The recently closed libertarian thread of "libertarians and the left right spectrum" brought out some serious questions of what a libertian is or should be, and how in the world do we capture the center and win elections?

When you read some of the platfor of the libertarian party:

Marijuana legalization reduces use, abuse, and crime (Holland)

Decriminalization of heroin possession reduces crime and improves the public health (England)
< br> Legal sales of syringes reduces the spread of AIDS without increasing drug use (dozens of places including England.)

Allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons reduces all categories of violent crime. (Florida, Vermont, soon to be Texas)

Allowing multiple competing electric networks drives down utility prices and increases consumer satisfaction without noticable additional environmental impact (Lubbock, Texas)

Allowing multiple competing cable companies can drastically reduce consumer costs, increase channel availability and increase consumer satisfaction. (in dozens of cities; see the 1989 survey in _Consumer's Digest_ magazine)

Big cities can exist and thrive without any zoning laws at all, using free-market mechanisms to anticipate and resolve disputes. In such a situation, housing costs are reduced, homelessness is reduced, self-employment is encouraged and lower-income/minority members are the chief advocates for maintaining the lack of zoning. (Houston, Texas)

Private libraries are cheap and can provide high-quality service even to people who can't afford to pay for it. (in dozens of cities)

Fire service can be provided through voluntary means, either with a nonprofit volunteer department or a for-profit subscription service (hundreds of cities)

Security services can be provided either via contract or volunteer patrols (hundreds of cities)

Not having a minimum wage or huge package of mandatory benefits and restrictions serving as barriers to employment frequently coincides with low-to-nonexistent unemployment (places like Singapore)

Some of it, like communism, sounds good, but does not take into account human nature, the complexities of a large scale huge population society, or the propensity for corruption.

I can not think of a single person outside the confines of the die hard libertarian that would want to see privatized, for profit fire departments or police departments. That part is one of the most "pie in the sky" portions in the libertarian debate, and seems to ignore the obvious reasons for not having a for profit police department- the obvious areas that could lead to corruption when a police department has to make a profit, quotas of arrests etc.

Zoning issues- I hate zoning myself, I hate the process, and wish there was an alternative, but, there is harm to others when you don't have zoning. You buy a house in a residential neighborhood, and no zoning laws, they set up an industrial area next door- you lose everything, after all, who will buy your house?

So, my question is,

Is it possible for libertarianism, to enter mainstream America, or is it so Utopian, it will always be a fringe element of society?

Is it possible to take the good, moderate ideas of the libertarian party, taking the best parts of conservative ideology (fiscal conservatism) and the best parts of liberalism (total personal liberty, without goverment interference) and meld them into a party that could make our party mainstream, viable, and a threat to the status quo, without having to Kow-tow to the corporate interests in America that have bought the other two parties, lock, stock and barrel?

Great topic CR, glad to see you in the Libertarian Corner of AD...

To answer your question, yes...And here's CP's 4 Step Plan to Mainstreamatizing Libertarianism...

1. Enter the Debate. When was the last time you've seen a libertarian on tv? Have you ever? The two party duopoly has the scope of debate in a headlock. Libertarians must bring civil liberties into the forefront of this country's political debate, and then explain our stances. We can't just go on TV and say, "Hi, I'm a libertarian and I think we should legalize cocaine." We need to ease in, thereby laying the groundworks for libertarianism to become a mainstream ideology.

2. Lay out the horrific track record the Elephants and Donkeys have of protecting a: civil rights b: the Constitution and c: economic freedom. It shouldn't be hard exploiting the D's and R's screwups in either of those categories.

3. Start off small. I think the best thing that could happen for the libertarian movement is the election of a pro-liberty Democrat or Republican [Rudy, Rudy, Rudy!]...Then the movement/party can look for more overtly libertarian member, but first things first...Let's start off with a pro-liberty centrist, then move to a hard core libertarian.

4. Prove that we're tough on defense. Quite frankly, Harry Browne is a pansy when it comes to defense, when/if a Libertarian candidate is viable, we must make sure that he/she is strong on defense without impeding on civil liberty/Constitutional/God given rights.

It really is that simple

CP

Libertarianism is actually pragmatic on social issues. It is not difficult to paint the conservative moral crusades as ridiculous and utopian - for that is what they are. Libertarian social positions, in addition to being justified ethically, have the pragmatic effect of concentrating the police on defense against real crimes, and thus reducing crimes.

I find that most of the criticism of Libertarianism as impractical focuses on economic terms. Liberals like to point out how capitalism will lead to such horrendous inequality as to destroy liberty. Indeed, this is a result of an oversight in Libertarian ideology itself - the assumption that traditional capitalism is the only free market. There are in fact other economic systems that are free markets, such as the system advocated by the individualist anarchists - a market where land is not a commodity, but is owned on an "occupancy and use" basis.

Variations in free market systems center around variations in property rights. Property rights are not magically justified just by being property rights - they must be justified as extensions of the right of the individual to control his own life. On that basis, we should rethink which property rights the minimal state should defend, and which "property wrongs" the minimal state should not enforce.

