Jeffersonian Libertarian Reform Caucus scores stunning victory @ LP convention

[Incrementalist]

Cato is a mixed bag.  As they have an economic focus they tend to get contributors who are more traditionally conservative than libertarian (the kind of folks who think that libertarianism is such a republican sect), and as such their contributor pool draws from the old conservative "insider" guard.

On the flip side, Cato offers some well thought-out position papers that libertarian candidates could use in their races.  On message boards we can safely talk philosophy all we want, but when I go to work every day for my candidates I had better have numbers in hand or they won't be taken seriously when they make a claim.  Cato offers the kind of support a good candidate needs.

To their credit as well, Cato probably gets more media attention than any other libertarian organization.

[frisco]

the last thing a pro-liberty political activist such as myself needs to hear is more fragmentation in the ranks.

I so want to respond to this comment, but I won't.

[frisco]

From FaNL:

The abolitionist is such because he wishes to eliminate wrong and injustice as rapidly as possible. In choosing this goal, there is no room for cool, ad hoc weighing of cost and benefit. Hence, the classical liberal utilitarians abandoned radicalism and became mere grad?ualist reformers. But in becoming reformers, they also put themselves inevitably into the position of advisers and efficiency experts to the State. In other words, they inevitably came to abandon libertarian princi?ple as well as a principled libertarian strategy. The utilitarians wound up as apologists for the existing order, for the status quo, and hence were all too open to the charge by socialists and progressive corporatists that they were mere narrow-minded and conservative opponents of any and all change. Thus, starting as radicals and revolutionaries, as the polar opposites of conservatives, the classical liberals wound up as the image of the thing they had fought.

This utilitarian crippling of libertarianism is still with us. Thus, in the early days of economic thought, utilitarianism captured free-market economics with the influence of Bentham and Ricardo, and this influence is today fully as strong as ever. Current free-market economics is all too rife with appeals to gradualism; with scorn for ethics, justice, and consistent principle; and with a willingness to abandon free-market prin?ciples at the drop of a cost-benefit hat. Hence, current free-market eco?nomics is generally envisioned by intellectuals as merely apologetics for a slightly modified status quo, and all too often such charges are correct.

[FrankChodorov]

Morey-

Carl Milsted, one of the founders of the LRC, is a Geo-libertarian...he doesn't believe all taxation is theft and therefore the collecting and sharing of economic rent between neighbors in a community actually UPHOLDS absolute property rights to labor of those being excluded by enclosure and thus self-ownership itself.

[Incrementalist]

the last thing a pro-liberty political activist such as myself needs to hear is more fragmentation in the ranks.

I so want to respond to this comment, but I won't.

Go ahead and respond.  I'd love to discuss the issue with you.

[Incrementalist]

From FaNL:

The abolitionist is such because he wishes to eliminate wrong and injustice as rapidly as possible. In choosing this goal, there is no room for cool, ad hoc weighing of cost and benefit. Hence, the classical liberal utilitarians abandoned radicalism and became mere grad?ualist reformers. But in becoming reformers, they also put themselves inevitably into the position of advisers and efficiency experts to the State. In other words, they inevitably came to abandon libertarian princi?ple as well as a principled libertarian strategy. The utilitarians wound up as apologists for the existing order, for the status quo, and hence were all too open to the charge by socialists and progressive corporatists that they were mere narrow-minded and conservative opponents of any and all change. Thus, starting as radicals and revolutionaries, as the polar opposites of conservatives, the classical liberals wound up as the image of the thing they had fought.

This utilitarian crippling of libertarianism is still with us. Thus, in the early days of economic thought, utilitarianism captured free-market economics with the influence of Bentham and Ricardo, and this influence is today fully as strong as ever. Current free-market economics is all too rife with appeals to gradualism; with scorn for ethics, justice, and consistent principle; and with a willingness to abandon free-market prin?ciples at the drop of a cost-benefit hat. Hence, current free-market eco?nomics is generally envisioned by intellectuals as merely apologetics for a slightly modified status quo, and all too often such charges are correct.

I guess I'll counter this quote with another quote.  I won't link directly to the site as I've done it many times before.  Instead I'll just link to the appropriate post in the appropriate conversation on this site:

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4335.msg77624#msg77624

[Caleb]

Isn't Carl Milsted a self-professed warmonger?  I stopped listening to anything he says after I read that article.

Caleb

[FrankChodorov]

Isn't Carl Milsted a self-professed warmonger?  I stopped listening to anything he says after I read that article.

where did you get that idea?

[Caleb]

From his article entitled "Why I am a Warmonger" by Carl Milsted

[Incrementalist]

Isn't Carl Milsted a self-professed warmonger?  I stopped listening to anything he says after I read that article.
Caleb

Your loss.  The article I linked to ("What is a Political Platform?") is about as accurate as they come.

