A Libertarian Tomorrow Begins Today!

Published on July 28, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

(author's note: the article below was copied and pasted from my own forum post on a Libertarian message board.)

Believe it or not, the federal government over the last four years has given us as Libertarians an incredible gift. Because of their continued violations of individual liberties, they've given us common ground with many Americans who are disgusted with a "nanny state", and they've given us wonderful opportunities to initiate discussions with those who may be teetering on the fence between a choice for the LP, "independent" status, or either of the "big two" parties. In any objective evaluation of platform positions on individual liberties, the LP obviously emerges the big winner.

The question, then, is what we DO with the opportunity we have been given.

As an amateur historian, I believe we are at a political crossroads. My personal opinion is that Rand will be viewed as influencing the 21st century to the same extent that Marx influenced the 20th (although in a positive direction, unlike the negative direction of Marxism). If one watches the growth of libertarian ideals and principles, it's easy to see a parallel to encourage us along those lines. Our ideals have already begun to influence prominent columnists such as Walter Williams, and we have made inroads among the Republican Party (The Republican Liberty Caucus is an example of this).

But if we are to move forward, we must act, recruit, and encourage our fellow party members to act and recruit. I personally believe that our commitment should extend as far as ensuring that our party dues are paid up, and evaluating whether we can afford to contribute more to the party than we are already contributing. We should also set personal recruitment goals to complement the party's recruitment goals; we are, after all, the ones who can be instrumental in the success or failure of such goals.

I have personally set forth goals for myself and the county organization, and encourage others to do the same. If each LP member recruited one new member per year (with the recruited members doing likewise), we would have somewhere around 350,000 party members by November 2008. Imagine the impact if we DOUBLED that.

If every one of us set aside $30 a month towards the 2008 Presidential race(less than many of us pay for cable TV), then we would have over $1000 apiece to contribute to the Libertarian candidate. If every person who voted for Michael Badnarik in the 2004 race were to do that, that would give our presidential candidate a "war chest" of nearly half a billion dollars; easily enough to place them among the "serious players" in the race. Going further, we could up our commitment to $50 a month, and apply the additional $20 to local and state races. It may represent a financial sacrifice on your part, as it does on ours, but in the end, you should ask yourself what price you are willing to pay for freedom.

There's a tendency to forget about third parties between presidential election years. As a party, we should not let that happen. We should be active, visible, and speaking out at every opportunity...and we should take advantage of the low voter turnout of "midterm" elections (such as 2006) to put leaders who CAN and WILL make a difference into elected office. I would also encourage anyone who can to attend state conferences and conventions (such as the conference scheduled for September 16-18th of this year), but, as one who may be unable to attend due to a number of potential conflicts, I realize there are many among you in the same position. That doesn't change the fact that it is still in our best interest if we are able.

Yes, this also involves an intense TIME commitment on all of our parts, but again, we must ask: What price are we willing to pay for freedom?

Comments (Page 1)

kingbee

on Jul 28, 2005

good situational analysis and an excellent call to arms (or wallets).

two things occured to me while reading this. if you haven't yet read andrew stern's (the president of the service employees intl union) explanation of why the seiu and teamsters split from the afl-cio, you might wanna do that. hopefully this link will work, but if it don't, try googling 'Unions reinvented' and his last name. Link

i could be wrong but i think there may be more areas of common ground than differences between the neo-unionists and the libertarians.

the second thing is after reading the title, i couldnt shake the tune of that 'tommorrow belongs to me' song from 'the producers'.

bakerstreet

on Jul 28, 2005

How do you think the Libertarian party will gain the kind of support you are talking about as long as they keep advocating drug legalization? Do you think that the stolid adherance to that ideal is worth the votes you lose because of it?

I know it falls in the 'liberty' theme, but it is a political reality that parties that advocate drug legalization don't win. Don't you think? Abortion is another problem. Many of the old-school Republicans you might otherwise woo are going to balk at voting for a party that opposes them on such a touchy issue.

