Moving Libertarianism Forward

[FvS]

1.) Getting libertarians united on restricted immigration is key. It should be the fourth pillar along with economic freedom, civil liberties, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. No racial/ethnic majority wants to become a minority in their own country. To think that White Americans and Mestizo Mexicans are interchangeable, that you could swap the populations and both countries would remain the same, is absolutely delusional. The people define a country as much as its political institutions do.

Any person that votes for a non-libertarian leaning candidate is essentially an enemy of liberty. Some do have the potential to be converted, but it is difficult, as most of us are aware. Even if you don't care about race or culture at all, by having an open border policy, you are letting in millions of liberty's enemies. You are greatly increasing the amount conversion work we have to do.

Islam (and, more subtly, Judaism) should be opposed by libertarians in the same way that we oppose communists. They are violent political/religious ideologies and by definition opposed to liberty. No, that does not mean we should advocate bombing their countries, just keeping them out of ours.



2.) This part is for the Americans, but I'm sure it could be extrapolated to U.K. politics. The Libertarian Party is likely controlled opposition. Right now it just serves to contain us in a non-threatening way. Somehow, the Libertarian Party needs to be ended. We should adopt the neocon strategy and infiltrate the two parties. Our candidates will say whatever they need to in order to get elected, with the four* pillars as their binding ideology. Then, they can work together on both sides of the aisle to achieve results. Whatever needs to be done to win, should be done. Nothing can be off the table. Our enemies don't play by the rules and that gives them an advantage.

Obviously, this would require those libertarians (mainly anarchists) that are averse to the political process to either consider running for office or at least working on a campaign. Sure, secession is an option, but would the federal government actually let any of their territory secede? I'll go out on a limb and say no.

3.) Spread those memes and comment online everywhere you can.

[Physiocrat]

1) With respect to immigration per se I definitely agree. To show that we understand that culture matters and that's largely determined by people groups is important especially to garner support from the small c conservative types. We don't just believe that abstract individuals exist.

2) a) Bad idea. Infiltration is the road to compromise and failure. The Libertarian Party may well be controlled opposition but a genuinely radical party changes the ground on which the major parties operate. In the UK, most Tory members hated the EU but could change nothing in the Tory party hierarchy. Only by the great surge in UKIP votes did it put the heat on David Cameron to promise an EU referendum.

So either an attempt at radicalising the LP needs to happen or all the genuine libertarians need to leave and form a new grouping.

b) I'm dubious of the effect of electoral politics at least in the short-run. Everyone should use their comparative advantage but a focus on creating artistically interesting libertarian themed art and culture. If the populace drank that daily the ground would shift in our direction.

The other thing to do is to pull all children out of government schools to stop the ideological programming and have many children to outbreed the opposition.

c) Agreed.

[Jon Irenicus]

I'm definitely in agreement with point 1 of the OP. Physiocrat has a good point on 2, though.

[Merlin]

Very difficult to pull the UKIP gambit under a plurality voting system. The point of the system (or of any other single-winner system) is to elect centrist candidates with wide appeal. Like it or not, the west’s current predicament is what appeals to the median voter and can only be changed when the median voter shifts toward liberty.

Getting people into the main parties with a secret libertarian agenda and a mandate to do what it takes to get elected would practically make centrists of our best and brightest. No one else can get elected.

As things stand, I’d agree that the most productive use of a libertarian’s vote is to push toward less and less migration, as this would stop the leftward move of the median voter and is well within the realm of political possibility. For the foreseeable future, we’re all rightists.

[Jon Irenicus]

AfD is doing a decent job in Germany, which a few years ago, no one would have expected. Also, I think had it not been for the threat Le Pen posed to the French establishment, we would be looking at a far more leftist president than Macron. So there does seem to be pressure coming from right-leaning, smaller parties.

As for UKIP, I think it's toast as things stand. A new party, though, might be well positioned to capitalise on the Tories' failure to deliver Brexit, which is how things seem to be shaping up, not to mention their laughable handling of immigration policy.

[Physiocrat]

Very difficult to pull the UKIP gambit under a plurality voting system. The point of the system (or of any other single-winner system) is to elect centrist candidates with wide appeal. Like it or not, the west’s current predicament is what appeals to the median voter and can only be changed when the median voter shifts toward liberty.

Getting people into the main parties with a secret libertarian agenda and a mandate to do what it takes to get elected would practically make centrists of our best and brightest. No one else can get elected.

But that's precisely the point. The third party isn't to get elected but to shift the Overton Window so normal politicians adopt Libertarianish policies because that's what is expected of the electorate. To the extent that Libertarianism has some cache we cannot have the term diluted with Gary Johnson types otherwise the term gets applied to half baked policies which have massive downsides and guess who will be blamed? Libertarianism.

We need a party with a Ron Paul esque platform with a clear philosophy. With sufficient support, normies will be influenced to change their preferences so the major parties change theirs. I see no evidence of a genuine rightist infiltration of a centrist party that has worked - the Left have been pretty successful but that is likely because it gives more power to the politicians so is naturally alluring.

