Dear Liberals, do you really want this?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/112459491/MoveOn-In-The-2012-Election

Here I'm talking to the Glenn Greenwald liberals. I've always considered myself a liberal, although the libertarian label fits better considering what liberals now represent and support. I am a classical liberal, but I have nothing against conservatives -- it's just I don't consider myself conservative. I explained this in a post awhile back, but it doesn't seem satisfactory. I'm conservative when it comes to conserving the Constitution and laissez faire government, but those are things of the past, so I'm more of a revolutionary, fighting for the implementation of a limited government and a free market. I would say I could be called a reactionary, but it's been so long since limited government and a free market were principles to be conserved, it's like I'm fighting for something brand new.

I'm not a libertine. I live a pretty boring life, although for awhile I was pretty wild. Once I gained self-esteem, I stopped slowly destroying myself. I'm liberal in the sense I think people should live their lives according to their own values and morals as long as they aren't violating the rights of others. I would never think of trying to enforce my morals on anyone else, but I would discuss my values and morals with anyone willing to discuss them.

I grew up around liberal people, but I don't recognize liberalism today. Liberals in the late sixties, the seventies and into the eighties were not statists. The liberals I grew up with distrusted government authority figures, even though they saw government as necessary to protect our rights, the law and our country. How liberals now can go along with the Progressive agenda is beyond me. I think liberals have been misled by the media and State education, but maybe they're sincerely supportive of Progressive, statist goals. If they really do support Progressives, I don't know how they call themselves liberals.

How can someone be a liberal and not support economic freedom and individual rights? Do Liberals really want to follow Progressives down the interventionist, centrally planned road?

Conservative, Libertarian, Progressive

As I've written about several times, our labels are losing their meanings -- mainly because political groups fight for dominance through the avenues of our interventionist/statist system of government. When everyone is fighting for political power, labels beceom meaningless. Sometimes, it gets so confusing I have to drill down to whether the issue at hand is one of coercion or non-coercion. In debate, it's always difficult to stay within the strict boundaries of conservative, libertarian, progressive or whatever label is applicable. For instance, we can argue for limited government from all three positions, conservative, libertarian and progressive. Perhaps the most pertinent distinction we can make between political philosophies is whether we're working from a coercive or non-coercive principle. And, even then, even from the libertarian viewpoint, sometimes government coercion is justified.

From a conservative standpoint, if conserve means what Dictionary.com defines as "to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss of", then I want to conserve the Constitution. I want to conserve the principles of limited government, economic liberty, anti-statism, non-interventionism. I want to conserve these principles to the extent of rejecting government's regulation of marriage, drug use, pornography and moral behavior in general. It's not that I'm an immoral libertine -- it only means I believe that morality has to be freely chosen if it's to have any meaning, and unless a person's behavior violates the rights of others, then government has no business controlling the behavior. There are many philisophical conundrums involved in the libertarian stance, such as pornography and drug use where children are concerned, and these can be worked out while maintaining the integrity of the principle, but this is the idea in broad strokes. Discussing these conundrums leads us to a richer understanding, not dead ends that force us to turn back to an all-powerful State for forced solutions. So, it's not so simple in the political realm when a Conservative promotes "small government" or when the Progressive argues for a "smart" government -- we must consider what limits to place on government power, regardless how big or small or smart the government might be.

So, I can be conservative when wanting to conserve Constitutional rights, yet libertarian when it comes to believing that moral/social issues be dealt with in the free market of ideas. The Progressive might  say that as a people we should help those who can't help themselves, and I agree, thus making me simpatico with a Progressive position. I also agree with Progressives that we should protect our environment. I'm not afraid to make such a normative argument. It's really a no brainer that in a successful, wealthy nation, there's no reason for a poor child to go without a good education, or an old person to go without food, or for a handicapped person to suffer in neglect, or for big corporations to freely pollute our air and water, so on and so forth.

Conservative, Libertarian and Progressive positions collide when it comes to how to go about fighting for or against progressive change. Do we embrace an all-powerful State to do our bidding, forcing others to act as we would have them act, or do we, as free people, work in the private realm to create the change we seek? Again, if, say, a corporate action violates our basic rights, then that's easy if it's a clear violation-- it's why we have rule-of-law, to protect our rights, so, yes, our government has the duty to protect our rights from the violating corporation. If, however, poverty and hunger are the issues, as a libertarian, I believe it will be much more beneficial to the poor and hungry if solutions are found in the private realm, rather than blaming the rich and demanding redistribution of wealth through government actions. It's much better from my perspective to cooperate with wealthy corporations in the private realm, voluntarily, to find innovative, dynamic solutions. An all-powerful State can't be trusted with unlimited power -- power mongers use the welfare State to perpetuate power and control, and government programs eventually erode from lack of competition, devolving into dehumanizing dependence. Am I right? I'm willing to argue this case with grownups in a free society.