I'm not saying that we should sell our souls and espouse a "mixed economy." In fact, I am suggesting that we show up the mixed economists by proposing an alternative free market system that can produce more economic justice than they could ever dream of. We must abandon this notion that "free market = capitalism" and realize that "free market = [capitalism, individualist-anarchism, mutualism, and more]" We have a range of options. Perhaps we can find a Hegelian synthesis of them all, and thus steal the thunder of the liberals and become the new big threat to the authoritarian right. Until then, libertarianism will always be a fringe element of society.

So, my question is,

Is it possible for libertarianism, to enter mainstream America, or is it so Utopian, it will always be a fringe element of society?

Is it possible to take the good, moderate ideas of the libertarian party, taking the best parts of conservative ideology (fiscal conservatism) and the best parts of liberalism (total personal liberty, without goverment interference) and meld them into a party that could make our party mainstream, viable, and a threat to the status quo, without having to Kow-tow to the corporate interests in America that have bought the other two parties, lock, stock and barrel?

[/quote]

Great question. I am a Libertarian. I have been educated on the core values and I am related to RC Hoiles, one of the great Libertarian thinkers of this century. RC Always spoke about privatizing everything. I was raised believing in all the aboverforementioned things, however since becoming an adult I feel hopeless on many fronts. I think IDEALLY a volunteer fire force would work, and it could work like the minutemen are working, but I think the majority of people in society to today would absolutely FREAK OUT if some election popped up to eliminate the fire dept. ya know?

I think the majority of people who take the little libertarian test always are shocked to see they lean Lib. Yet they define themselves as liberal or conservative and stay the course with the other two partys. I think another problem are the candidates the Lib party tends to have. Many times they sound like wackjobs and scare the typical unthinking American. I am a stay at home mom of 2 small babies and I cannot tell you how many people are shocked when I speak of concealed weapons. Or gasp...decriminalization of drugs. These same people are the ones unhappy about prison over crowding and want lesser criminals "rehabbed" I get so frustrated trying to describe "freedom" and sadly I see us losing it election by election, with more people being elected who want to depend on government rather then move away from it.
Jodi

I would insert a 5th step somewhere into this plan: Revise national election methodologies to allow for a third party candidate to be viable.

Let's face it. Voters are going to look at the polls, and see three candidates: The Democrat, the Republican, and the <insert third party here>. The first two are likely to collectively take upwards of 80% of the total vote, and be close enough that most realistic, pragmatic voters are going to vote for their favorite of the two, realizing that voting on the third candidate, in the given election, is going to be a waste of a vote.

Unfortunately, that affects voters' perceptions of the next election, and it's a huge leap to get a third party to be viable.

To answer the questions:

Is it possible for libertarianism, to enter mainstream America, or is it so Utopian, it will always be a fringe element of society?

I don't think libertarianism is utopian at all, and I've struggle with questions like that for several years now. I think the duolopoly of power will be the biggest hindrance to them becoming mainstream.

Is it possible to take the good, moderate ideas of the libertarian party, taking the best parts of conservative ideology (fiscal conservatism) and the best parts of liberalism (total personal liberty, without goverment interference) and meld them into a party that could make our party mainstream, viable, and a threat to the status quo, without having to Kow-tow to the corporate interests in America that have bought the other two parties, lock, stock and barrel?

Hmm...I had come to the understanding that that was the libertarian party's basic philosophy, taking the best of both major parties. Of course, realistically, not pandering to corporations is really going to hurt at fundraising time. There's too much to be gained by legislating in favor of those who will help you get elected next time. (When the wolf and the mountain lion are scratching each others' backs, rabbits beware!)

I think we have two problems as outlined- funding- the current system basically only funds two systems- election reform is needed for the libertarians to win- but, all solutions to election reform are anti-libertarian in nature- so what is a party to do? LOL

That is what I mean by too utopian- though, by only the definition of utopia as a perfect society, not utopia as a stable goverment- and that is the other problem, I believe some of the items I agree with will lead to an unstable goverment, and weaken the country- the private security force and fire force for instance- the private security force would exclude high crime rate areas that cannot afford to pay for police service.

There's a lot of great ideas in this thread! So, where to start?

Let's begin with CR's list of issues that he thinks sound too impractical.

Marijuana legalization reduces use, abuse, and crime (Holland)

The claim is true. As well, legalizing marijuana is an issue with a pretty big constituency, and not really all that hard to sell if you make the right arguments. True, it doesn't have majority support yet, but I think we could win over a lot of people with this issue, and those who won't listen at all on it, well... they were probably never too receptive to the libertarian message to begin with.

Decriminalization of heroin possession reduces crime and improves the public health (England)
< br> Legal sales of syringes reduces the spread of AIDS without increasing drug use (dozens of places including England.)

Also true, but much harder to sell. We should shut up about this one, at least for now.

Allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons reduces all categories of violent crime. (Florida, Vermont, soon to be Texas)

Absolutely true, and being stalwart on gun rights is a libertarian "must" if we're to have any principles at all. But again, like marijuana legalization, people who won't listen on this one are probably not going to be candidates for the libertarian message.

