PostHeaderIcon Why I Quit The Libertarian Party

While I still support much of the libertarian agenda, such as decriminalization of drugs, I quit the national party over the issue of open borders. Several thoughts come to mind:

First, we know where and what constitutes a nation because of its borders. For instance, were we to simply erase the current border between the USA and Canada, how would one know which nation one was in? Of of the few ways that I can think of is which currency the local merchants accept. Those of you thinking we could at least tell Quebec because of the language have obviously never spent time in rural Louisiana. The point is that both the USA and Canada would soon lose their national identities and would tend to merge into some sort of blob.

My conclusion: no obvious borders equals no real nation. So, if you like the notion of nationhood, you must also like the notion of borders. Of course, the “one world” folks might find this idea just fine, assuming they had the mental acuity to have real ideas in the first place.

Second comes the monetary aspect of things. Many, the Libertarians among them, say, OK, have borders for national identification but leave them open so that folks can come and go as they please.

Unfortunately, the USA has become a “welfare state”. Does it not naturally follow that a welfare state with open borders will soon find itself trying to support the poor and the worthless of all nations with the ability to get their losers shipped here? I know the progressives like to give handouts on the theory of unlimited resources – but – anyone able to think knows that such ideas are at odds with the basic laws that govern our universe. Besides, aren’t those same progressives the ones who keep telling us we are running out of key resources like oil, gas, clean water, etc.? Come on folks, you can’t really have it both ways.

My conclusion: open borders in a welfare state is a recipe for disaster. After all, doesn’t our current – un-payable – national debt suggest that we are already well on the road to the disaster in question?

Why the reason for this rant? A recent article in Reason magazine suggesting the disbandment of ICE along with their consistent open borders perspective. BTW, when my current subscription to Reason runs out, I will not subscribe again. A recent change in chief editors, among other factors, has turned a once fine magazine into just another Trump-bashing, progressive piece of garbage. Indeed, I toss most of them in the trash without reading them, especially when the cover page has anti-Trump bias all over it.

So I am now officially independent and losing interest daily.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

1+

19 Responses to “Why I Quit The Libertarian Party”

  • ◄Dave► says:

    I am somewhat surprised that you were ever a member, Troy. Although back when I was still voting, I was registered as a Libertarian, I never actually joined the LP. I attended one local meeting over 20 years ago, which convinced me that their cause was utterly hopeless. Over half there were stoners, and the rest were independent minded individualists. Trying to organize that lot was akin to herding hogs or cats — it just can’t be done. Thus, I have always labeled myself as a small el libertarian, or more accurately, as an objectivist.

    So I am now officially independent and losing interest daily.

    Congratulations! Welcome to my world; you are on the hero’s path. I am just a couple jumps ahead of you; but it is not too late to catch up. 😀

    So, if you like the notion of nationhood, you must also like the notion of borders.

    Precisely, and vice versa. Which is why the anti-statist anarcho- elements within the LP support neither. Statism is the antithesis of Liberty. As a good friend always suggests: Think about it. 😉

    Unfortunately, the USA has become a “welfare state”. …open borders in a welfare state is a recipe for disaster.

    Now, you are addressing the real problem. How could the USA not become a welfare state, if the indigent can vote themselves a living rather than bothering to earn one? If producers accept the mob rule premise of democracy with universal suffrage, then they must expect to be plundered by the state, to placate the greedy rabble. Remove the state and the border issue vanishes, as do most political issues. ◄Dave►

    0
    • Troy says:

      Congratulations! Welcome to my world; you are on the hero’s path. I am just a couple jumps ahead of you; but it is not too late to catch up. 😀

      Right. However, I have this DNA problem… I grew up in the South of mostly Scottish ancestors so I have this obvious inner need to fight for lost causes.

      Troy

      1+
      • ◄Dave► says:

        Even genetic defects are often surmountable, Troy. It would seem that a necessary condition for battling causes, lost or otherwise, would be that one actually cares. As you eventually lose interest completely over time, the next step on the hero’s path is to just stop caring. Then, pick a new cause to entertain your genes; but please choose one that is much less rude than voting, to sanction, encourage, and empower politicians to screw over the rest of us. 😉 ◄Dave►

        0
    • Troy says:

      Now, you are addressing the real problem. How could the USA not become a welfare state, if the indigent can vote themselves a living rather than bothering to earn one?

      As you well know, de Tocqueville pointed out this flaw in our system over 200 years ago. The obvious answer is to run the Republic more like a public corporation where the true stakeholders (as in those who invest) get more say in its operation than mere dependents.

