No matter who wins the election, this one will definitely be remembered as a watershed moment for libertarians in America. For the first time, a major libertarian candidate raised an incredible sum of money and won a few delegates to take to the convention. Rather than run as a third party candidate, thereby guaranteeing him anonymity, Ron Paul definitely made the race an interesting one and if anything, helped put libertarian ideals in the forefront of the race.

Interestingly enough, some feel that we are headed towards a Libertarian age. As of late, Bob Barr has been mentioned as a possible libertarian candidate, and Mike "The rock thrower" Gravel has announced he will run for the LP nomination. He is participating in a debate in Kansas City, Missouri this weekend.

Questions for debate:

1.)Should libertarians look to become a dominant "tent" in either party or should they stay with the libertarian party?

2.)if you are a Ron Paul republican, will you vote for McCain, or the Libertarian party nominee if there is one?

3.)Out of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Mike Gravel, who should be the libertarian standard-bearer in the general election?

Bonus question:

4.)Did Ron Paul kill the libertarian party?

1.)Should libertarians look to become a dominant "tent" in either party or should they stay with the libertarian party?

Libertarianism as an ideology is deeply rooted in American politics. It is the ideology of limited government, the rule of law, and individual liberty. It is closest to the original conception of liberalism. Way back when, the idea of freedom was twisted and turned and made into different things. Instead of just individual liberty there was the separation of economic liberty and civil liberty. Liberalism was perverted in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries as socialists and social democrats attempted to push their ideologies under the banner of liberalism. This took away the economic freedom aspect. Authoritarians made a similar move on civil liberty. So today we have two major parties that protect certain liberties, but not others. The Democrats prefer civil liberty but find economic liberty to be bad. The Republicans prefer economic liberty (or at least they used to) and do not care a whole lot for civil liberty.

I think that libertarianism as an ideology has its strongest roots in the GOP historically. I understand there being a strong civil libertarian history in the Democratic party, but i think that the opposition to economic liberties is harder to swallow to libertarians. The GOP had Barry Goldwater, who was a torch carrier of libertarian conservatism. Ron Paul is a descendant of that general school of thought. Paul's position on how to increase libertarian issues is to do it from inside the GOP. Many libertarians believe that the two party system is rigged and protected from outside views so they criticize Dr. Paul. But i think Dr. Paul's approach is the right one. The two party system is anti-democratic and thus libertarianism must be pushed from the inside. I think that the Republicans are looking for an identity and that the social conservatives and neocons will not be enough to keep the party afloat. They need the libertarian wing, and that may be no more apparent than in this election.

2.)if you are a Ron Paul republican, will you vote for McCain, or the Libertarian party nominee if there is one?

I will not vote for McCain. He may tout fiscal conservatism credentials, but he has no plans to reduce the size of the federal government. He is also very hawkish. I would consider voting for the LP nominee, although I might still write in Ron Paul.

3.)Out of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Mike Gravel, who should be the libertarian standard-bearer in the general election?

Gravel is not a libertarian even if he is running for the LP ticket. Ron Paul will continue to be the standard-bearer of libertarian conservatism unless he bows out and throws his complete support behind Bob Barr. I am not very familiar with Barr, but if his positions are similar to that of Paul's and he can articulate them well, then the message may be much stronger than before.


4.)Did Ron Paul kill the libertarian party?

I think a more interesting question is if Ron Paul can kill the GOP? Not kill it dead, but actually change the agenda that the party currently supports. I think that history will support this assertion. In regards to the LP, i think Dr. Paul has done more for the libertarian movement than any other political figure since Goldwater. Libertarianism has usually been an ideology found in academic circles among economists and philosophers, but rarely in politics. Paul may not have a perfect slate of opinions, but he has by far the most integrity of any politician in Congress. His record is consistent and he is not afraid to challenge his own party. The message that he has gotten out there through the debates is going to resonate, it will just take time.

The Republican Party imo needs get back many of the principles that Libertarians care about – not the least of which is small government –esp. with Dems promising, if elected to make Bush look sick in the growth of government in our lives.

Should libertarians look to become a dominant "tent" in either party or should they stay with the libertarian party?
They should avoid being incorporated into either party. Their platform would inevitably change/adapt over time. They should strive to be a third party to contend with at the state and federal level.

What kind of Libertarian Party, I'm not sure. I know libertarians and quasi-libertarian conservatives will say there is no left-right politics to discuss within the libertarian community, but I think this is an oversimplification. Ron Paul is touted as a model libertarian within the GOP, for example. A classical liberal wouldn't vote for the partial birth abortion ban but Paul did. IMO once you take a step away from prime economic/social indifference you enter modern left-right politics.

