Wait … what’s the SCLP?
Exactly …
In a state dominated by Republicans who vote like Democrats and Democrats who vote like socialists (wait … that’s everywhere), the S.C. Libertarian Party is an afterthought … if that.
Nonetheless, party members gathered in Columbia, S.C. earlier this month to elect their new leaders and plot a path to relevance. Those leaders? Michael Carmony of Anderson, S.C. (the party’s new chairman) and Jeremy Walters of Fort Mill, S.C. (the party’s new vice chairman).
So what are these
“Mr. Carmany said that his priority would be to fight the state’s chaotic election laws, which favor incumbents and discourage outsiders from running for office,” a release from the party convention states. “Mr. Walters is actively engaged with a lawsuit challenging the state’s arbitrary and illegal enforcement of its election laws.”
Hmmmm …
Don’t get us wrong … the 2012 ballot fiasco (and subsequent selective enforcement of the state’s election laws) is a major issue. But last time we checked, candidates who dot their “i’s” and cross their “t’s” aren’t being banned from seeking office.
More to the point … did the SCLP not have room on its press release for other issues?
Where is the party on taxes? Education reform? Government spending? And will it field statewide candidates in support of these positions in 2014? Unless we get some affirmative answers to those questions, the S.C. Libertarian Party will continue to be little more than an almost-afterthought in Palmetto politics.
11 comments
No, No and No!
Any other questions?
The establishment machine is going to grind up the SCLP and spit them out.
If the pols in this state strut around violating every ethics law in existence, diverting some taxpayer money to their own companies or that of friends, having sex with anything willing to do the deed with them other than their spouses, all the while being elected OVER AND OVER AGAIN, well-
What makes the SCLP think they have a snowballs chance in hell of even getting in debates let alone party/ballot access?
AND, even if they did…what are they promising Bubba and Shaniqua to get them to pull a lever for a “L”? Is “freedom” or “liberty” putting a pay check in their pockets? It would eventually, BUT NOT TODAY!
Most of the electorate are intellectually nothing more than petulant 5 year old’s looking for their next candy handout. If you don’t give it to them, they are gonna whine, cry, & vote for someone who will. End of story. Get used to it.
The problem with hard core libertarians is they make stupid arguments like we shouldn’t have government funded roads or fire departments or building codes, or meat inspection. The free market will invent roads and fire departments. If someone dies from tainted meat, the consumers will not eat it in the future. It’s nonsense.
If they just stuck to some reasonable ideas like legalizing marijuana, decreasing military spending, reducing government programs, they’d probably have some willing listeners. As it is though, they sound like a bunch of lunatics raving about how the free market will fix everything.
The argument is not the “free market solves everything”.
First, and I’m sure you know this, there is no magic cure all for “problems” in general. There’s degrees of solutions, freedoms, etc.
The argument being that a free market is the best at delivering “maximum freedom” and therefore POTENTIALLY maximum happiness.
That includes pluses and minuses depending on what said freedom brings you personally.
Now, you have to admit there for quite some time the US government had no responsibility for roads. Yet they existed anyway.
Fire departments run by insurance companies and volunteers was not only a reality, but the norm just 100 years ago.
We could go on and on, but instead of treading too far over the line at which you might brand me a “raving lunatic”, let me say that your desire that “they just stuck to some reasonable ideas like legalizing marijuana, decreasing military spending, reducing government programs,” is almost EXACTLY what the capital “L” Libertarians represent.
So in that respect, maybe you should reconsider your political alignment even if you feel the captial “L”‘s might have some kooks and losers in it.
That being said, if the principles aren’t as important to you as “winning” in politics per se, then it all really doesn’t matter.
I agree with some of your points, however, let me correct some of the erroneous points.
The first federally funded road was started in 1811. So I guess by “some time” you’re talking about the first 35 or so years of the Republic. While I acknowledge that federally funding for roads really didn’t take off until the 1920s or so, I think we should acknowledge that the “private” roads weren’t roads. They were dirt paths. It’s not a coincidence that federal funding for roads started at the same time cars were growing in popularity. You don’t need a federally funded road to drive your horse down a dirt path. You do need one to drive your car.
Public fire departments date back to the 1850s. The “insurance funded” fire departments can hardly be compared to a professional fire department. Furthermore, these insurance funded fire departments existed in the 1600s, 1700s, and early 1800s. In NYC insurance companies paid fire departments to put out fires. Sometimes, various private fire departments would fight for the right to put out a fire or even set fires so they could get paid to put them out. I’m not sure that’s the best method of protecting your home from fire.
But see this is why Libertarians gain no traction. Rather than talking about cutting unnecessary military bases or eliminating some useless federal departments, you defend eliminating fire departments or road funding.
I don’t see that you really corrected any “erroneous points” as much as you expounded on them. I didn’t see any specific or convincing argument as to my points as being “wrong”.