      The very notion of universal suffrage is a form of delusion that can never work any more than the notion of common ownership of resources. The simple fact is that those with a vested interest in outcomes will be far more protective of the assets and resources involved than would otherwise be the case. Why humanity has to relearn such simple concepts over and over — always at great cost to everyone — is one of the great mysteries.

      Troy

      1+
      • ◄Dave► says:

        The obvious answer is to run the Republic more like a public corporation where the true stakeholders (as in those who invest) get more say in its operation than mere dependents.

        No, it is not so obvious at all, at least not to me. You are still sanctioning the coercive monopoly of the state. What if I have no desire to be a stakeholder/investor or a dependent of your public corporation? How will it get my compliance? Why humanity still meekly acquiesces to being ruled by coercive grandees, who consider themselves our betters — always at great cost to everyone — is an even greater mystery. 😉 ◄Dave►

        0
  • Chris says:

    I’ve always considered myself a conservative with libertarian leanings. I’m content with that because like you I could never embrace their total platform. Open borders being probably the most unappealing. I could also care less who wants to sit and bake their brains on weed or booze. Just don’t drive in my neighborhood. With being a moron comes responsibilities. Meanwhile I just sit in this near 100 degree weather doing important stuff with the news in the background for comedy relief. Todays project is building a wheel chair for Mr. Fritz. Fritz has been my companion for the last year and a half. Just got hurt and lost the use of his back legs. I owe him some consideration, and welcome the distraction of doing something useful.

    2+
    • Mr. Fritz is probably a far more deserving recipient of your time and effort than most of the world out there Chris.
      GOOD FOR YOU!

      2+
      • ◄Dave► says:

        Agreed! May I recommend trying to make it all-terrain? I suggest using heavy duty, large diameter, swivel casters with good bearings, rather than wheels on an axle. 🙂 ◄Dave►

        1+
        • Chris says:

          Yea, but he only weighs 5 pounds. I have to be mindful of how much weight he can pull around with just his front legs. light aluminum flat bar and plastic wheels. He can use what I have built but will be making more refinements.

          0
    • Troy says:

      Meanwhile I just sit in this near 100 degree weather doing important stuff…

      Such cool weather must be nice. We will not see a sub-100 day for several weeks.

      I feel for your friend — literally — but I got a steroid shot last week that has helped a lot.

      Troy

      0
      • Chris says:

        Yea, but here in upstate NY we keep molasses in our veins. Not built for this kind of heat. I’m down to a T shirt when the temp hits 60. Can’t take off enough cloths for this kind of heat.

        0
    • jim says:

      About “open borders”: I think most people (even libertarians) forget that while there won’t be GOVERNMENTAL borders in a libertarian society, there will be PRIVATE borders.

      0
  • Troy says:

    Why humanity still meekly acquiesces to being ruled by coercive grandees, who consider themselves our betters — always at great cost to everyone — is an even greater mystery.

    Dave, whatever your muses may be, you know as well as I that the majority of humans will be ruled/governed/directed by someone because they lack whatever it is that makes people like you able to be self-directing.

    I believe no one has understood this better than James Madison. His conclusion was that, since some form of government is inevitable, why not try to build the best that can be had given the circumstances. Still, even a magnificent governing scheme like that devised by Mr. Madison and his cohorts requires a level of participation and vigilance that most of the sheeple are unwilling to provide. And you want these fools trying to individually govern themselves? That would be funny were it not so sad.

    If anarchy were to be foisted on the population writ large, some form of dictatorship would rush in almost immediately to fill the void. You cannot fail to see this.

    As for not caring… it is a luxury I denied myself by having children who are now having their own children, etc.

    Troy

    1+
  • jim says:

    “His conclusion was that, since some form of government is inevitable, why not try to build the best that can be had given the circumstances.”

    I am one who is perhaps uniquely qualified to address this: Up until January 1995, I was a minarchist libertarian, not an anarchist libertarian. I was such, not because I somehow wanted there to remain some sort of residual government, but because neither I (nor anyone else) had figured out how to solve the problem of a libertarian/anarchist region defending itself.

    See, for example, David Friedman’s (son of famous Economist Milton Friedman) “Hard Problem”, described in his 1973 book, “The Machinery of Freedom”. (new editions printed in 1989 and 2014).
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Machinery_3d_Edition/The%20Hard%20Problem%20II.htm
    I was not aware of this book, nor the name “The Hard Problem”, in January 1995. But I was aware of the issue, the problem. And that is why I was a minarchist, not an anarchist. I did not know how to solve the problem, and nobody else did.
    In January 1995, I described the solution to the problem, writing it into my essay, “Assassination Politics”, a 10-part essay that I wrote over about 15 months. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm

    Effectively, I made “anarchy” practical and stable.
    And thus, your statement, “since some form of government is inevitable” is false.
    Although, I should mention that AP itself could be described as some sort of order-maintaining system, a “government” of sorts.