I think too many libertarians use classical liberalism as an argument against modern social liberal beliefs while holding modern social conservative beliefs as libertarianism. By too many I mean just one. I wouldn't vote for a Republican calling himself a member of the Libertarian Party.

Did Ron Paul kill the Libertarian Party?
If Ross Perot can't I'm sure Paul will fail to do so.

1.)Should libertarians look to become a dominant "tent" in either party or should they stay with the libertarian party?

Unfortunately [or fortunately], my internet access and online time is severely limited due to redeployment very soon, so my answers will be far more brief than I would like.
As the Democrats and Republicans are virtually the same in terms of corporate linked and statist-centric philosophies, the Libertarian Party has no logical place in either mainstream party. The worst avenue for recognition is the faster, easier way........to sell out core principles. The road to parity will be long and arduous but worth it in the long run. Education on the works of Hans-Herman Hoppe, Ludwig Von Mises and Lewellyn Rockwell, as well as the noteriety of quasi-Libertarians like Ross Perot and Ron Paul will bring more members to the fold. From there, the study of non-aggression and the Austrian school of economics will hopefully further weaken the hold that the mainstream parties have on the electoral process. The highlighting of the moral and ethical deficits, and nanny state idealologies has already produced a diminishment of the Republican Party, as people realize that what they thought was the party of smaller government, wasn't.

2.)if you are a Ron Paul republican, will you vote for McCain, or the Libertarian party nominee if there is one?

I'm not, but I wouldn't vote for McCain anymore than I would vote for Clinton.

Did Ron Paul kill the Libertarian Party?

No.

1.)Should libertarians look to become a dominant "tent" in either party or should they stay with the libertarian party?

Hmmm, tough one- I don't know- I don't think the Rs or the Ds could help but notice the money Ron Paul was able to raise- and money talks, big time.

I think the answer is SOOOOO dependent on what the US voter says this november- for instance- the best thing that could happen to the GOP, IMHO- is a complete slaughter in November, to compeletly repudiate the neo-cons, and compeletly destroy thier hold on the party, as long as we also see the old conservative right wing religious wing fall away as well-

the GOP DOES have a history of re-invention- I believe that if the GOP's libertarian arm, by getting some sense in regards towards throwing away the "social conservative" idealology - would probably get lots and lots of those Ron Paul AND Mike Gravel libertarians, as well as the traditional GOP voters that want fiscal conservatism and smaller goverment.

I do think, if the GOP turns in the correct direction- it would pretty much gather up the libertarian base, big time.

2.)if you are a Ron Paul republican, will you vote for McCain, or the Libertarian party nominee if there is one?

I would vote for Gravel, as I have met him personally, and his record of public service is head and shoulders over any living lawmaker today- by a good margin. I mean, good lord, the dude ended the draft for pity's sake!

He is portrayed by the media as a "bomb thrower"- but he is more practical and just an all around better human being than anyone in the race today- it is easy for me to vote for the guy.

3.)Out of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Mike Gravel, who should be the libertarian standard-bearer in the general election?

Wow- I am still trying to get my mind around Bob Barr, he used to be one of Falwell's minions- what changed?

Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are good for the libertarian party, and have raised thier standard quite well to date. Ron Paul has had the best run so far- as far as I am concerned.

Bonus question:

4.)Did Ron Paul kill the libertarian party?

Quite the opposite- if anything, he has given libertarianism really, really good campaign of marketing Libertarian ideals- I am quite proud of what he has done.

Well, I think Ross Perot DID kill the Libertarian party (at least for the last couple and the next couple of decades). No third party has obtained anywhere near the number of votes or level of popular support that Perot had. Ron Paul doesn't come close (Perot took nearly 20 percent of the vote). And the lesson was pretty clear....a good portion of Perot's supporters would have preferred Bush to Clinton. Clinton then won with 43 percent of the vote.

I personally see no discernable difference between voting for a third party candidate and throwing away your vote. It's not much different than sulking in your room. If you don't care one way or the other, that's fine. But I think everyone should have a personal list of issues that are most important to them and vote accordingly within the two party system we have, rather than wishing for the perfect system you'd like and doesn't exist. We have reality. If the Iraq war is the most important issue to you, vote for the candidate that agrees with you on that, if it's social programs and fiscal conservatism vote for the candidate who is closest to mirroring those goals.

