So far, Griff, you're not doing a very good job of rebutting my essays this thread. Come to it, you're not doing any sort of job of it at all. You can't show I'm wrong.
You've been trying with notable absence of success to persuade me I'm something other than a libertarian. The reasons for your failure are manifold: first, I believe in libertarianism's value to the global body politic and in its goodness. I prefer libertarianism to any other variety of political opinion. While I never vote a straight ticket for any party whatsoever, I pick my other-party favorites by how nearly they approach libertarian-type thinking. Some parties have a more or less libertarian cast of thought and others do not -- any guesses which ones don't get my support? This is an active practice of libertarianism.
That there is a considerable strain of neoconservatism -- even unto PNAC -- in my thinking is not an impediment to my libertarianism, but is recruited in reinforcement of it. To the degree that neoconservatism is statist, I dislike it, but statism is not the only thing neocons are about, as doing some reading of neocons will soon show. To the degree that it supports individual liberty and intiative, I support neoconservatism. As I said elsewhere in this forum:
Quote:
|
Humanity is better when it prospers. Less-than-democracy is invariably associated with less than prosperity. Any in doubt could look it up. Respect free expression and property rights. Stay armed enough to make genocide impracticable and you additionally benefit from making crime impracticable too. That government that governs least, or least needs to govern, is that government that governs best.
|
Do these things in governance and you've covered a lot of the essentials.
In view of this, I come to a second point: there's no argument you can make to show me I'm not a libertarian. The only something you can make from nothing is a fantasy. That I don't happen to be your exact sort of Libertarian I won't dispute, but libertarian I am nonetheless. Mere repeated insistence that I'm not a libertarian when the truth of the matter is I'm not a clone of you isn't going to carry the day in debate.
A party is created in considerable part to address questions and problems, by making or influencing policy for those problems that may be addressed by policymaking. Put more briefly, people congregate in parties to make a better world. However, success at making a better world through officeholding comes only when a party's adherents actually hold an office. So then, the vexed question remains before the Libertarian Party: are you going to have a debate club or are you going to have libertarianism abroad in the land and the law of the land? If the latter -- where the fuck are you?? If you want to win for your party in a representative democracy, you've got to win elections. The LP has been around since 1975. The LP should at least be campaigning for policymaking positions in the more economic corners of officialdom, like harbor commissioners, business/local government interfaces, and such -- anything to do with helping the people make livings, while keeping the balance that prevents abuse of any other portion of the electorate. Again, this is mostly in upholding the rights of a minority, and in respect for the importance of property rights, which is the single most important thing a government can do to promote the people's prosperity.
Turning to ZenGum while I'm scrolling this thread: yes, it is intended quite literally. Ascendancy over competing ideologies should be approached holistically, as it were: by all paths, in every way, eschewing no option whatsoever.
I'll close with this: Griff, I really don't think you have any direct understanding of neocon thinking. If you have any understanding of neocon philosophy from the neocons' pens themselves, I wish you would display it. Don't go by reputation; do your own reading.