Libertarian Party 1972 - 2008: Rest in Peace.
Posted May 29th, 2008 by lastmovement
output
It is with a heavy heart that I report the death of the Libertarian Party. It was only 36 years old — far too young to die. And while there is some dispute over whether the death was self-inflicted or murder, the death itself was tragic and sad.
Once billed as “The Party of Principle” those principles were sold down the river. On Sunday, May 25, 2008 the principles were abandoned, and the party was last seen gasping for air
before expiring.
This author watched 30 years of his life pass before his eyes — wasted. Having been a candidate and supporter of the party since 1978 what I saw ended any respect I had left for the LP.
Far Right Republican congressman Bob Barr was nominated for president and the loudmouthed, huckster, Wayne Root, an “odds maker” from Las Vegas, traded with Barr in order to become his running mate. They brought to the LP the sort of backroom deal-making once only seen in the larger, corrupt parties.
It is true that the principles did not die easily, however. On the first ballot conservative Barr was leading libertarian Dr. Mary Ruwart by just one vote. On the second ballot it was dead even. On the third vote Ruwart was in the lead. And then the “behind-the-scenes” deal of the two neocon infiltrators was announced.
http://waronyou.com/2008/...
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I'm not a Libertarian Party
I'm not a Libertarian Party libertarian but I'm wondering, you've been fighting for 35 years, now that the threat has come to your backyard, why try to run away? This is what they want to do but (this is my opinion) why not stay and fight them? I thank you for your years of commitment but I'm just wondering, why roll over and play dead now? The thing I've noticed is that the reason why the Republican and Democratic parties are so corrupt is because a group of Neos (Liberals and Conservatives) took over and the ones in charge before didn't put up any resistance (and if they did I bet you it was meaningless). But if you put up a fight and give them a dose of their own medicine, anything can happen and you can beat them. I'd be leaning towards being a Pragmatic Libertarian if I had to choose (but when I started voting, I was an independent-leaning Democratic voter). I'm sure that there are very good Pragmatic Libertarians in the LP. I had a feeling that Barr would get the nomination (beause of the media coverage and some name recognition) but was hoping that Ruwart would get the VP nomination so that way Barr could be held more accountable to the LP.
Publicity matters when your goal is spread the message.
The only practical purpose of the LP at this stage, even at 35 years, is to promote the message of liberty and to move the nation in the direction of more liberty, and away from less liberty. If that means nominating a relatively new convert whose conversion is questionable because he is relatively well-known and most likely to get attention for the message, so be it.
The same things were said about LP and Ron Paul
When Republican Ron Paul was nominated by the LP as their presidential candidate back in the 80s, similar doubts were expressed about Ron Paul as are now being expressed about Bob Barr.
It could be that Barr's conversion to libertarianism is genuine. Only time will tell.
But given that Dr. Mary Ruwart supports the right of children to "choose" to engage in sex, including sex for pay, I don't see that they had much choice.
The concept of ADULT consent is a cornerstone in the foundation of libertarianism, and most people recognize that minors are not capable of this consent, and that guardians must be responsible for them. That Ruwart does not get that basic concept is a deal breaker for me.
"When Republican Ron Paul was
"When Republican Ron Paul was nominated by the LP as their presidential candidate back in the 80s, similar doubts were expressed about Ron Paul as are now being expressed about Bob Barr."
Oh really? Are you saying that in the 1980s, Ron Paul voted to nullify the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights?
Ruwart sex issue: Red herring, irrelevant to this discussion.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Reference link to Ruwart's position on child sex "rights"
Link: http://www.reason.com/blo...
Who cares? This would only
Who cares? This would only be potentially relevant if Ruwart was the nominee.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Many, or at least some,
Many, or at least some, libertarians also feel the best way to ensure the well being of children is to leave it up to the their parents. Whatever possible good might in some specific corner cases come from getting government involved, will be thoroughly outweighed by the horrors governmental involvement will inevitably bring along.
Not saying this is Mary Ruwart’s position, though.
Separate issue
That's a separate issue.
Whether a child can consent or whether it's up to the parent is one issue, and Ruwart seems to say the child should trump the parent. If the child "agrees" to have sex in the making of a pornographic film, for example, Ruwart seems to be okay with it.
