Can The Libertarian Party Be Used For Liberty?
The Libertarian Party works best if it acts as a center for education, a forum of communication, and a tool for activism.
Why merely share content from a libertarian think tank, or direct interested parties to one, when the LP itself could offer such information? Why depend on and wait for other think tanks to publish short, common libertarian literature when the LP could do it?
Why focus more on purging than on debating, where the LP can practice what it preaches about persuading people with ideas and not force? Why focus more on elections than on spreading the message of liberty, peace, and justice - libertarian style?
Speaking of spreading the message of liberty, why not help train, network, and guide activists in the real world instead of hoping other think tanks or projects will fill in that role? It also ties activists intimately to the LP.
The pragmatist and dogmatist great debate will never end, nor should it. Each act of purging from either side is both petty and ineffective. Instead the LP could unite in principle, while dividing on degrees. This could go a long way in developing goals and achieving successes.
Who is or isn't a "true libertarian" is a doltish notion. If you "certify that [you] do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals" then you're a libertarian. What is or isn't initiation of force is disputed between radicals and moderates, though.
The LP will not be able to move forward without three things. First, practically being its own think tank, as opposed to outsourcing that role. Second, to reinstate the Dallas Accord - the agreement in place from 1974 to 2006 that said the opinion of the existence of government will be silent - which formed a truce between radicals and moderates. And third, quit thinking like a minor party, but be realistic about its status, as opposed to the identity crisis the party has.
The blog founded by a 2016 LP presidential candidate and media entrepreneur Austin Petersen, the Libertarian Republic, published a brilliant article about the 2020 primary. In it, the writer states a minarchist would be a better nominee who could bridge the ideas of the radicals and centrist moderates, and possibly nix their heated disagreements.
Read the article here: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarian-party-unite-minarchist-2020/
A minarchist, unlike a constitutionalist or liberty-oriented conservative or liberal, will argue the government can be funded without taxation and regulation. This was the belief held by various minarchist thinkers, like Ayn Rand.
A minarchist, unlike an anarchist, will argue the night watchman state has the potential to protect solely the negative rights of life, liberty, and property. This was the belief held by various minarchist thinkers, like Robert Nozick.
The disagreements from radicals and moderates with this strategy will most certainly include a group mentality and the "one true Scotsman" fallacy. The problem with the moderates is they believe compromising principle for time is alright - still, little to show for it. The problem with the radicals is they believe compromising time for principle is not alright - still, little to show for it.
On one hand, the Libertarian nominee will not be elected president in 2020; on the other hand, if the LP nominee is, there is actually some benefit to this.
A minarchist is not radical enough to scare away voters (lest we forget, many radicals started out as voters) and not moderate enough to be a bad messenger of liberty (something the LP has had with Governor Gary Johnson in 2012 and '16 and congressman Bob Barr in '08).
As the popular adage goes in the liberty movement, "the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist is six months." It would be more prudent for Libertarians of both schools of thought to put more thought into strategic intelligence instead of the "caput tuum in ano est" thing.
A minarchist candidate would preclude any former U.S. senator, congressman, or governor who plans on running on much of their political record, let alone those refusing to disavow much of their political record. The only exception might be Dr. Ron Paul, whose congressional record has few blemishes, by liberty standards.
Who are other minarchists or minarchist-friendly people who are well known? Glenn Jacobs, a.k.a. Kane in professional wrestling, is a Rothbardian who is admired by LP moderates, a LewRockwell.Com contributor, and an Austrian-school economics lecturer. Trump is an example of a wrestling-connected candidate can win the White House, while 2008 GOP nominee John McCain is an example of someone still considered "natural born" for being born on a U.S. military base.
Judge Andrew Napolitano is a strict constitutionalist who would like to see most, if not all, the constitution replaced by a libertarian code of laws. As a Fox News contributor he is not hated by moderates and as a contributor to both Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute he is respected by radicals.
Actor and comedian Penn Jillette is another, who prefers anarcho-capitalism but believes there will be a transitional period to get there. He has been an outspoken Libertarian, going as far as hosting LP presidential debates and having experience debating politics with an array of people, even on mainstream media.
Not to mention the slew of long-time members of the Libertarian Party who have reached celebrity status within the party who are either minarchist or minarchist-friendly. Examples include Dr. Mary Ruwart, R. Lee Wrights, Ruth Bennett, Carla Howell, Larry Sharpe, and the like.
If the Libertarian Party hopes to be a center for education, a forum of communication, and a tool for activism, it must think critically in this great debate between radicals and moderates. Radicals usually do not care about presidential politics and centrist moderates have failed at exalting one of their own to the White House.
A minarchist nominee could shift the focus of that heated debate to making the Libertarian Party more libertarian. As a center of education, the LP uniquely positions itself to be a direct learning center, dropping the baggage that comes with the Cato/Reason crowd and the Mises counterpart.
As a forum of communication, the LP practices what it preaches by peacefully co-existing with opposing schools of thought. All the while the centrists could placate to the Beltway libertarians and the radicals could be a shining beacon of the final conclusion of libertarianism - as Dr. Paul in 2008 and '12 has done for many anarchists today.
As a tool for activism, the LP could direct resources to the grassroots, where things can actually work. Supplying the demand and making honest-to-god attempts at organizing libertarians without sacrificing autonomy.
By using the party to make compromising victories in politics, the party cannot be a messenger of liberty, let alone a party of principle. By ignoring the fact people learn about political discourse through electoral politics, the party would be forever known as a do-nothing party. Be the change you want to see in the world - as an LP member, you know what to do.