[Merlin]

But that's precisely the point. The third party isn't to get elected but to shift the Overton Window so normal politicians adopt Libertarianish policies because that's what is expected of the electorate.

Yes, but two issues arise here.

First, you won’t be able to attract top political talent if you can’t promise any sort of recompense for their trouble in terms of power. Shifting the window means that you “win” when the other guy steals your thunder and you are left with nothing. Now, Farage seems a champ and he may well be personally responsible for the UK leaving the EU, but his career is in tatters now and he could have had a great one if he’d gone mainstream. How often can you expect to get top political talent with charisma, pedigree and practical know-how to work for free?

But a greater issue is that a party doesn’t shift the window: the window shifts and parties rush to fill the void. It may appear that, let us say, FN shifted the median to the right in France, but FN has been around for ages and the window only shifted now.

Now, it’s more complicated than that in practice (if FN hadn’t been there with an established history and some previous electoral success, the rightward shift could have been stifled and a party can also work to publicise facts that are otherwise kept in the shadow by the media), but setting up a party that will work as a media office and patiently wait for the window to shift is a far cry from the original theory.

[FvS]

Bad idea. Infiltration is the road to compromise and failure. The Libertarian Party may well be controlled opposition but a genuinely radical party changes the ground on which the major parties operate. In the UK, most Tory members hated the EU but could change nothing in the Tory party hierarchy. Only by the great surge in UKIP votes did it put the heat on David Cameron to promise an EU referendum.

It would only be faux compromise, like how every politician says one thing and then does another when they are elected. Obviously, it would be important for the these mole candidates to be legitimate libertarians in close contact with the true leaders of the movement (Rockwell, Ron Paul, Hoppe, Woods, McMaken, Murphy, etc.). Third parties in America seem like a dead end. They almost never elected and certainly not for any really important positions. Actually obtaining power is more important than publicly espousing pure libertarian ideals, imo. With regard to the EU referendum, who knows if Brexit actually going to happen and meanwhile, immigrants keep flooding in. Here is some more on the neocon strategy.

https://www.nolanchart.com/article5423- ... rians-html

So either an attempt at radicalising the LP needs to happen or all the genuine libertarians need to leave and form a new grouping.

Well, if no one is buying the neocon strategy, I suppose your idea would be the only other thing we could do. The question is, how?

b) I'm dubious of the effect of electoral politics at least in the short-run. Everyone should use their comparative advantage but a focus on creating artistically interesting libertarian themed art and culture. If the populace drank that daily the ground would shift in our direction.

Yes, I do think libertarianism needs to cultivate its own aesthetic like Communism and especially Fascism. Hell, I bet half the reason many people are still NatSoc today is because of the imagery. Personally, I was always thought libertarianism and science fiction go well together, that whole idea of taking humanity to the next phase of our evolution.

[Physiocrat]

First, you won’t be able to attract top political talent if you can’t promise any sort of recompense for their trouble in terms of power. Shifting the window means that you “win” when the other guy steals your thunder and you are left with nothing. Now, Farage seems a champ and he may well be personally responsible for the UK leaving the EU, but his career is in tatters now and he could have had a great one if he’d gone mainstream. How often can you expect to get top political talent with charisma, pedigree and practical know-how to work for free?

All you need is people who are engaging public speakers, that is it. The other attributes of top political talent I'd rather avoid. With respect to Farage, his career disappeared because he wanted it to. If he'd stayed as UKIP leader they could well be in a much better place although the main issue with UKIP was that they were an eclectic mix of people who agreed on one thing only - leave the EU. A more ideologically coherent party would have faired much, much better post-referendum vote.

But a greater issue is that a party doesn’t shift the window: the window shifts and parties rush to fill the void. It may appear that, let us say, FN shifted the median to the right in France, but FN has been around for ages and the window only shifted now.

Now, it’s more complicated than that in practice (if FN hadn’t been there with an established history and some previous electoral success, the rightward shift could have been stifled and a party can also work to publicise facts that are otherwise kept in the shadow by the media), but setting up a party that will work as a media office and patiently wait for the window to shift is a far cry from the original theory.

As yet parties have directly not shifted the Overton window, but I do think it is possible and having an ideological clear party with solutions to problems could certainly influence the direction of things.

An interesting question would be though, would shifting to a proportionally representation system aid Libertarianism?

[Merlin]

An interesting question would be though, would shifting to a proportionally representation system aid Libertarianism?

In theory it would, especially in countries such as the US or maybe even the UK. You’d probably get a minor party with a small number of seats, enough to get into some coalition every now and then. But then again, a similar number of libertarian representatives would still be elected through a major party anyways.

What proportional representation does is that it breaks down the groups coalesced into major parties into smaller, more coherent parties which than go on to form a loose coalition anyways. No fundamental change, really.