Whether the state has a right to trump the parent, particularly in the case of child abuse, is a separate issue. Personally, I believe protecting rights, including protecting the rights of children to not be abused, even by their parents, is the only legitimate function of government.
And who would then protect
And who would then protect children from abuse by their anointed protectors, the state?
Unless you take the hard line, and give complete sovereignty to children, in practice the issue becomes whether parents or the state has the final say in how a child is treated. Not that there’s anything inherently wrong in taking that hard line.
Hear hear!
Hear hear!
Yeah, they chose the WORST
Yeah, they chose the WORST year possible to finally nominate a sell-out. I'll never go back to the LP as a registered paying member now. Might as well donate to the Republican party (which isn't going to happen). From now on in every congressional and presidential race I'll just vote for Ron Paul if there isn't anyone running who will stick to their principles.
Hell, a Britney Spears/Paris
Hell, a Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ticket would have been better than Barrf/Rot2008.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Not trying to break the somber mood
at the funeral, but there must be some good people left in this party. Why don't they come and join forces with Ron Paul. This is so beyond parties at this point. Dem, Rep, Lib, Con, Green, Black, Blue; they have all been taken over with the same people. We need to focus on people not parties if we are going to take our country back. Why are people saying they want the same things but they are stuck on a party? I really don't get it.
EXACTLY. It's time to get
EXACTLY. It's time to get people who will OBEY THE CONSTITUTION.
predictions about the LP are premature
I've seen this prediction around the web and it's rather premature and sophomoric at this point. I've been skeptical of the Barr conversion since he joined the LP, but there was a point where I 'converted' back in the 70s, so I'm willing to see what happens with his campaign - prove it to me Bob. I was hoping for a Ruwart/Kubby ticket - oh well. Delegate deals have been happening at the LP conventions for as long as I've been watching - nothing new there.
At Least We Are Getting
plenty of examples on how to avoid getting neo-conned.
Damn, they're sure a persistent bunch. They're like daggum cockroaches. We just gotta just keep squashing 'em.
No joke.
Neo-Cons will sneak in and double knot your shoe laces without you even knowing it. Then by the time you realize what's happening you are already falling on your face.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
----------------------------------------------------------
We can all say what needs to be done, but who here led by example today?
Okay With Me
Barr's wrecking the LP? Fine, those punks just get in the way if they actually try to be serious. We need a revolution, not another meaningless third party. R.I.P., indeed.
Well, it makes it easier for
Well, it makes it easier for the REAL Ron Paul Third Party to succeed if they swear dung all over their own faces and alienate everyone. We need to distill the non-GOP votes in the Revolution down to one Third Party.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
We need to become the NEW 2nd Party
because the GOP is imploding. Our attempt to put the 'conservative' back in the Republican Party with the Ron Paul campaign only served to cause a bigger divide between us and the Neo-Cons. Funny thing about them - it seems like most Americans hate them, yet most politicians want to be just like them. Hmmm... These are interesting times...
The LP is not dead yet.
The LP just shifted from a "purist" strategy to a "pragmatic" strategy. The LP's radical libertarian rhetoric has fell on deaf ears for over 35 years. The LP has no choice but to try something different like Bob Barr pragmatism. I disagree with pragmatism on Ayn Rand Objectivist philosophic grounds. But pragmatism is the only way to fix problems that pragmatism created.
This is a good article related to my point:
http://www.nolanchart.com...
oh Orwell1984
I forgot to put you on the Barrrrrffff troll list until you reminded me.
and shame on you for using the Great George Orwell's name and book! Just change your name to Barr2008
wroooooooooooong Just as
wroooooooooooong
Just as creating more liquidity to fix the problems that were created by too much liquidity to begin with doesn't work, neither is the advocation of pragmatism to fix the ill effects of pragmatism going to work.
A crack head starts having withdrawal. What's the answer to help the person......more crack???? That MUST be what you are smoking to think that Barr, who has yet to answer any of the questions the Revolution sent him, who has picked a VP that has openly stated that Ron Paul is weak on defense and weak on the war on terror, and who donated to that traitor Lieberman, will be anything but one big fat stake in the heart of the LP.
