What my party means to me. From a Libertarian point of view

Bob Newland couldn't resist speaking out on why he is a member of the Libertarian party. So, Bob Newland on "What my party means to me":
My political party provides a principle that defines all who join: “No one has the right to initiate force or commit fraud in the pursuit of personal or political goals.”

Oh, there are other things, such as belief in limited government power and limited government budgets and that people own themselves, but those are outgrowths of the non-initiation of force statement.

My political party rarely sees anyone flying its banner get elected to office. Other political parties often place roadblocks to prevent its members from achieving ballot status. Other political parties, those holding power, are able to promise voters largesse from the public coffers in return for their votes. My party’s principles prevent its candidates from doing that.

There was a time, a generation or so ago, when Republicans said they believed in the principles of my party. There was a time, a century or so ago, when Democrats said they believed in those principles. The champagne breakfasts on the taxpayers’ tabs convinced them that principles are for losers.

I’m a Libertarian, and a libertarian. My political party hasn’t yet had the opportunity to become corrupt, because the Republicans and Democrats think that corruption is too sweet a prize to give to people with principles.

Being a Libertarian means never having to say, “We need this legislation because if we don’t get it, mothers will stop producing breast milk.” Statements this ridiculous fall regularly from the lips of Republicans and Democrats.
I might beg to differ on a couple of those points, but Bob is certainly welcome to his own opinion. If Libertarians in South Dakota manage to do anything, it's to keep Republicans on our toes. When John Thune lost in 2002, it was by fewer than the number of votes the Libertarian Candidate obtained. And that means we need to be wary of how they can sway elections with a thin margin.

Comments

Bob Newland said…
Take a look at PP's derisive comments preceding and following my little essay.

Then take a look at his rather adulous remarks surrounding IK's work (down the page a little ways), which is maybe the stupidest set of remarks in support of a political philosophy ever set to print.
PP said…
Bob, are we reading the same comments on either one?

In yours, how is what I said derisive? I was merely stating that #1, you submitted an essay, and #2, I noted an example how libertarians affected the election in that instance. Would you have preferred that I said "in 99.9% of all SD elections, libertarian participation is ineffective at best, and statistically insignificant at worst?"

If you didn't notice, I was pointing out the instance where the LIB's affected an election in arguably the biggest way they ever have in SD.

And regarding my comments prefacing and ending the GOP essay; "A shot across the bow at the Dems" is adulous? Again, it simply seemed to me as a statement of fact. That author had her own opinions. I didn't think I was writing as if I bought into them or as if I discounted them. The comments were OBSERVATIONS.

Don't be so thin skinned.
Anonymous said…
Make the most of hemp seed and sow it everywhere. -- George Washington
Bob Newland said…
Perhaps "patronizing" would have been a little more precise.

Anyway, your reply above put it a little better.
Bob Newland said…
I notice that "What my party means to me" is not drawing a significant number of either submissions or comments to submissions.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th