The Libertarian Party

It occurred to me this morning that I haven't written anything yet which details my position on the Libertarian Party.

First, I will say that any person who views any political party (or anything else, for that matter) as being perfect is a fanatic in my book. That is, every political party has flaws from any point of view, and even people who are loyal members of the party should recognize these flaws. This is my attitude toward the Libertarian Party.

When I first became aware of the Libertarian Party maybe 15 years ago, I was uneasy. I felt, however, that I could support the party as long as there was no possibility of it winning because I thought the Libertarian Party went too far, although I couldn't put my finger on why I had that gut feeling. The country, however, needed, and needs, to be moved in the direction of the Libertarian Party.

One problem of the Libertarian Party is perception. This is true of most political parties, and I'm sure even the Libertarian hierarchy is aware of this. That is, the general public views political parties on a one dimensional scale, right and left. Since the Libertarian Party doesn't always agree with the Democrats, the representative of the left, people assume it must be a right leaning party.

The problem is the that politics is not simply a matter of right versus left. Therefore, the Libertarian Party doesn't fit on this scale. If it were force onto the scale, it would come out as being very much a centrist party.

In fact, the Libertarian Party stands for Liberty. Whether that liberty is in the form of abortion rights, or freedom of speech which would allow a person to verbally abuse a minority. The former position is typically associated with the left, and the latter with the right. This is what I mean when I say the party does not fit on the scale.

Of course, the fact that the general public views the Libertarian Party as being a far right party means that occasionally they will pick up people from the Republican Party who think the party is drifting too far to the left, that is, the right wing fanatics. (I even recall seeing a post on the Libertarian e-mail list that was obviously from a neo-Nazi.) These people are usually uncomfortable with the party, and leave after a short time, as soon as the party starts talking about something like abortion rights.

It has always amazed me that the Libertarian Party doesn't recognize its strong connection with the ACLU. (The Republicans try to pass the ACLU off as a right wing organization, but the is an out and out lie, as anyone who has studied their past understands [for example, their defense of Rush Limbaugh, and David Duke].) In both cases you have organizations that are dedicated to the protection of personal liberties. The Libertarian Party tries to do this by electing candidates who will protect Personal Liberties, the ACLU does this by enforcing the constitutional provisions that protect personal liberties in the courtroom. The goal is, at least in theory, the same, the method of achieving that goal is different.

As I said previously, I initially felt somewhat uneasy about the Libertarian Party, although I couldn't put my finger on exactly why. In recent years, I've realized why.

The libertarian Party goes too far in that in any society, people are members of a community. The Libertarian Party ignores this community. Since this corresponds to the meaning of the Federal Government was initially seen in the Constitution - the community building portions of the government were intended to be reserved for the states - the Libertarian Party has a tendency to ascribe aspects that were intended to be characteristics of the Federal Government only, to the Local governments.

One of the most obvious of these is the Libertarian ideas about education. That is, the founding fathers intended that education should be a State and local issue, therefore the Constitution is silent on the issue, and the tenth amendment says that the Federal Government should stay out of this area. (In recent years, the Federal Government has chosen to ignore that prohibition, but that doesn't mean its not there.) The Libertarian Party tends to project this prohibition to the local level. That is, they take the position that all schools should be local.

It is easy to see this is not what the founding fathers wanted. Thomas Jefferson, who was very active in the founding of the United States, was equally vocal about the need for public education, saying such things as without an education, democracy cannot exist. Also, the flower of intelligence is as likely to bloom for the poor as for the rich, meaning that provisions need to be made for educating the poor as well as the rich.

Note that I'm not freeing the educational system from scrutiny. That is, it is my opinion that our educational system is not perfect, and changes, perhaps radical changes, may be a good idea. But I will support the rights of State and local governments from providing for education of children.

Another example is guns. The Libertarian Party says that people should have unlimited access to unregulated guns. They will use the example of a person in the wilds of Montana, which is legitimate, in that in extremely rural areas (some might call them wild areas) there is a need for people to have a gun, to protect themselves from wild animals, including thieves and other criminals.

However, in the middle of a large city, guns are a problem. The reason is that they are not only used for the protection of personal life and property, but are used for endangering these rights.

If a gun is discharged, the bullet doesn't stop simply because it passes whatever it was aimed at. In a city the probability of hitting someone or something is very high, unlike the wilderness. The guns need to be regulated.

That is, on these issue, they go too far. I could name many other issues. Roads, parks, etc. In each case, the party takes a stand against these public services that is not justified because they ignore the responsibilities people have to the community.

(I have to point out the the Libertarian Party, rightfully, will object to the people who will not take responsibility for their own actions.)

While I tend to have fewer problems the higher up in the political chain the discussion becomes, there are a few issues at even the highest levels. In particular, the Libertarian Party will try to take the United States out of all international organizations. This ignores the fact that we live in an international community. Therefore, we need to attempt to get along with our neighbors, and treaties are the way this is done.

I do agree with the Libertarian stance on international wars. The is, the military of the United States should be to protect the people of the United States, and not to antagonize. Therefore, the military should be pulled out of all countries where it is currently stationed, except the United States. That would make the United States much more acceptable to people in other counties, and would, therefore, cut down on terrorism. Personally, this is an obvious point. No one likes to be looking down the barrel of a gun.

I still find myself thinking that we need to be moving in the direction of the respect for personal liberty that the Libertarian Party espouses, however, I still think they go too far.

Another political party I had hoped could be used to espouse the liberty of the Libertarian party, while not ignoring the community, is the Green Party. But it has its problems as well.