To me, building a new party requires building a coherant movement, a consensus of the disenfranchised. Do you really think that the platform of the Libertarian party will ever really represent enough people to be competitive? As much as I'd like to think it is about dollars and exposure, most people I talk to know of the Libertarian party, and don't migrate because of such issues.

bakerstreet

on Jul 28, 2005

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but it's hard to get my head around a Libertarian convention. NRA, anti-big government Republicans mingling with legalize pot, anti-war folks mingling with anti-tax, fiscally conservative, morally Liberal Democrats.

It just seems like an umbrella that would shelter a butt load of fistfights...

Leauki

on Jul 29, 2005

I think you completely overestimate both Ayn Rand and the value of her "Objectivist" philosophy (which is NOT Libertarianism as she was fond of explaining).

Most people don't even know her. And many of those who do are not impressed by a few novels where heroes who don't act but merely make decisions command great power in a phantasy world.

But it is likely that if her philosophy will influence the 21st century as much as Marxism influenced the 20th, Randists will see the influence as a positive one, just as Marxists see Marxist influence today.

And perhaps the world will even gain advantages comparable to those brought about by Marxism, perhaps a Libertarian equivalent of workers' rights or some such thing; I don't know.

But to live in a world commanded by those who have an extremist view towards property rights, one way or another, is not a dream of mine. Whether the state owns everything (and cannot be democratically controlled) or some land lord who can legally own, say, all the land in a region (and thus control production) is of no particular importance.

I would like to live in a world where what nature provides is controlled democratically and what individuals provide is controlled by these individuals. And that is, I believe, exactly in the middle of the two extremes.

bakerstreet

on Jul 29, 2005

"I would like to live in a world where what nature provides is controlled democratically and what individuals provide is controlled by these individuals. And that is, I believe, exactly in the middle of the two extremes."

Urm, that would leave us where we are at, wouldn't it? I mean, the government controling the land we supposedly own. You assume that because you use the word "democratically" we'll have some say. And we do. The "We" just happens to be private business interests.

Moderateman

on Jul 29, 2005

sounds like the LP is ready to go mainstream, BUY elections just like the dems and reps.

bakerstreet

on Jul 29, 2005

The problem is many gun control opponents aren't going to donate money to a cause that supports abortion and drug legalization, and most of them aren't going to financially support people who oppose gun control and social programs.

The Libertarian Party is an odd fit for most people.

Leauki

on Jul 29, 2005

"Urm, that would leave us where we are at, wouldn't it? I mean, the government controling the land we supposedly own. You assume that because you use the word "democratically" we'll have some say. And we do. The "We" just happens to be private business interests."

Yes. That's pretty much correct.

I'd only want a few changes to get closer to my ideal place. For example if use of land and other natural resources as well as pollution (which is, in a way, also a use of a natural resource) was taxed and income and property (that is personal property, aka stuff) were not, the guiding principle would be exactly what I mentioned: natural resources would benefit everyone (users would pay a tax that benefits everybody else) and one's own labour would benefit oneself (since no other man has any claim to it, I think).

And apart from the principles involved, this would also lower rents and encourage productivity.

bakerstreet

on Jul 29, 2005

If the government can "redistribute" land and natural resources for the public good, the natural resources "benefit everybody", and we're taxed for using the land, do we really own it? I can see no incentive for owning land in such a system, unless you are working magnanimously for "humanity" or something.

If you take the benefit from land ownership, and allow the government to "manage" land ownership, then is there really any point IN land ownership?

Leauki

on Jul 29, 2005

"If you take the benefit from land ownership, and allow the government to "manage" land ownership, then is there really any point IN land ownership?"

Perhaps not. But why should there be?

Why is it desirable for land ownership to be an asset?

Leauki

on Jul 29, 2005

"If the government can "redistribute" land and natural resources for the public good, the natural resources "benefit everybody", and we're taxed for using the land, do we really own it?"