Libertarian is starting to become a catch-all party for nearly everyone who is fed up with government. That's a wide range of folks. At one end of the spectrum, there are the anarchists who believe every town can and should have its own currency. Then there are the "Crack house in every neighborhood, let the masses die in the streets and whomever can stand the stench least will pay for someone to clean it up, private police forces only for those who can pay for them" types. Now, I have as little in common with that group as I would with the strictest Marxist. Then, there are the largest portion (myself included) who would like to see more limited government and less military intervention...but very few of us agree on what that involves and what specifically should be 'cut' or funded, prohibited or condoned. They nearly always lean towards one side or the other. I see no reason why that group cannot work within the two party system to help change things.

Regarding the bonus question......

CruisingRam:


Ahh, but there is a difference between the libertarian idea and the libertarian party. What is good for one may not be the best thing for the other. The party in my state is non-existant. They lost their website and to find them anywhere on the internet is extremely difficult. Yes, I agree-the guy has revolutionized internet fundraising and has shown that you can be igonred by the media nad still have a prominent presence. With that being said, does that not hurt the third party?

Dontreadonme:



Wow.........


O.K., how could he not have killed the libertarian party? They have had a primary season that for the most part, has been null and void. Paul carried the libertarian members away from the party and into his GOP ranks. The party is definitely a shell of its former self. Even if they nominate someone like Barr or another fairly well-known candidate, if Paul makes an independent run, he will keep the main core of libertarian voters in November. On top of that, even if he loses, libertarian minded people can maintain that at least one representative in the GOP holds elected office at the national level, something that the national LP cannot do, even one. What is happening now with Paul and the party reminds me a lot of what happened with Ralph Nader and the Green party. Ralph Nader was the green party and after he went independent, the party withered away.

I swear Mrs P, I ever win one of the big lottery jackpots I will find the method to make you run for President.

Libertarians and their party are for ideas, not practicality. Lots of long winded talk sprinkled with quotes from around 5 or 6 people long since dust and memory. They have nothing to point to that could draw enough support from the center to get elected--or if somehow elected, they would quickly be marginalized by the skilled politicians who can kill anything they really don't like and the media that can quickly slay a favored son. Even worse if you think the dems problems from Hilary and Obama supporters is bad, just see what happens to the LP official who has to make a political concession to get something done in DC. Not only will the knives come out and planning for the ides of march begin, but the rhetoric will go from shrill to Death level for Dogs in 24 hours. "Mr Scott, Decibels level set to kill."


Best way to defeat a libertarian is to let them talk. Sooner or later the fringe begins to creep out and ideas for turning the Grand Canyon into a bungee jumping vacation resort soon erupt.

The majority of people find privatization of some things evil--public roads and parks, police, etc..

Until the LP starts to get solid marketable real life examples of where they are right in their beliefs that can be displayed or invested in or seen to be a credible and robust answer to government programs--citizen funded research efforts towards any goal -- Alt energy for example -- they are doomed to be a party in name only-- a PINO anyone

If the best they can come up with is a glassy eyed lecture on the Austrian school of economics with the cherry kool aid of, "HAyek once said...yada yada yada...."
"Well my political philosophy stems from Murray Rothbard and he said...."
They are doomed to chat room based reality.

Ron Paul--as much as I love the Shriveled Little Texan that Could, spoke to the already LP diehards and the last remaining paleoconservatives recently shunned from the Bushite overrun GOP. Other than that he picked up the easily obtained support from the I HATE GW antiwar crowd.
In the GE he would have redefined losing by a landslide.

You know that I highly respect your opinion in almost every other matter that comes across this board..........not so much in agreeance with you here though.
Personally my throwing the vote away on the Libertarian candidate is no different than your mainstream vote. Your vote isn't going to propel one candidate over another in a national election, it's just as wasted as mine. The difference lies in the compromise of principles, and the level of comfort in doing so.



And that is exactly what both parties count on, the status quo. Don't look elsewhere.....we're better than the other guy, even if only marginally. The problem lies in the perception that many independants hold, that both Democratic and Republican parties strongly favor large intrusive government [as long as they are the majority] and the state-centric approach to all problem solving. From requiring codes, inspections and fees for adding a covered porch to your house to matters of national and economic security. The two parties spend more time effort and money demonizing the 'other team' than solving problems. The two party system heavily favors state soveriegnty over individual soveriegnty, and heavily favors aggression over non-aggression in neatly every facet of life.

I understand some of the issues that people such as yourself have with third parties, but for the life of me, I can't understand the voluntary servitude of life under a two party system, where there is no tangible difference between the two parties.



