The Social Network For Libertarians
The importance of "consistency"
As some of you may have gathered by now I'm a real stickler for consistency in the application, and discussion, of libertarian principles as they apply to issues and solutions for the problems our country faces today. For this I'm routinely berated by "reformers" as being "extremist", "radical", "purist" etc.
The reformers seem to rely on this tactic in combination with words like "pragmatic", almost as if it were itself a philosophical principle that reinforces their compromising proposals.
Some reformers seem to honestly believe that vocal opposition to their "pragmatic" issue proposals by philosophical libertarians is nothing more than braggarts that "like to put on a display" of purity, as if it were a competition between extremists to see who can prove themselves most radical. Then there are those that sincerely believe compromise is the formula for electoral success, and adherents to consistency are a hindrance, an obstacle to be overcome. This group has even gone as far recently as to propose a new all important guiding principle, suggesting in a recent Lp newsletter "the most important principle is winning".
I reject the tone of what reformers are implying when they refer to adherents of libertarian principles as "extremists", purists, 'radicals". I reject any retorts or responses that relies on statements containing the words "purist", extremist", "radical" or any similar variations, as a sound principled argument for, and/or in defense of, ideas during discussion and debate. I reject the notion that strict consistent adherence to the stated principles our party was founded upon is a hindrance to our stated goals or an obstacle within our party. To these people I will end this portion with a quote from Barry Hess at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, "who else would you want protecting your God given freedoms but an extremist? A half-stepper? A flip-flopper? Perhaps a moderate?"
Now, to the reason I initially began typing this blog...
The reason I'm posting this blog is to direct y'all to an Albuquerque Examiner article written by Kent McManigal titled "Light of liberty illuminates the failures of authoritarianism".
I believe it highlights the reason why it is important for not only we as libertarian individuals, but also our party representatives, to be consistent in the application of our principles when publicly discussing the issues of the day, and why we must never allow ourselves or our party representatives to be caught or perceived as half-stepping. Here's an excerpt...
"The quickest way to see that libertarianism is correct is by reading the views and opinions of the opposition. The inconsistencies in any adherent of authoritarianism should be glaringly obvious to just about anyone who takes the time to look with open eyes and an engaged mind.
Authoritarians always have exceptions to their "principles". Evil actions are disguised behind euphemisms: It is wrong to steal, unless you are doing so under the guise of "taxation", for one common example.
The consistency of libertarians is frightening to authoritarians. They keep trying to find exceptions by proposing increasingly bizarre scenarios to libertarians; saying "but what if....".
These scenarios are normally"... (continue reading at the link above)
The reformers seem to rely on this tactic in combination with words like "pragmatic", almost as if it were itself a philosophical principle that reinforces their compromising proposals.
Some reformers seem to honestly believe that vocal opposition to their "pragmatic" issue proposals by philosophical libertarians is nothing more than braggarts that "like to put on a display" of purity, as if it were a competition between extremists to see who can prove themselves most radical. Then there are those that sincerely believe compromise is the formula for electoral success, and adherents to consistency are a hindrance, an obstacle to be overcome. This group has even gone as far recently as to propose a new all important guiding principle, suggesting in a recent Lp newsletter "the most important principle is winning".
I reject the tone of what reformers are implying when they refer to adherents of libertarian principles as "extremists", purists, 'radicals". I reject any retorts or responses that relies on statements containing the words "purist", extremist", "radical" or any similar variations, as a sound principled argument for, and/or in defense of, ideas during discussion and debate. I reject the notion that strict consistent adherence to the stated principles our party was founded upon is a hindrance to our stated goals or an obstacle within our party. To these people I will end this portion with a quote from Barry Hess at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, "who else would you want protecting your God given freedoms but an extremist? A half-stepper? A flip-flopper? Perhaps a moderate?"
Now, to the reason I initially began typing this blog...
The reason I'm posting this blog is to direct y'all to an Albuquerque Examiner article written by Kent McManigal titled "Light of liberty illuminates the failures of authoritarianism".
I believe it highlights the reason why it is important for not only we as libertarian individuals, but also our party representatives, to be consistent in the application of our principles when publicly discussing the issues of the day, and why we must never allow ourselves or our party representatives to be caught or perceived as half-stepping. Here's an excerpt...
"The quickest way to see that libertarianism is correct is by reading the views and opinions of the opposition. The inconsistencies in any adherent of authoritarianism should be glaringly obvious to just about anyone who takes the time to look with open eyes and an engaged mind.
Authoritarians always have exceptions to their "principles". Evil actions are disguised behind euphemisms: It is wrong to steal, unless you are doing so under the guise of "taxation", for one common example.
The consistency of libertarians is frightening to authoritarians. They keep trying to find exceptions by proposing increasingly bizarre scenarios to libertarians; saying "but what if....".
These scenarios are normally"... (continue reading at the link above)
Comment
-
Comment by Richard (L-Resigned) on March 24, 2009 at 4:35am -
Kent must have read my blog.
=================
March 23, 2009
Libertarians can afford to be bold.
"There are very clear reasons why we hold fast to the principles we do. We have clear, rationally derived reasons, so we can be bold when taking our stand. Timidity shows doubt and it isn't necessary. You have weighed your positions, haven't you? Just because our positions may not be popular doesn't mean they are wrong."
"When it comes to the absolute right of each person to live life according to his wishes and values, as long as he harms no innocent person, even when his choices are unpopular or scorned by the vast majority, libertarians can't afford to be wishy-washy. There is enough of that out there already. If you only stand up for the popular rights, you are really taking no stand at all."
=================
About
© 2009 Created by Randy Speeg on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of MyLibertySpace to add comments!
Join this Ning Network