BTW I did say "tax" land ownership, I did not speak of "redistribute", even though you put the word in quotes. Redistributing land is a concept you brought up, not I. Please remember that when you address my point, should you decide to do so. Thank you.

bakerstreet

on Jul 29, 2005

"Why is it desirable for land ownership to be an asset?"

I think the value is so fundamental that it is hard to put into words.

I mention redistribution because that is the enevitable end of the government managing land to "benefit everybody". The quotes were a bit snide, sorry. The recent Supreme Court decision allows state and local governments to do just that.

If every piece of ground was equal, and we all lived in tents, I could see your point. Instead, we invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in homes, built upon land that ranges in value from peanuts to astronomical.

How difficult will it be to, say, get a loan for $250,000 to build a home in a nation where the land can be taken away at a governmental whim? What would a $250,000 house that could be levelled by the state on a whim be worth?

Land ownership creates security creates the value. Without ownership, frankly, it has no value.

Leauki

on Jul 29, 2005

"I think the value is so fundamental that it is hard to put into words."

I find that most things so fundamental that it is hard to put them into words are really not fundamental at all. They are often beliefs without reason, things one simply believed and never questioned, and the result of indoctrination rather than individual experience.

"How difficult will it be to, say, get a loan for $250,000 to build a home in a nation where the land can be taken away at a governmental whim?"

Again, you spoke of redistribution, not I. You are creating a straw man, I think, and you don't even realise it. You have come closer than ever before to doubting something you have always believed in and are looking for arguments to confirm the belief and reject alternative theories. Hence the straw man you accidentally created.

I did not speak of "governmental whim", I did not propose that government take land away from people, I spoke of taxing land ownership and using the money to benefit everyone. The idea is that since nature provides some resources for free, and since no man has anything to do with the availability of these resources, why can one man have a greater claim to them than another, why should not everybody profit from the existence of these resources equally?

If land ownership, use of natural resources, and pollution are taxed, the money could be used to fund government (and thus benefit everyone). That's not the same as taking land away at a whim. People are already taxed. The difference is that I want to tax the use of natural resources rather than the production of goods. It is because I believe that natural resources are for everyone while produced goods are for those who produced them that I think that the first must be taxed and the second must not.

Leauki

on Jul 29, 2005

"Land ownership creates security creates the value"

And that statement is plain wrong.

The value of a piece of land is not based on anything its owner does with it. It is based ONLY on what OTHER people do near it. It is location that makes land valuable, it is demand for the land that makes it valuable. The land itself, not created by man, does not contain any value except the value created by demand.

Imagine two identical houses. Both owners have invested the same amount of money to create exactly the same buildings with exactly the same features.

Now for some reason somebody else happens to pay for a street (income tax payers, probably). And the street just happens to be located so that the one house benefits but not the other.

And the house thus becomes more valuable, not because of what it is, but because of where it is. It is not a property of the house, but a property of the location, of the land, that makes it more valuable.

It is not the ownership of the land that created the value.

It is the street.

bakerstreet

on Jul 29, 2005

No, sorry, I have no idea where you are coming from with any of this. You can't divert this by crying 'straw man'. Imminent domain is the direct result of government "managing" our property. I don't have to disprove your idea, the Supreme Court did about a month ago.

The line

"The value of a piece of land is not based on anything its owner does with it."

is shamefully false, as anyone who has made improvements to land and resold it for a profit, or had to PAY HIGHER TAXES ON IT AS A RESULT could tell you.

You're the one making the strawman, since these are economic TRUTHS, not vague ideas. If you can't own the land, the land has no value, since nothing you put on the land has any permanance. Who would invest a year and $250,000 in a house that can be snatched away and levelled to make a mini-mall by the local government a year later?

Government "management" robs land of any security, and therefore any value. Only land that is of no use to anyone commercially is secure, since it can be taken for commercial purposes. If you think this is a strawman argument, it is because you have no clue what the results of your policy would be.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!