A Conservative would likely say that helping others should reach toward the goals of independence, self-responsibility and self-respect. Even the Conservative can want a Progressive society, although she might not call it Progressive, yet disagree with the means of Modern Liberals/Progressives. Many churches today are involved in dealing with social issues such as poverty and hunger. To me this is Progressive, although it could be seen as conserving the traditional role of Churches as they attend to the poor and needy. Conservative hunters join conservation efforts to protect the environment. When we restore meaning to the labels, and we look at rational solutions in the private realm, it lessens the political impact of partisan battling for control over our statist/interventionist government system. It doesn't eradicate labels or beliefs, just transforms them into cooperating forces/sets of ideas searching for the betterment of society in freedom.

It's mainly the politicization of America that keeps us neatly divided between, or trapped within, Conservative, Libertarian or Liberal/Progressive. These labels and concepts have meaning, and I'm not joining the No-Labels crowd. I'm saying that from my perspective what's important is the difference between coercion and non-coercion, statism and anti-statism, force and voluntarism, interventionism and non-interventionism. Once we've settled that limits must be placed on government power, and we've broken the cronyistic protection of corporate power, then the rest is a matter of free, diverse people persuading each other in a free market of ideas. Conceiveably, once the battle over statist power has ended, labels will have to be re-assessed, because the the labels under discussion are primarily related to politics. This is the ideal, of course, and cynics will say that people can't work out their own issues without  control and regulation and, somtimes, brutal enforcement, from the power elite. Surely this isn't true. Surely we're capable of living freely without Big Brother telling us how it should be done.

If I had my way -- if the original principles of limited government had prevailed over the Hamiltonians -- Conservatives, Libertarians and Progressives wouldn't fight in the public/political realm for power and control, because, basically, the only decisions to make would be which government will best protect our border, police our streets and settle disputes in courts of law. The private sector would be the arena in which we work out issues regarding the means of conservation, the responsibilities of liberty and the costs and benefits of progress.

Libertarian/Conservative Alliance

Leftist Libertarians will not welcome an alliance with Conservatives, but the Leftist Libertarians are mostly modern liberals floating around the Left/Center alliance uncertain if they should stand for liberty completely or join modern liberals in sacrificing economic liberty for some vague idea of social justice.

Libertarians in general, however, who are mainly classical liberal types, will see the need for an alliance with fiscal, limited government Conservatives. Any social issues which divide the two political groups can be argued over beers, but there's no need to seek political power to push social issues that have to do with individual free choice regarding a person's moral path. One of the big hang ups in the libertarian/conservative alliance is the libertarian promotion to end the War on Drugs. Maybe some young libertarians are focused on legalization of pot because they like to smoke pot, but to dismiss libertarians as potheads because they promote an end to the War on Drugs is a mistake.

There's more to opposition to the War on Drugs than wanting to roll a joint without worrying about the authority. The issue is one of liberty and limited government, but there are also practical concerns, like the number of people incarcerated who aren't violent, bad people, just because they got caught with drugs that are no worse for a person than alcohol. There's also all the violence and death surrounding gang wars associated with illegal drugs. I don't want to make this about legalizing pot, but I want to get past some of the superficial disagreements between Conservatives and Libertarians. Just because a person promotes limits on government power, such as saying government prohibition of marijauna is as bad as prohibition of alcohol in the 20th century, doesn't present a barrier to a political alliance based on all that the groups have in common.

Rand Paul is trying to bridge the gap, and he's probably more conservative than libertarian. Paul and Justin Amash are two representatives who are leading the alliance, and, along with Mike Lee and a few others, they make a make strong core from which to grow. There's a battle for the political philosophy of the Republican Party between moderates and conservatives, and Centrists outnumber limited government conservatives within the party establishment.  Centrists appear determined to push the Party to the Left, which to me means toward statism, central planning, social engineering, etc. If the Republican Party can't become a true opposition party that rejects statism and embraces limited government and economic freedom, then I have no use for the Republican Party. No libertarian should have any use for a GOP that simply wants to compete with Democrats from control of a statist system. If Republicans aren't dedicated to restructuring the statist system, then the're useless, and Democrats may as well keep control until a new party can arise.

I don't even know if the few Conservative/Libertarian types like Paul and Amash can withstand the pressure in DC to capitulate. It's easy to take the pragmatic route and justify selling out because you have to play the game to get in power. We'll see what happens, but right now I'm not confident. Libertarians are far too timid when it comes to activism and fighting for limited government, Conservatives are too eage to find the Center path because they don't see any other pathway to power. If Conservatives and Libertarians formed a real, active alliance, who knows what might happen -- it would have to be better than what has happened in the last few decades. They'll have to articulate a new vision that transcends the welfare state. That's a tall order.

Now is the time for a viable, limited government party

I know his father would counsel him against it, but I'd like to see Rand Paul become an independent, then begin researching developing a viable party that places limiting government power at the center of its purpose for existing.

The Republican Party's status quo power elite have resisted the limited government movement started by a faction of the Tea Party, and now the Centrists/Statists control the party without doubt. After the 2010 historic elections which for the first time in a long time placed libertarian principles in the public square, the Centrists looked for the right opportunity to completely marginalize the limited government faction (LGF). The 2012 election in which Obama beat Romney was the excuse they needed to attack the LFG.

It's obvious now that if there is to be an opposition party to the Democratic Party, it will have to be a party other than the GOP. The Libertarian Party could fill this role, if they can put a viable party together that attracts a broad range of voters. This will entail a better explanation of libertarianism than is currently offered by media. The problem with the Libertarian Party is that many people who support classical liberal principles don't see themselves as libertarians. Limited government conservatives are not likely to join the Libertarian Party. Maybe liberals who finally have realized the dangers of statism would join the Libertarian Party, but it wouldn't be an easy transition -- both groups would likely feel they have to change something about their political identity, so a viable party would have to have a more inclusive name. 

I see several core principles that this third party can coalesce around -- limited government, free market and non-intervention in foreign affairs, with the condition that our defense systems remain superior. I have to believe there are enough Americans who are completely sick, like I am, of both parties and of government interventions that are killing our economy, and foreign policies that are killing soldiers for bogus political reasons. A party based on these three principles would be a party I can support and believe in with passion. There are many nuances attached to these principles, but a political philosophy can be developed that's easy to understand based on how this government would look in reality if the party accomplished a revolution that rolls back the statist takeover that has placed the country in serious debt and stalled economic activity to the point of malaise and possible collapse if the last straw comes along-- it would be smaller, efficient, capable and subservient to the American people.

There's hope, but much needs to be understood

There are more people who openly embrace the libertarian worldview than ever before, whether they consider themselves card-carrying members of the Libertarian Party or they simply hold libertarian political/economic views. There are many people who consider themselves independents or conservatives who fit within the broad definition of libertarian-leaning. One reason I believe the polls miss these people when the pollsters are deciding who the likely voters are this November and for whom they will vote is that the number of libertarian-leaning voters is far greater than pollsters realize -- they are a new force in the political realm and they don't sit at home taking poll questions. The pundits don't understand the developing changes that started in earnest in 2010.

Another area where lack of understanding plays a large role, and has for decades, is the area of free market economics. Socialist thinkers like Michael Harrington are correct when they criticize the so-called "free market" movements in Chile and Brazil and Asia from the 70s to the present with China at times considered a practictioner of free market principles. Nothing could be further from the truth. When the State enforces its brand of technical capitalism, this State planning, cronyism and coercion is not based on free market principles. So, when Leftists claim Milton Friedman as the Big Dog Free Marketer who joined in State coercion of free market principles in Chile, thus creating what the Leftists see as irony, it's really a misunderstanding of free market principles. When Obama and his minions say something about the "free market" or "unfettered market" running wild under Bush, they are so far off track as to be discussing something alien to human understanding.

Very few countries or kingdoms or areas of concern have come close to establishing a free market since the beginning of economic history. The reason is that the history of domination shows that the most common arrangement among people is the few dominating the many, and the few won't give up control of the economy, because too much is at stake to not attempt control the creation of wealth. So, some might say that humans can never agree to abide willingly by free market principles -- this can be debated -- however, when you hear criticism of free market principles which relate to the economic actions of this party or that, this State or that, this group of dominators or that, then you know the critic doesn't have any idea what he or she is criticizing.

I predict more and more Americans will learn more and more about libertarian ideas, and that free market principles will be understood as revolutionary not reactionary, something to progress toward not to return to or conserve.