interested in logical consistency in the party platform.
Have you seen LP director Joe Seehusen’s reply to Bill O’Reilly’s joke that he can’t tell the difference between a Wookiee and a libertarian? This guy has no sense of humor. |
| |
Written By:
Brian Martinez
URL:
http://cluebyfour.livejournal.com
|
Well, National has already responded...by asking me to ask a State representative. So, I’m waiting for that response.
I actually saw that Wookie thing this morning. Amusing. Bill O’Reilly, naturally, remains ridiculous. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Well, National has already responded...by asking me to ask a State representative. So, I’m waiting for that response. Then they’ll ask you to speak to a local representative. He’ll, in turn, ask you to find a libertarian in your neighborhood and ask them. That one will offer you some cookies and a hit and mention you should take it up with national. |
| |
Written By:
Sharp as a Marble
URL:
http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
|
This is exactly the kind of crap that caused my state to repudate the platform of the national party a few years back. There is whispers of some movement of authority up top, but I’m skeptical... the LP Washington State has just undergone some major shifts in authority, and I have great faith in Ruth Bennett, but who knows if that is going to happen at National.
I always found it amusing that Cato was founded to preserve the intellectual purity of libertarianism by a group of disillusioned Libertarians, and now Cato advocates private savings account while the national party abjectly refuses to consider anything BUT full privatization.
Someone needs to give National a poli sci 101 class... |
| |
Written By:
Travis Thomas
URL:
http://www.uwlibertarians.org/
|
A charitable reading would suggest that this is the core of the LP Foreign policy.
The ’Issue’ refers to intervention by the US government. It would be best if they continued this assumption through the piece to make it clearer. It is a formula that is carried out on the entire platform, though.
The ’no government’ line seems to me to be a ’let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ kind of argument. It is denying the US goverment the moral authority to do something even if it seemed the best thing to do.
Whether or not any of this is realistic is left to the reader. |
| |
Written By:
anomdebus
URL:
http://
|
What is wrong with "revolutionary actions" to restore lost rights?
Does this sound familiar:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." |
| |
Written By:
James Babb
URL:
http://www.JamesBabb.com
|
What is wrong with "revolutionary actions" to restore lost rights? What’s wrong with it? Well, I suppose that depends on your own value system, but on a practical level it means permanent revolution, since no society in history has ever had unanimous agreement on the proper nature of government. In the absence of that—and adopting as legitimate a doctrine of "revolutionary actions to restore lost rights"—you would never see the end of revolutionary action.
Even the Founding Father’s neither objected to an imperfect government, nor created a perfect one. The LP demands a perfect government, which is just a ridiculous demand in a pluralistic system. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Interesting discussion, and not unlike the discussions about incrimentalism we’ve had recently.
A few points, however, off the cuff, and in no particular order;Until a global triumph for liberty has been achieved, we support both political and revolutionary actions by individuals and groups against governments that violate rights. Hmmm. Cuba, for example?
That slight snark aside, Jon’s quite correct that such actions against the United states are implicitly supported by the LP, in this document. And I suppose that kind of absolutism isn’t unique... we’ve seen evidence of such here, and had a few knock-down-dragouts over it.
I suppose, reluctantly, that this wording was to prevent arguments about incrimentalism within the party.
(Chuckle) Even without this, can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would happen had the United States been removed from the list of rights violators? We’d hear no end of speicifc anicdotal instances, owever well documented, proving that the US was a violator of rights... enough to make the left stand up and cheer, I’ve no doubt.
Jon:but on a practical level it means permanent revolution, since no society in history has ever had unanimous agreement on the proper nature of government
Which, in turn, brings to mind Jefferson’s quip about a revolution every ten years or so.
Marble; Your comments, while (alarmingly) accurate, strike a discord. The situation you’re describing is endemic to any large org, and to governments in particular. |
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
"government by it’s nature is the antithesis of liberty"
You have a strange definition of liberty. While I agree that govt can hinder liberty, anarchy results in far less liberty than responsible government. For example, the ability to walk around outside without risk of being waylaid by bandits, invaded by foreign countries and the like. Government, and yes rules, are neccesary to ensure liberty.
