Truth in political advertising: libertarians or market liberals?
Scott Bieser provides an excellent analysis of the futility and counter-productive nature of the Libertarian Party.
I endorse his call for a campaign to convince the LP to change their name to something else; something other than “Libertarian” as a “truth in advertising” thing.
Furthermore, I also suggest we make it easier for them to determine to make this change by agreeing among ourselves what they ought to call themselves, making the choice in a way that suits our objectives and then assertively inserting the term into the ongoing discourse ourselves by using it as an insulting epithet against them. That may sound strange, but I believe that constant hectoring with the term as part of a determined harassment effort will inevitably result in their eventual latching onto it themselves in a sort of “reclaimed word” fashion. The way to pull this off would be to sort of self-consciously ape the way Marxist-Leninists used to relentlessly criticize and sneer at bourgeouis “liberal” Social Democrats.
My proposed umbrella term for neo-libertarian conservatoids, minarchists and partyarchs is also the term favored by the Cato Institute, so there is some appropriate precedent there. It’s “market liberal”.
I believe this serves our purposes by complementing the term “market anarchist”, potentially reinforcing the frame of the future “moderate left” being variations on “market liberal” and the future “radical left” mostly being or containing versions of “market anarchism” (until eventually the “market” part gets dropped because it’s just taken for granted and goes without saying).
Ironically, one of our best tools in this effort may be the neo-cons and their desire to label everything slightly less warmongering than General George S. Patton on a heavy meth binge as “left” or “liberal”.
Share This
Thanks for the shout-out, Brad, and I’m glad you’re on board for the second phase of saving the brand.
I don’t know whether “market liberal” will fly or not, since these usurpers are mostly Republicanoids. But since I don’t have a better substitute term what the hell, it can’t hurt to try. Just so long as we don’t get married to that bit ourselves — if we notice a movement within the usurper group to adopt a different particular name and it doesn’t include “libertarian” we should accept that, even if it doesn’t fit within an improved political mapping.
I just want them to stop calling themselves “libertarian” and I’ll be happy.
I prefer to call them “constitutionalists.”
This is particularly appropriate for the “states’ rights” and “enumerated powers” factions. They may be happy with the term. Hopefully, their bad reputation will undermine the still-too-good reputation of written constitutions, whether oligarchical like the US’ or minarchistic.
I’m not sure the term “constitutionalist” even applies to some of them. Ron Paul yes, Bob Barr no (until I see evidence otherwise). In terms of relative priorities, rhetorically attacking Bob Barr is higher up on my list than rhetorically attacking Ron Paul.
That they won’t like “market liberal” because it has the word “liberal” in it is a BONUS. Remember that what I propose is not politely suggesting this to them, but the use of the term as insult and invective to create a sort of psycho-drama to sear it into their memory (and that of witnesses).
I propose this because our numbers are small, so in order for us to effect the proposed change we need leverage.
Furthermore, I believe it will train the user of the rhetorical device themself to think of themselves as a market anarchists, willing to focus on what’s wrong with market liberalism (in similar fashion to the way a Marxist might criticize a social democrat).
We need to break the pattern of siding with liberals when conservatives are in power and then siding with conservatives when liberals are in power. What I propose is, effectively, seizing the relatively under-utilized mantle of the far left in terms of relative ideological positions.
Hello,
Why not finding a name for a new Libertarian Party?
In my case, the answer to that question is because I’m against all political parties. I’m an anarchist. I am against the state. I believe that there is no way to govern, no program of public policy, that is consistent with the libertarian non-aggression principle. Thus, I can’t endorse attempting to gain control of (or participating in) the government. I believe that all governments are merely glorified criminal gangs, and I’m not interested in making better behaved gangs in an effort to ensure their longevity. I believe that the system of privately provided (i.e. non-state) law and security services described in market anarchist texts can potentially arise from underground as a set of black market enterprises, ultimately suppressing government as criminal activity rather than futilely attempting to reform it. See here: http://agorism.info/
I think your taking the wrong tack on this. We should pick a name (perhaps Constitutionalists) that they want to adopt, but that radical libertarians would sneer at. But picking a name to adopt that they would want and we would despise makes them more likely to adopt it, and free up the term libertarian for, well, things libertarian.
Well, my first goal isn’t to insult the paleocons, it is to discredit the idea that a constitution can limit its state.
I started using the term “constitutionalist” wrt Ron Paul thought, and I’m aware that it won’t suit the Barrists as well as the Paulists.
But the term “market liberal” suffers because classical-liberalism is self-contradictory. Resolving the contradictions within the social contract theory leads to individual sovereignty/ voluntary federation, i.e. to anarchism. The same applies to markets, whether defined in the narrow sense or applied to the whole voluntary sphere. Liberalism is inconsistent liberalism; anarchism is consistent liberalism.
@Eli — Fair point.
I’ll contribute LINOs: Libertarians In Name Only, by analogy to RINO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only
How about “failed phony opposition party”?
I’ve believed for years that as the D & R parties became less and less distinguishable the Powers That Be would look to push forward a new false front affiliation that would make a more credible opposition, thereby keeping the “participatory democracy” scam alive..
Unfortunately for the aspirations of its adherents to cushy government appointments or subsidies the LP seems to be rushing to join the major parties in one giant state-loving chimera.
For that very reason it may inadvertently help the cause of freedom, though. It’s certainly more likely to do so than anything one can do, at least legally, in a voting booth…
Historical note: the word “libertarian” originally meant something less stringent than your definition. See Robert Heinlein’s earliest work, “For Us the Living.” He used the word “libertarian”, and even fortold the existence of a Libertarian Party.
But his libertarian vision included free healthcare, a citizen dividend, and a government takeover of most of the banking system. (Rather more government than I prefer, BTW.)
This book was written in 1939, well before Rothbard came up with his very narrow definition.
The historical dishonesty of the LP is that it uses a broad (Nolan Chart) definition for outreach and the stringent (Rothbard) definition internally — some of the time.
Nothing dishonest about using the word “libertarian” broadly as long as it is done consistently. ZAPers are then “anarcho-capitlists” or at least “strict libertarians.”