You have an erroneous assessment of what Anarchists stand for. There are many flavors of Anarchism, but when associated with Libertarianism, we are referrring to free market Anarchists or Anarcho-Captialists. I consider myself a Minarchist, so even the Libertarian Party isn't perfect in my eyes, but what would you have me do, hold my nose......contain the bile in my mouth and vote D or R?



It's not as if the Libertarian Party had much media exposure recently, at least not since Harry Browne's time. If people don't realize that many of Paul's ideas are Libertarian in nature, at least they have heard them to a greater extent than during the last few years.

I agree almost entirely. However, I do not yet know enough about Gravel & Barr to form a definite opinion. I think Ron Paul did the smartest thing considering the circumstances. Libertarian ideas are being discussed in the public square finally. If there is any way I can vote for him I will. If the Libertarian party was alive in my state, I would consider supporting it. However, for now, working from inside the 2 party system is the only viable option.

I agree with what you are saying in the highlighted portion.

Keep in mind, though, that if there ever is a successful third party run, it may or mat not be libertarians. Paul did not even begin to capture the imagination of a portion of the electorate as did H. Ross Perot.

I don't think the Ross Perot and the Ron Paul comparison is really valid BOF-

1) Ross had TONS of his own money- funny that he was against big goverment so much- he got every dime he ever made off the goverment

2) Ross Perot didn't suffer from a news blackout by the media that Ron Paul did- it was almost eery- you had Ron Paul beating Rudy Guliani in a number of states- but you had Rudy and McCain, 24/7, all the time, and they refused to even mention the fact that Ron Paul beat Guliani. They mentioned Alaskan primaries in the national news- the national news didn't mention Ron Pauls win here- over all candidates- but they mentioned Obama, and how McCain should have done better in a state with such a high percentage of Veterans. But only the local news mentioned the Ron Paul win, carrying the state in the republican primaries. That is just plain wierd. It seems that the media is actively supporting the status quo, big time.


They both had large grass roots appeal- but this election seems to be "vitally more important" than the GH/Clinton showdown. Ross WAS the exciting person in the debate. Clinton and GH registered a huge yawn on the radar.

That's the whole point CR. If Ross Perot couldn't win with all the advantages he had, how is Ron Paul, who didn't quite get 5% in his home state of Texas, going to have much lasting impact.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see some robust movement springing forth from Paul's run at the Republican nomination.

1.)Should libertarians look to become a dominant "tent" in either party or should they stay with the libertarian party?

The only political party I've ever been a member of is the Libertarian Party. I left about five years ago, for various reasons, some of which were probably wrong. christopher nailed the stereotypical Libertarian, yammering on about Hayek and Rothbard and privatizing the water system. Impractical; useless. I'd known that for years, but after 9/11, when the LP joined the leftist choir singing Chickens Coming Home to Roost, that really turned me off. I supported military action against the Taliban, and I (foolishly) thought an American intervention to depose Saddam Hussein would be a good thing, overall.

I still like the idea of having more than two parties. But I think the structure of our electoral system today makes them unviable.

Work to change that. Maybe that means voting for a third party -- in some states, parties lose ballot access if their candidate doesn't get enough votes.

2.)if you are a Ron Paul republican, will you vote for McCain, or the Libertarian party nominee if there is one?

I was never a Ron Paul Republican, so N/A.

3.)Out of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Mike Gravel, who should be the libertarian standard-bearer in the general election?

Ron Paul actually ran as the LP nominee for president 20 years ago, and I think he's closest to the "core values" of the party. I'm pretty sure he's announced that he won't be running, though.

4.)Did Ron Paul kill the libertarian party?

Well, I did get robo-called by Dr. Paul a few weeks before the California primary. I'm currently registered "decline to state" (independent), but Robo-Paul suggested I register as a Republican, so I could vote for him. I wonder how many California LP members got the call, and made the switch.


I dunno, the "social conservatives" are a huge voting bloc. I can't see the GOP throwing them away.


Interesting analogy. Nader was the Green Party nominee in 2000, right? Seems to me that the Greens didn't wither away because Nader went indy, but because Nader voters regretted their vote when Gore lost. Nader got 3% of the vote in 2000, and 0.3% of the vote as an independent in 2004. Most of them realized the Democratic party was much closer to their values than the Republicans.

It's not clear to me which of the two parties is closer to the Libertarians. Conventional wisdom has been that the Democrats are more libertarian on social issues, and the Republicans more libertarian on economic issues. Republicans have pretty well trashed that "fiscal conservative" reputation lately, though.


Maybe the national media didn't carry Ron Paul's win in Alaska, because Ron Paul actually came in third in Alaska, behind Guy Smiley and the Huckster: