Libertarian Party application discussion

[Spider-Man]

"YES, sign me up as a member of the Libertarian Party. To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."

How is this statement consistent with the LP's platform?

For example, the LP supports the maintenance of a United States military. How does one go about paying for a military if not taxation? How does one go about collecting taxes if not forcefully? Same goes for police and courts.

I'm not saying the LP should go ancap. Rather, I think this statement should be struck from the application for membership. It seems logically inconsistent with the party's minarchism.

Libertarian Party supporters' thoughts on this appreciated.

[t0rnado]

The party has been taken over by neocons like Bob Barr in recent years. When the pledge was adopted, they were pretty ancap in their platform.

I did support the party when they chose Michael Badnarik as their 2004 Presidential Candidate, but was disgusted at their choice of Bob Barr over Mary Ruwart. I'd rather have the party become ancap again than remove that statement.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The LP was never unified on the State/No State front. In the early days half the party was for a State, and half was against the State. It was the Rothbardian side vs the MacBride side. Eventually the MacBride/Clark side won, and most of the Rothbardians quit the political process. Hence, why the LP has become more and more statist over the years (Hello...politics!!!). Anyways, thats the gist.

That isn't to say MacBride is a bad person or anything, quite the opposite. (He also formed the RLC fyi)

[Spider-Man]

Personally, I consider myself a minarchist. I have no problem with the Rothbardian "exile," but nothing bothers me more than logical inconsistencies.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Personally, I consider myself a minarchist. I have no problem with the Rothbardian "exile," but nothing bothers me more than logical inconsistencies.

Just for a thought experiment, how can you contend to defend natural rights, and private property, when the very essence of the State necessarily invades and aggresses upon the individuals rights and property?

[Spider-Man]

Just for a thought experiment, how can you contend to defend natural rights, and private property, when the very essence of the State necessarily invades and aggresses upon the individuals rights and property?

I don't care for the term "natural rights." I defend property rights to the extent that extensive legal property rights are a logistically sound way to organize a society.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't care for the term "natural rights." I defend property rights to the extent that extensive legal property rights are a logistically sound way to organize a society.

All right. Let me stipulate the question this way.

How can you be for private property when your system must necessarily contradict property. For one who has a tax levied on him and his property is an invasion of the idea of private property, is it not? How then can you defend this contradiction? I am quite sure you are not for an absolute Monarchy either.

[Spider-Man]

How can you be for private property when your system must necessarily contradict property. For one who has a tax levied on him and his property is an invasion of the idea of private property, is it not?

I am in favor of extensive private property rights, not absolute private property rights.

There is no contradiction. Property rights are not all-or-nothing.

[Flash]

The party has been taken over by neocons like Bob Barr in recent years. When the pledge was adopted, they were pretty ancap in their platform.

I did support the party when they chose Michael Badnarik as their 2004 Presidential Candidate, but was disgusted at their choice of Bob Barr over Mary Ruwart. I'd rather have the party become ancap again than remove that statement.


Yeah I think the party should primarily be focused on education. What were they thinking in nominating Bob Barr? Theres no real chance of a Libertarian becoming President so why bother compromising? People vote along the Republican/Democrat party lines and always will, except may be on local elections.

And Libertarian-Republicans are an even better educational tool. Just imagine if there are several Ron Pauls in the upcoming 2012 debates.

[Elwar]

For example, the LP supports the maintenance of a United States military. How does one go about paying for a military if not taxation? How does one go about collecting taxes if not forcefully? Same goes for police and courts.

Libertarian Party supporters' thoughts on this appreciated.

There is no support for taxes in the Libertarian Party. There is support to finding alternatives to taxes.

In David Bergman's book Libertarianism in One Lesson he suggests that one way to pay for the military would be with a national lottery. Or other ways, other than forcing people to pay for it.

[Elwar]

Also, the "I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." was put in place because the early days of the Libertarian Party there was a lot of paranoia about it becoming a violent entity and that they'd have too much difficulty trying to deal with the FBI and CIA that to appease them they put that little disclaimer in the membership pledge.

I recall hearing several people in the LP not agreeing with the pledge because they felt that at some point it would be necessary to use force against a run away government. The response was that it wouldn't actually be initiation of force at that point.

[YumYum]

The LP was never unified on the State/No State front. In the early days half the party was for a State, and half was against the State. It was the Rothbardian side vs the MacBride side. Eventually the MacBride/Clark side won, and most of the Rothbardians quit the political process. Hence, why the LP has become more and more statist over the years (Hello...politics!!!). Anyways, thats the gist.

That isn't to say MacBride is a bad person or anything, quite the opposite. (He also formed the RLC fyi)

^^^^this