I have to agree with you,
I have to agree with you, and with the original post --- with the Barr/Root ticket, The Libertarian Party has shot itself in the foot at least, if not slashed its wrists. Both of those "gentlemen" STILL support the so-called War on Drugs and foreign interventionism, have NOTHING to say about our fiat currency system and the Federal Reserve, and in general sound less like supporters of liberty than establishment plants bent on destroying the Libertarian Party from the inside --- which task may already have been accomplished.
They might as well rename it the Leiberman Party.
to be fair
Barr didn't pick Root, the Libertarian Party did.
we sat there and watched him
we sat there and watched him conspire with Root right on CSpan. That excuse won't fly.
R.I.P
It's ok because the new Republican Party is on the rise carried by Ron Paul and his Revolutionaries.
R.I.P. LP (1971-2008)
________________________________________________________________
"let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our freedoms & wealth are in jeoprady"
Ron Paul
talk about over dramatizing
Better Barr than Ruwart whose anarchist views on the protection of children is chilling. Just because he holds less to libertarian values than your typical Libertarian doesn't make him an evil person and just because he managed to be more organized and his supporters pulled out a win, doesn't mean he cheated.
For the Libertarians to ever begin winning elections they have to broaden their appeal, their voters, and start running candidates that are electable. It's all good and well to run people who have been stalwart over the years in opinions on government but it's about time they run someone who isn't socially inept. Whenever an election comes around I look up the libertarian candidates but end up getting turned off; they always give off the impression of a corrupt businessman, crazy anarchist, or that guy on the subway that stares at you while touching himself.
The truth is Barr isn't going to win, he'll be more than lucky if he get 5% of the vote. He isn't going to be changing the party, but hopefully he'll send some attention it's way. Whether he believes what he's saying or not, he's preaching libertarian ideals. By next election you'll be voting libertarian again.
billsebe, can you explain...
what Ruwart's position is on child protection that you find 'chilling'? I'm not famliar with her policy on that, but what I do know about her I've always agreed with.
thanks in advance.
--------
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
-Steppenwolf 1969
In the words of Ruwart
"Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will."
The part on children participating in sex acts, I believe means older teenagers, and depending on why she says it I could go either way. Where I have a problem is her view that child pornography is the same as pornography and that if a child consents then it should be legal. The argument she uses above is that more children will be forced into pornography while it's illegal.
The problem with this thinking is that if made legal it would turn into an industry and the market would grow, so more money would flow into child pornography and if anything there would be more incentive for parents to push their children into it. Not to mention that a young child doesn't have the mental capacity to really understand the choice they are making by entering pornography. And the increase in child sexual abuse would be astronomical.
In response to this
In response to this accusation Ruwart has explained that she, a highly moral grandmother no less, is, no surprise, horrified at the thought of child porn. She went on to say she believes courts would presume child consent to have been coerced - thus it would not be legal.
Curiously, this charge levelled against her by her political opponants is not even a federal matter, but a state one, over which she, as president would have no power. Thus even if she did hold the odious view of supporting child porn, she would have no power allow such harm. More curiously, Barr and Root are at best ambiguous about foreign intervention, have not entirely ruled it out, thus may be willing to perpetuate the slaughter of thousands of innocents - a horror their supporters blithely overlooked while tut tutting Mary Ruwart for a position she doesn't hold.
marlow
I agree with you completely,
and frankly, am stunned that this is really her position on that. Libertarians have always, I thought, distinguished between the freedom of consenting adults and children. I'll have to check more into that...
--------
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
-Steppenwolf 1969
Many, or at least some,
Many, or at least some, libertarians also feel the best way to ensure the well being of children is to leave it up to the their parents. Whatever possible good might in some specific corner cases come from getting government involved, will be thoroughly outweighed by the horrors governmental involvement will inevitably bring along.
Not saying this is Mary Ruwart’s position, though.
Actually I was planning on
Actually I was planning on writing an Ether Zone column with a similar title--I hope that isn't a problem.
The Libertarian Party has essentially gutted itself at a time when it could have vaulted forward in a pivotal election year.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
How VERY convenient eh?
How VERY convenient eh?