Regardless, assuming that you are a lawyer, or studying to be one-I think you can appreciate the importance of being logically consistent for a variety of reasons.
If you accept that government should be reduced, this question is always “why?” and “how much?”.
So why on earth would you limit consideration of ANY government function from being examined in such a manner?
Maybe because it might seem “reasonable” to those that think such questions are ridiculous?
Or perhaps you don’t want to be branded an “ideologue”?
That’s fine if you are appealing to emotion rather than logic, but I’d rather appeal to the latter if I’m making an argument because the former has many problems associated with it.
If your “beef” with Libertarians are that they argue points that you feel can’t be won, then you are obviously in the camp where the principles might be less important than the “winning” part.
That’s fine, but I could make a very reasonable case that it’s been over 225 years of such “compromise” for “winning” that has brought the country to a place of crushing debt, huge government, lost hopes/opportunity, etc.
So if “compromise” or “reasonableness” was the nirvana made out to be by 98% of pols and the population in general, then I’d have a hard time believing the country would be where it finds itself today.
edit: “it might seem “unreasonable””
actually, I had it right…ignore this edit
“If you accept that government should be reduced, this question is always “why?” and “how much?”.
So why on earth would you limit consideration of ANY government function from being examined in such a manner?”
That is a legitimate point.
My problem isn’t that libertarians are principled- Lord knows they are. It’s that they/you are too extreme from the get-go. Maybe we should examine what fire departments do and try to see whether their functions are necessary. Maybe we should examine road funding. Those functions, however, are such a small part of the monstrosity that is government, that it does no good to argue them. It’s kind of like Republicans complaining and moaning about NPR and PBS funding, which is less than .000001% of the federal budget, while ignoring the 20% of the federal budget spend on the military.
If and when we deal with the largest and most controversial types of government spending and government intrusion, perhaps then we can examine whether the consensus functions of government should be re-examined. Starting out with such an extreme platform, however, only leads me to believe that those in the libertarian party are unreasonable know-it-alls that have little to offer.
“Starting out with such an extreme platform, however, only leads me to believe that those in the libertarian party are unreasonable know-it-alls that have little to offer.”
Probably a reasonable assumption for describing many of them(even if generalization is hated by the general populous).
Hell, I just had a go round with a Voluntaryist on the “L” article because he’s not logically consistent…and I’m sure I came off looking like a douchebag(but that shit bothers me when coming from someone who claims such, way more than the 99.9% that don’t even know what a Voluntaryist is).
However, let’s consider the “failure to launch” substantially for Libertarians from the angle of your proposition:
Do Libertarians gravitate to these esoteric discussions naturally in their discourse?
I really doubt that. Instead, I see it this way:
They talk about the “reasonable” things you pointed out earlier 95% of the time…which is striking to me because again, your viewpoints seem to match up to theirs…
But what happens in a debate as it progresses with R or D’s? D/R’s purposely STEER the conversation/debate to these esoteric issues because they know it polarizes people emotionally even if the Libertarian is reasonably/logically sound. Logic doesn’t matter at that point.
So I fault Libertarians in general for not steering the conversation back, but I don’t see them as starting at that place as much as you do.
So that being the case, if your principles align(which they seem to), maybe it’s a matter of helping the kooks to stay on the major talking points…it’s more of a strategic issue for you.
Again, you have to decide whether winning is more important or principle…because very frankly, from what you’ve typed…your principles line up with the “kooks”, “know it alls” (and really, I see what you are saying), etc.
I’ve never been one to meld into mainstream society easily, not because I didn’t want to at times(because it’s much easier socially), but the tension between what I felt was “right”, “principled”, etc. always overcame the fact that the others doing so were usually the “freaks” of society.
Mind you, I can easily navigate the social strata of society-but I sometimes settle in to the freak show because I believe wholeheartedly for example that “Voluntaryists” are right-not because I’m comfortable.(which share many of the characteristics you just correctly attributed to many, but not all Libertarians)
Despite the personalities you have correctly described that populate much of the Libertarian group…if you align philosophically…you align…even if it’s uncomfortable.
Btw, I should point out I’m not a capital “L” libertarian in fairness.
I’m floating somewhere between little “l” and anarchy, so I’ve settled in to self identifying as “Voluntaryist”…feeling that voluntary society is best but I have no idea if it will ever be achievable.
I just feel compelled to logically point stuff out to people here that deserve it.
There’s a short list of the people here I would do so for:
You, Soft Sigh, OWB, TBG, Shifty, 9”, The Colonel, Mike from the Beach, Pytel, probably a few others I’m missing…
Basically, people I think have the ability to not have logic bounce off their heads at all times or solely chant their left or right tendencies/talking points…in other words, people who I think can be logical despite distractions.