"The LP demands a perfect government, which is just a ridiculous demand in a pluralistic system."
Is it any less ridiculous in a non-pluralistic system? |
| |
Written By:
Tito
URL:
http://
|
"The LP demands a perfect government, which is just a ridiculous demand in a pluralistic system."
Is it any less ridiculous in a non-pluralistic system? Not particularly, Tito.
In a non-pluralistic society, it would, I suppose, be far easier to get people to agree on a definition of "perfect government". |
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
Mr. Henke,
If you look at the platform, you will see that the statement in question is listed in the section four, titled "Foreign Affairs".
Given that it is listed under foriegn affirs, I submit to you that the context of the statement is in regard to foreign governments.
Especially, when you consider the obvious fact that the LP has never engaged in "revolutionary action" in the 30+ year history of the party, and also the fact that the LP has each of its members sign a pledge stating "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."
|
| |
Written By:
smallgovisbest
URL:
http://
|
|
It is indeed so. I signed a card with that pledge on it. So the statement about revolutionary action is quite confusing; a clarification is indeed in order. |
| |
Written By:
IO ERROR
URL:
http://www.ioerror.us/
|
|
Basically, they’re advocating (by implication anyway) global permenant revolution. Sound familiar? |
| |
Written By:
Beck
URL:
http://INCITE1.blogspot.com
|
Is it any less ridiculous in a non-pluralistic system? Well, in a non-pluralistic system there is at least a chance that one view can predominate and the government will be perfect for him, anyway. A non-pluralistic system means "no compromise necessary". Naturally, there will be millions purged unhappy. It’s not a system I advocate, which is why I find the LPs utter rejection of a pluralistic system very problematic.Given that it is listed under foriegn affirs, I submit to you that the context of the statement is in regard to foreign governments. Indeed, I thought of that, but the statements were rather clear about the principles. The LP supports "revolutionary actions" against "governments that violate rights"....and the United States violates rights. It’s consistent with their moral premises, but the inevitable result of such a premise is advocacy of revolution in the United States, and—indeed—permanent worldwide revolution.Especially, when you consider the obvious fact that the LP has never engaged in "revolutionary action" in the 30+ year history of the party, and also the fact that the LP has each of its members sign a pledge stating "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." Presumably, if it came down to it, they’d either have to 1) renounce the clear language of the statement I cited, or 2) claim that force was initiated against US citizens by the government. I suspect that they’d do the former, but they very clearly believe the latter.
Ultimately, I think the premises of the LP are incorrect, and I think this is an example of that. I ask, because I want a clarification—I’d like to find out who is wrong. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
You have a strange definition of liberty. No, I am talking about pure liberty. The freedom to do as you please. As if you were the only person on the planet.
And I totally agree with you that some government is necessary. But the fact remains that to govern through any means, be it force or consent, means removing some form of freedom. And, unlike the LP, I am ok with trading some for the other because it’s reality. Just like you said, anarchy provides me less security. |
| |
Written By:
Sharp as a Marble
URL:
http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
|
Perhaps one assumption many of you are making is that foreign policy needs to mirror domestic policy. For the LP, this is obviously not the case.
Seriously, you guys are giving no quarter on the possibility that at worst it is just bad wording.
Have at them, but at least give them an out by suggesting they can clarify it if that is not what they meant.
I also happen to think "governments that violate rights" was an attempt to avoid having to spell out each category of abuse deserves revolution.
I agree with the neo-libertarians more than the LP, but this is the sort of in fighting that makes the LP unbearable. If you want to be a realist and make compromises with groups that agree with you on certain principles, you are probably going to be able to use the LP to this end. Therefore, it is probably counterproductive to be unneccessarily antagonistic towards them.