Allowing multiple competing electric networks drives down utility prices and increases consumer satisfaction without noticable additional environmental impact (Lubbock, Texas)

I'm not familiar with the Lubbock situation, but it sounds very plausible to me. If the claim is true, why not push it for all it's worth?

Allowing multiple competing cable companies can drastically reduce consumer costs, increase channel availability and increase consumer satisfaction. (in dozens of cities; see the 1989 survey in _Consumer's Digest_ magazine)

Ditto the utility situation. I'm not familiar with that CD survey, but it sure sounds plauible to me.

Big cities can exist and thrive without any zoning laws at all, using free-market mechanisms to anticipate and resolve disputes. In such a situation, housing costs are reduced, homelessness is reduced, self-employment is encouraged and lower-income/minority members are the chief advocates for maintaining the lack of zoning. (Houston, Texas)

I understand the concerns about this one, but remember, they aren't talking about just shutting down the zoning laws and replacing them with nothing at all, but about using free-market mechanisms instead, and it sounds like they don't just mean what would naturally evolve, but about deliberately putting some in place. I'd definitely study the Houston example before backing off on this one.

Private libraries are cheap and can provide high-quality service even to people who can't afford to pay for it. (in dozens of cities)

Well, if if does work, what's wrong with this? I'd study those examples.

Fire service can be provided through voluntary means, either with a nonprofit volunteer department or a for-profit subscription service (hundreds of cities)

Again, study the examples. Maybe this does work.

Security services can be provided either via contract or volunteer patrols (hundreds of cities)

I don't believe this can replace the regular police, but certainly it could supplement them, resulting either in lower taxes or increased security in areas that especially need it.

Not having a minimum wage or huge package of mandatory benefits and restrictions serving as barriers to employment frequently coincides with low-to-nonexistent unemployment (places like Singapore)

Wages are a price, the price paid by an employer to purchase a service. If you believe in price controls, you need to study some libertarian economists. Anyway, the claim that a lack of barriers to employment has a high correlation with low-to-nonexistent unemployment is certainly true.

That's part one. I'll come back later and edit in some more thoughts.

Izdari- it is not that I don't agree with some of them- it is that I find us far outside the mainstream with some of these ideas- which, happens to me more often than not anyway LOL

But there are some contradictions- for instance- when private property rights and gun rights collide-

there is some laws in some states, I don't know if they have passed yet, supported by the NRA, that makes it illegal for a private propety owners to require guns be checked at the property line- which libertarian right is paramount.

Well, CR, we are pretty far outside the mainstream. While I agree with you that a party that pushed a more moderate version of libertarian ideas would be likely to enjoy considerably more electoral success than the LP has, and could in time possibly even replace one of the two major parties, the LP is not and never will be that party. The LP is run by hardcore minarchists who don't believe in compromise, and I don't see any way to change that. Nor am I sure we should. I see the LP's mission as more like that of Norman Thomas' Socialist Party, which never elected much of anybody either, but affected the way issues were debated, so that some fifty years later, most of that party's platform had become law.

And now I'm going to contradict myself a little bit, and advocate that the LP should compromise at least a little, enough to be able to nominate one of several Hollywood celebrities who are declared libertarians, among them Clint Eastwood, Kurt Russell and Drew Carey. We still wouldn't win of course, but having a celebrity nominee would attract the funding and publicity for an LP campaign to have much more impact, and make it much harder for the major media to ignore us.


I think the LP position (and mine) would clearly be that the rights of the property owners should prevail. In this case, the NRA is supporting a purely pro-gun position rather than a libertarian one.

I do not think libertarianism will become a political force to reckon with... sadly. The Libertarian ideals are the epitome of perfection: free speech, right to choose, voluntary military, no borders, minimal (if any) taxes, etc., etc.

With little restrictions and common ground with the two mainstream political parties of this country it is hard to introduce libertarianism into the whole of America.


I think it is more than possible, it is a great idea . I think if our party leaders sit down and map out a strategy that would bind the best ideas and introduce Conservative and Liberal elements while still maintaining Libertarian identity we could do more than enter mainstream America, we could enter the White House.


Hmm... I nominate CruisingRam to come up with a plan.

It is funny you should say that- because at each one of our meetings I keep saying "it is great to come up with great ideas, but it means nothing if we can't implement them, we must come up with a plan to WIN- not just talk about what is wrong here, but to WIN- it doesn't mean we compromise our ideals, just compromise some areas that CAN be compromised- do we really need to lose every elections because we want private fire and police forces? "

Over and over again I tell these (mostly) young kids, let us find some areas we CANNOT compromise on-

gun control
freedom of speech
property rights
de-criminalization of drugs
goverment out of citizens private lives

those we CAN galvanize a nation behind- but when we get into the minutuea, we get bogged down and pegged as 'never able to wins"- very frustrating to me.

To Hades with you coming up with the plan, you should be head of the party.

CruisingRam you make a great point, for the Libertarian party to enter the real American system of politics it will be ever more necessary to stop talking about how to gain attention and take action. There is little use of words unless there is action to support them, and I feel that that is the biggest area in which we as a party are shooting ourselves in the foot over.