(no subject)
I'm not a supporter of the Libertarian Party. With any Libertarian Party there is a paradox. If the party is too small, it cannot get elected to much of anything. If it becomes large enough to be a significant player in the political process, power seekers will come to it as a means of gaining power, and the libertarian aspect of it, its sole purpose, will take a backseat to power politics. This is the case with Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. It is not nearly enough to simply agree with certain aspects of the liberty philosophy. To be a libertarian, one must love liberty. This love of liberty will show itself in the person learning as much as they can in terms of economics, philosophy, and history. It is only these people who can move the message of liberty forward and only these people who deserve support. Barr comes off to me as a libertarian conservative pretender. I have yet to hear him say a single thing about one of the most destructive things the state does, which is central banking. The constant inflating and devaluation of the currency by the federal reserve is the main tool of any all powerful nation state. How is it possible for someone claiming to be a libertarian to not make it either the main or close to main issue of their campaign? Or at least talk about it at all? Also, to love liberty is to despise all militarism and war. Barr claims to oppose the Iraq war, yet speaks of it with not much passion, and I've heard him say nothing of bringing all U.S. troops from all around the world home immediately which any passionate defender of liberty would surely do. What many in the Libertarian Party do is they use the message of liberty as a means to gain power. However, liberty and power are the antithesis of each other. The only way to be successful in gaining power then, if that's one's purpose, is to dilute the message to the point where the candidate is not much distinguishable from any of the other candidates. An example of a true libertarian and true lover of liberty is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is incredibly learned and in his presidential campaign made the federal reserve a central part of his run. He managed to talk about it and put it in pretty much everything he said demonstrating his deep knowledge of monetary policy and history. He also spoke more passionately about the folly of foreign military interventionism than anybody else out there. Since his campaign was not about gaining power but about telling the truth, such radicalism inspired people, he did much better than anyone could have expected, and he sparked a movement which will continue on into the future. Because of Barr's lack of radicalism, his lack of education concerning the free economy, and his residual Republican conservatism, he will not spark the same kind of excitement as Ron Paul did. The Libertarian Party should, if they are what they say they are, at least be able to run the most libertarian candidate out of all the parties. Since Ron Paul is by far the most libertarian and ran as a Republican, the Libertarian Party has not accomplished that. When a Republican is more libertarian than the Libertarian nominee, I think that's pretty sad. It is not enough to just claim to be something. One must demonstrate it. Actions speak louder than words.