I could go on or clarify, but I have limited time today. |
| |
Written By:
anomdebus
URL:
http://
|
Have at them, but at least give them an out by suggesting they can clarify it if that is not what they meant. You’re right, and that’s precisely why I wrote to them asking for a clarification. (I’m still waiting)
My problem with the LP centers on their dedication to what I think are untenable principles and premises. This is an example of that, but I’d be happy to hear that it’s unintentional and that it will be clarified. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Perhaps one assumption many of you are making is that foreign policy needs to mirror domestic policy. For the LP, this is obviously not the case.
Seriously, you guys are giving no quarter on the possibility that at worst it is just bad wording.
Have at them, but at least give them an out by suggesting they can clarify it if that is not what they meant.
I also happen to think "governments that violate rights" was an attempt to avoid having to spell out each category of abuse deserves revolution.
I agree with the neo-libertarians more than the LP, but this is the sort of in fighting that makes the LP unbearable. If you want to be a realist and make compromises with groups that agree with you on certain principles, you are probably going to be able to use the LP to this end. Therefore, it is probably counterproductive to be unneccessarily antagonistic towards them.
I could go on or clarify, but I have limited time today. |
| |
Written By:
anomdebus
URL:
http://
|
Dear Mr. Henke:
Thank you for your kind question on the meaning of revolution in the Libertarian Platform, or more appropriately the Libertarian Policy Discussion Platform. Your inquiry came across my desk this evening, and I would be happy to share some information on the subject as I’m presently involved in evaluating many Libertarian programs around the world and in US. Please note that the US Libertarian Party only authorizes the US Chair to speak on its behalf as a whole, and that rarely; and otherwise encourages questions to be sent at the level of local community Libertarian affiliates. This decentralized approach has been better at directing people to applying the non-coercion principle in local action where they can better see for themselves.
I presume the question is somewhat rhetorical, as your site seems to have no difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of revolution in context as in its ad next to the same post where you ask the question i.e. a promotion for the book "Third Revolution."
The Libertarian Platform (Executive Summary) on Human Rights states:
"Human Rights
We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights against governments or political and revolutionary groups."
In the Policy Platform each plank has several sections so it operates as a policy definition and project management/action guidance document from issue definition, principle at hand, general solution, to generalized (or sometimes very specific) transition action items currently underway ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml ). The controlling "Principle" is as follows:
"The Principle: We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups. Only private individuals and organizations have any place speaking out on this issue."
In the "Transition" area is the item to which you refer as controlled by the preceding statements. These Transition items indicate allowable transitional tools depending on the circumstance. Read in context it is clear we support both regular political action such as voting, and revolutionary action such as strikes and civil disobedience—and in particular the formation of Libertarian parties and groups abroad. Where the actions are tyrannical in the individual case (e.g. rape by a police officer) or the general (e.g. censorship by the army) condign action e.g. up to limited armed resistance may be appropriate and is in fact a civic duty if one desires rule of law. Part of that process, however, is making clear to opponents that one is not morally disarmed should the problems be moved by them to become a matter of a tyrannical takeover.
As a political party dedicated to non-coercion and developing voluntary, non-governmental alternatives, the practice of the Libertarian Party has been to frankly acknowledge that no current government by other parties is very moral and one of our tasks is to prevent otherwise inevitable chaotic and coercive revolution. The means for this is the spread of Libertarian ideas and tools. This refelects that the other parties are of necessity reactive, we are proactive as a movement. One useful example is the fall of the Soviet Union. While the then Bush government sent communiques offering solace to the Communists, Libertarians and pro-Libertarians had been active in the government there for some time and were actually organizing both civil and armed resistance in the streets. Other examples are the Libertarian-led mass resistance that toppled the Fujimori Government, and the recent election of the pro-Libertarian Prime Minister of Mongolia whose election resulted when he cancelled his appearance at a recent libertarian conference to lead resistance against a threatened communist coup. Generally, there are Libertarian parties, institutes and groups in over 100 countries advancing Libertarian ideals.
