Ari Armstrong has written a series of articles critical of the Colorado Libertarian Party, and the LP in general. Start here. Caveat: This may be of interest only to those deeply interested in the politics of liberty.
Ari makes a number of interesting and valid points, centered around a criticism of a lack of principle guiding the Libertarian Party (LP), and the Party instead
... hold[s] that liberty is intrinsically good, and that it is compatible with whatever set of values one might hold, tends to lead to an incoherent understanding of liberty, to a hostility toward moral standards, and to an anti-state reactionism in which the government is seen as the greatest evil.
That reactionism does exist, and it is unhealthy.
The crux of the issue is an implicit debate about the nature of the LP. Ari:
For example, Norm Olsen, who remains the chair of the state LP until next month, told me outright he wanted the party to focus on electoral politics rather than intellectual discussion, and he wanted the newsletter to focus on party activism rather than the ideas behind liberty. One of the ways this trend has played out in Colorado is to treat the LP as some sort of tribe in which loyalty to the group takes precedence over loyalty to correct ideas.
The LP is a political organization. Its purpose is to influence the political sphere of society. One of the necessary features of a successful party is inclusiveness. In the case of the LP, it means accepting members and candidates of diverse philosophical backgrounds. Ari, who is an Objectivist, or at least sympathetic to Objectivism, would like to see a party guided by his philosophy.
Of course, inclusiveness has its limits, and there are some Libertarians running for office while holding anti-liberty views on important subjects. Those people should not be on the LP ticket. But the problem with specific philosophical litmus tests, as opposed to policy litmus tests, is illustrated when Ari writes concerning other philosophies;
If most people accept the doctrines of socialism, then they will adopt socialism. If they accept some fundamentalist religious dogma, then they will adopt theocracy.
Here Ari mistakenly lumps a social/political philosophy with a religious one. Setting aside the use of the term 'fundamentalist,' which carries little meaning in spite of its popular usage, a religious person can hold any number of social/political philosophies, including socialist or libertarian philosophies. It is quite possible to separate secular and religious realms when it comes matters of public policy.
As a Christian and a Libertarian, I should know. As far as political policy matters go, I don't know that Ari and I have any differences, even though our philosophies are divergent.
Hence the lack of philosophical bases for the political arm of the libertarian movement. If we were to argue the necessity of either one of our philosophies as an underpinning to our politics we would have to exclude the other, and that would be a counterproductive and foolish thing to do.
Posted by Walter at April 15, 2005 03:27 PM