    1+
    • Troy says:

      Effectively, I made “anarchy” practical and stable.
      And thus, your statement, “since some form of government is inevitable” is false.

      Jim/Bill, I have scanned your essay and, frankly, found it a bit disturbing. If you advocate political assassination based only on the opinion of a few, how do you differentiate yourself from those you wish to destroy?

      Also, I see nowhere in your screed where Mr. Madison’s conclusion (merely repeated by me), that some manner of “government” is inevitable, has been effectively refuted. I offer you the simple counter argument that we have no record in human history (at least, none I know of) of a people who have prospered without some form of government. Any enterprise involving more than one person requires some degree of governance.

      You know, I used to wish to defy gravity because I envied the fact that some creatures can fly under their own power and I can’t. But, however much I might have wanted the essential laws of the universe to bend in my favor, they simply do not. For me or for anyone else.

      I also notice that you are enamored of so-called “crypto-currency”. While there is nothing inherently wrong with that, I would remind you that crypto-currency shares an attribute with every other form of currency ever devised: it has “value” only to the extent that some number of people agree to pretend that it does. While it is true that some precious metals and jewels have some degree of utility value, it is mostly their relative scarcity that supports their supposed value.

      As you (and Dave) dream of the merits of anarchy, please remember that there is always someone more viscous than you who would gladly destroy you. For your “stuff”, or perhaps just to watch you suffer. Because of this truth, most us us choose to seek some level of protection by cooperating with others of our kind.

      Lastly, I do not argue that our government has become corrupt. It certainly has. What I see is that governments in general are no more corrupt than the people they presume to govern.

      Troy

      0
      • jim says:

        Do you have any answer?

        0
        • Troy says:

          I spent the last 4 days watching my grandson play in a baseball tournament. More entertaining than this by far. Note that I started a new AP thread since this one is getting lengthy.

          Troy

          0
  • jim says:

    “Jim/Bill, I have scanned your essay and, frankly, found it a bit disturbing.”

    ONLY “a bit disturbing”? Imagine how _I_ felt, when I invented the concept and wrote the essay in 1995?!?!

    ” If you advocate political assassination based only on the opinion of a few, how do you differentiate yourself from those you wish to destroy?”

    You say, “only on the opinion of a few”. That’s not quite what I said. Anybody who wants to would be able to donate money and name names. Maybe only a relatively small proportion of the population would need to participate, say 1%, but that would be plenty to get rid of the bad actors.

    “Also, I see nowhere in your screed where Mr. Madison’s conclusion (merely repeated by me), that some manner of “government” is inevitable, has been effectively refuted.”

    I suppose that depends on your definition of “government”. I strongly doubt whether Madison did, or even could have, thought up an AP system and its implications.

    ” I offer you the simple counter argument that we have no record in human history (at least, none I know of) of a people who have prospered without some form of government. Any enterprise involving more than one person requires some degree of governance.”

    See David Friedman’s “Hard Problem”. Prior to 1995, everyone (including me) had no solution to the problem was defending a libertarian or anarchist society. I described the solution.

    “You know, I used to wish to defy gravity because I envied the fact that some creatures can fly under their own power and I can’t. But, however much I might have wanted the essential laws of the universe to bend in my favor, they simply do not. For me or for anyone else.”

    Prior to 1900, most people thought that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. What they lacked was a sufficiently-powerful engine, plus a well-defined airframe. Two brothers solved that problem in 1902.

    “I also notice that you are enamored of so-called “crypto-currency”. While there is nothing inherently wrong with that, I would remind you that crypto-currency shares an attribute with every other form of currency ever devised: it has “value” only to the extent that some number of people agree to pretend that it does. While it is true that some precious metals and jewels have some degree of utility value, it is mostly their relative scarcity that supports their supposed value.”

    Keep in mind that when I wrote that essay, “crypto-currency” virtually didn’t exist. See the August issue of 1992 Scientific American, article written by David Chaum.

    “As you (and Dave) dream of the merits of anarchy, please remember that there is always someone more viscous than you who would gladly destroy you. For your “stuff”, or perhaps just to watch you suffer. Because of this truth, most us us choose to seek some level of protection by cooperating with others of our kind.”

    AP actually constitutes “cooperation with others of our kind”. But a kind of cooperation that was not imagined until 1995.

    Lastly, I do not argue that our government has become corrupt. It certainly has. What I see is that governments in general are no more corrupt than the people they presume to govern.

    A well-designed system of governance must, necessarily, ‘work’ populated with many different kinds of people, including corrupt ones. I believe that I have designed that system.

    1+

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links