While the section deals with foreign policy, the US Libertarian Party understands that the existence of an armed citizenry prepared to overthrow a tyrannical government is sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment, and has in part been key in changing thinking about this fact, making e.g. gun rights again intellectually respectable. More to the point, over the years we have communicated effectively to those elements who are less freedom loving within the Democratic and Republican parties that we will politically oppose any attempt at tyranny on their part as effectively as we’ve encouraged freedom lovers elsewhere. In my experience—and as a Libertarian in office over the years, plus one who has been involved in Libertarian work abroad I’ve spent quite some time in coalition building and developing solutions with non-Libertarian leaders—they often very much appreciate that someone is willing to stand for the concepts behind the Bill of Rights. This sort of discourse has been key in changing thinking in these organizations. By making clear what we are prepared to do politically—and more importantly, what we recognize as a citizen’s right to do—our counterparts are in my experience clearer on the futility of what they are tempted to try. In general, in the case of the US Government, it’s problems are generally systemic and not the result of the machinations of one group, hence the condign solutions must be systemic, and if revolutionary should in general not involve violence, and certainly not the initiation of force or even force incommeasurate to the situation by any individual or revolutionary movement. Such would also find itself opposed by Libertarians.
Finally, as a practical and everyday matter, the Libertarian Party certainly encourages people to not wait for politicians in Washington to mess things up further and then assume that they must elect someone to cure the problem. They can help foreign policy to the local and personal level through the means available, such as the Sister-City program, supporting bringing foreign students to Libertarian conferences, PLAN international, involvement in second-track citizen diplomacy, demanding that the Democratic and Republican governments cease their "pragmatic" support of dictators so local Libertarians can do their job, and so forth. At all points this sort of Libertarian direction action which solves the underlying problem should be compared to e.g. the coercive and self-enriching policies of the current governments and their bloodshed of innocents, and one should appropriately choose.
I hope this information is helpful, and thank you again for your inquiry. Intelligent individuals such as yourself and your readers who are willing to take the time to create and participate in media such as blogs to examine public issues are what will prevent violent revolution from coming again to our shores. For a popular article that I wrote reviewing the subject, please see: http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/war_weaponbeyond.htm
Sincerely,
Michael Gilson-De Lemos
Program Committee
Libertarian National Committee
|
| |
Written By:
Michael Gilson
URL:
http://www.TheFreedomWorks.org
|
|
In other words; go not to the Libertarians for counsel, for they will say both no and yes. |
| |
Written By:
Myopist
URL:
http://
|
That’s right Myopist, and they will use no fewer than 3000 words to say it.
For the sake of the liberty movement, the LP must die.
|
| |
Written By:
Undertoad
URL:
http://cellar.org/iotd.php
|
Mr. Henke,
If you don’t support revolution to restore lost rights, by what method should they be restored? What should the founding fathers done differently. I don’t wish to get into a battle of dueling logical fallacies with you.
You seem uncertain of the role that revolution can play in politics, so I want to know what it is that you DO advocate in its place. |
| |
Written By:
Maurice Reeves
URL:
http://www.mauricereeves.com
|
I presume the question is somewhat rhetorical, as your site seems to have no difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of revolution in context as in its ad next to the same post where you ask the question i.e. a promotion for the book "Third Revolution." Well, "we" don’t ask the question in the ad. We merely accept the ad. Their verbage and definitions are entirely their own business.These Transition items indicate allowable transitional tools depending on the circumstance. Read in context it is clear we support both regular political action such as voting, and revolutionary action such as strikes and civil disobedience—and in particular the formation of Libertarian parties and groups abroad. I don’t see any particular differentiation between various kinds of "revolutionary actions". Indeed, since even LP members could not agree on a precise set of laws for a perfect government, there would have to be an endless revolution, as every conscientious libertarian threw off the tyranny of a post office, a standing army, or planes flying through people’s aerial property.