[Caleb]

How can I trust the judgment of someone who obviously doesn't make judgments based on pure moral standards.  Here's a choice comment from Milsted's article:

"The debate over the ideal Libertarian foreign policy is not strictly a philosophical debate - there are practical and scientific questions as well." 

This quote demonstrates his lack of commitment to moral ideals.  Therefore, I have no interest in his opinion.  It will necessarily differ from mine, and I will necessarily consider it immoral.  Or, if it happens to be moral, it will only be by chance, and not due to any commitment to morality on his part.

Calling it like I see it. 

This isn't physics, it is ethics, and there is such a thing as a moral absolute.

[FrankChodorov]

How can I trust the judgment of someone who obviously doesn't make judgments based on pure moral standards.  Here's a choice comment from Milsted's article:

"The debate over the ideal Libertarian foreign policy is not strictly a philosophical debate - there are practical and scientific questions as well." 

This quote demonstrates his lack of commitment to moral ideals.  Therefore, I have no interest in his opinion.  It will necessarily differ from mine, and I will necessarily consider it immoral.  Or, if it happens to be moral, it will only be by chance, and not due to any commitment to morality on his part.

Calling it like I see it. 

This isn't physics, it is ethics, and there is such a thing as a moral absolute.

he is a self-identified christian...

http://holisticpolitics.org/Morality/PageOne.php

excerpt:

?Your right to swing your fist stops at my jaw.? ?You can do what you want as long as you do not harm others.? ?Government should not enforce morality. That is the job of the churches.? And so the libertarian slogans go.

Starting from these individual rights precepts, libertarians call for legalizing recreational drugs, gambling, prostitution, homosexuality and other personal vices. This is not to say that libertarians endorse such activities, merely that they don?t think the government has a say in such matters. Legal and moral are not identical concepts in the minds of libertarians.

A strong utilitarian case can be made for taking these positions. Personal morality laws are generally ineffective and can have very unpleasant side-effects. The War on Drugs has led to higher crime, broken families, increased poverty, an erosion of the Bill of Rights, clogging of the court system, funding of international terrorism, higher taxes, and a damaged environment. Laws against prostitution have led to abuse of some women and an increased spread of deadly sexually transmitted diseases (over strictly regulated legal prostitution as is done is parts of Europe).

Alas, the libertarian arguments for repealing such laws often fall on deaf ears. Morality is important, and many people want to get the government involved in improving morality. I could point out to conservatives that this is the same reasoning that welfare statists use for wanting government involved in charity and that socialists use for wanting government involved in just about everything. Yet when I point out this similarity to many conservatives, the logic fails to compel.

I think this often has to do with religion. Pleasing the Creator is far more important than setting up an optimal government for creating a free and prosperous society. Better to pay a price for morality now than over eternity. And even in the here and now divine intervention can overrule the laws of economics and political science. These are compelling arguments and deserve answer on their own terms. I cannot do so for all religions, but I can make a case to Bible based Christians, as I am one -- while being a Libertarian at the same time.

-------

Yes, it is true that Libertarians would leave certain moral decisions in the hands of individuals vs. The State. On the other hand, Libertarians are quite strict in calling for The State to act morally, and for The State to get out of the way of those who are pursuing moral excellence.

In the pages that follow I will make the case that the level of government that Libertarians call for will likely lead to a much more moral society than we currently have, that active government enforcement of morality beyond issues of force and fraud generally backfires.

It is possible to be a devout Christian and be a Libertarian at the same time ? despite the fact that the Libertarian Party platform would legalize some naughty behaviors. True, a devout Christian might want to amend the LP platform in a few places, such as on abortion, but that is the case for the other party platforms as well ? more so in my opinion.

In this essay I will only begin to make the Christian case for libertarianism. Here, I look at morality in general, which is important to Christians but also to other moralists.

[Caleb]

This argument is severely flawed, Frank, because the Libertarian argument is internally consistent when it deviates from morality:

In other words, I can say that a certain thing (such as prostitution, for instance), is morally incorrect.  But that does not give me any license to use violence to stop the immoral act.  The consistency is there:  An act can be immoral, but I cannot resort to an immoral act to prevent the immoral behavior.  In essence, two wrongs will not make a right.

Milsted is arguing for using immoral means to correct other immoral actions.  It is not internally consistent.  It argues that two wrongs can make a right, and that I can be correct and justified in resisting evil with violence.  In other words, the fact that some evil exists legitimizes my use of evil to achieve my ends.  It is therefore unprincipled, and immoral.

Milsted is trying to co-opt a concept (morality) by showing that sometimes Christians overlook morality.  The catch is, a true Christian can ignore SOMEONE ELSE'S immorality -- NOT HIS OWN!

[FrankChodorov]

Milsted is arguing for using immoral means to correct other immoral actions

an example being?

[Caleb]

example being using violence against a Dictator because we want to spread "freedom".  A quote from his warmonger article:

"For once, we went after a nasty dictator primarily because he was a nasty dictator."

In other words, we resorted to immorality to end immorality.