The problem with blanket support of "revolutionary actions" when rights are violated is that, in any system in which people disagree, it necessarily ends up in endless support for revolution. Can you see how that’s problematic?...the condign solutions must be systemic, and if revolutionary should in general not involve violence, and certainly not the initiation of force or even force incommeasurate to the situation by any individual or revolutionary movement. Such would also find itself opposed by Libertarians. I’m certainly glad to see that you see it that way, but I’d be happier with a clarification from somebody authorizer to authoritatively comment at National LP. So far, they have simply referred me to a local Chair, whose email address has bounced back my message. I’ve tried again, and I’ll try national again, too. I’d like to see an in-platform clarification that the LP recognizes *degree* of violations of their principles, and condemns "revolutionary action" out of size with the degree of the appearance of tyranny. There’s simply no firm indication that they intend that, and the logical end of rigid libertarian principles unavoidably does reach that conclusion.
I very much appreciate your comment, but I find the plain language of the platform troubling. I’d hope that the LP would move to clarify it. Declaring revolution acceptable for any violation of rights is simply an unsustainable political philosophy.
|
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
If you don’t support revolution to restore lost rights, by what method should they be restored? What should the founding fathers done differently. That’s a good question, but there’s no definitive answer. I didn’t say that I don’t support revolution. There are clearly instances in which revolution is justifiable. (whether it is morally justifiable depends entirely upon your own value system) I think the FFs were correct in their circumstances, but we often think that of revolutionaries because they actually won.
Ultimately, I think it’s better to drop the language of morality in the matter, and adopt a more utilitarian language. Will revolution best fulfill your ultimate ends? Then, you might be able to justify it. Others, naturally, will disagree. Such is life.
In this case, I find it objectionable that people would seriously consider a revolution in any country in which they perceive rights to have been violated. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
That’s a good question, but there’s no definitive answer. Wherein lay my entire argument with you in another thread. Nice to see it stated flatly. You object to the revolutionary, but even when pressed, you have no practical method in mind by which the revolution can be supported.
And I’m not even going to try to untangle your earlier comments from this:Ultimately, I think it’s better to drop the language of morality in the matter Rather, I’ll simply let it hang there. |
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
You object to the revolutionary, but even when pressed, you have no practical method in mind by which the revolution can be supported. The issue in question in that post was terrorism, Bithead, not revolution. Don’t obfuscate. Intentionally killing innocent non-combatants is simply not justifiable.Rather, I’ll simply let it hang there. Good. You do that. I’m uninterested in carrying on a conversation with you on the positive merits of terrorism. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Investigate history, Jon... and tell me one revolution, where the revolutionaries could not be called ’terrorists’.You do that. I’m uninterested in carrying on a conversation with you on the positive merits of terrorism. I note a similar conditional disinterest in talking about morality.
So be it.
Just don’t be thinking it slipped by, unmarked.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
I’ve thought ever since I signed that "non-initiation of force" statement in...I suppose ’78 or ’79 that it was too cute by half: How many libertarians believe that the government hasn’t already done the initiating? Hence any violent response would be just that, a response rather than initiation.
I think the statement, which I think was a way of making it clear to both members and the suspicious public that the LP is a peaceful political party rather than a bunch of bomb-throwers like the Weather Underground, is meaningless so far as it defines libertarians’ response to government.
I think a more interesting debate might center on at just what point ought reasonable and responsible people use force against their own government? How seriously must rights be violated, and how difficult must peaceful political change need to be before violence is justified? What criteria do you use?
I don’t know how bad it needs to be- it is not a fine line but a huge grey amorphous one.
I had the misfortune to spend the Fall of 1975 in a small mountain village east of Beirut, just as the Lebanese civil war got going in earnest, and I’ll tell you, anybody who has been thru the real thing is going to be pretty damn outraged before they put their families, themselves, and their neighbors thru a revolution. A lot of reasonable people are going to choose to get out of the area rather than participate in a revolutionary process which can result in their own families being gang-raped, dismembered alive, castrated and thrown off of roof tops alive, or to their own families participating in such barbarities.
We all have the right of self-defense, including revolution. I don’t think we need to give that up in order to make clear things in America, or any other country, need to be extraordinarily bad before we think it appropriate to excercise that right. |
| |
Written By:
Tom Bosworth
URL:
http://wudndux.blogspot.com/
|
