Look who broke the minarchy-anarchy truce of 1974

The Florida LP has denounced its anarchist members, as well as given a hit to the Mises Institute.

http://www.libertyflorida.org/?p=837

Hopefully this will not carry to the national party?

Of course anarchy isn't a legitimate form of government. It's not government at all, that's the point.

"The changes to our national platform over the years, removing the extremist anarchist positions are helping and a good thing. Compare the LP Florida platform to the national LP platform, and you will see differences which reflect libertarian vs libertine ideology. Libertarian philosophy, is understood and accepted by most Americans. The massive rise of the TEA Party is proof, the fact that the people are rising under the auspices of libertarian philosophy but not joining the Libertarian Party should cause the LP to reflect upon itself."

WOW...

 

Are there any good studies why fringe groups break up and splinter so readily. There are a plethora of options that I could think of that make sense as to why that happens - off of te top of my head:

a) less mass influence = less people = louder and more esoteric voices

b) they don't, at least per capita - it is just more noticable because they are a fringe group, so quarrels hurt the overall scheme more

c) Fringe groups attract fringe people who are more reafy to quarrel, and see the group as an easier target to assert influence

Either way, there should be a serious look at such matters so that people who fall on the "outside" of things can be more effective and flexible at organizing and expressing thoughts, rather than falling into a scene from "Life of Brian" where you get a bunch of dissaffected Jewish liberator groups fighting and hating each other more than the Romans.

"Ensuring no individual, corporation or government is above the rule of law"

Are these people dumb? That's impossible when the government is a monopolist of law.

Anarco-capitalists shouldn't bother, these people are just diehard statists looking for a piece of the sweet state pie.

Look who broke the minarchy-anarchy truce of 1974

This title keeps cracking me up. Ah yes, the great truce of 1974.

Hopefully this will not carry to the national party?

You know, if disassociating with anarchists makes libertarianism more relevant and acceptable to the masses, I say let the LP do what it wants. Its a political party, not a group of scholars. (edit: added something constructive)

You know, if disassociating with anarchists makes libertarianism more relevant and acceptable to the masses, I say let the LP do what it wants. Its a political party, not a group of scholars.

Sure, I guess as a member, though, I would push for Rothbard's strategy. The LP is the only area where anarcho-capitalists can have any political influence, I think. And I do think it is essential we have political influence, but that is merely my opinion.

"Of course anarchy isn't a legitimate form of government. It's not government at all, that's the point."

Self-government.

You know, if disassociating with anarchists makes libertarianism more relevant and acceptable to the masses, I say let the LP do what it wants.

While I am not trying to be combative and this isn't really an effort to "disprove" your point (which may be valid), I honestly don't think that "outsiders" (non-anarchists and non-minarchists) make the same distinction as minarchists and anarchists.  What I mean is that what effectively differentiates the two camps is whether or not government is necessary to protect property rights (and, thus, any assumed corollary rights).  Minarchists and anarchists recognize this.  Most outsiders don't.  If you suggest privatizing education, roads, the prison system, et cetera, you will probably be labeled an anarchist or something just as "fanciful".  So, the question is: where do you draw the line to provide legitimacy?  And, how far do you have to draw back the line, and thus how much do you have to scale back your doctrine?  At what point is the Florida Libertarian Party no longer really a libertarian party?

I think it is kind of pathetic. One of the main things that libertarianism has going for it is being unafraid. Once people become afraid of what people think or assume they are in the 'silent majority' (among a view dispensable heretics), it becomes very pathetic. I was looking at Wayne Allen Root's book the other day about Libertarianism. It's probably the worst title I've seen: The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts. If that doesn't make people think Libertarians are stupid, I don't know what would. As if it is all about Jeebus, assault rifles, more casinos, and measily tax-cuts. It's makes it sound like a type of libertinism, but for dumb unintellectual white guys. Which is what wayne is. I've always been more proud of people like Karl Hess. Who on the one hand don't buy into ideology as such, but on the other hand are not afraid to say what is true. Radical or not. And the conflation with 'libertine' is so stupid. As if we are all reading the Marquis de Sade and Timothy Leary and promoting rape and bondage fantasies. The mises institute has always stuck to economics and rational philosophy. If anything it is pretty much not going for any type of controversy. We've always assumed the Kochtopus to be closer to libertinism. And that is pushing it.

"Recognizing absolute freedom of speech, religion, and association

" 

 That is the most misleading phrase ever uttered.  ABSOLUTE freedom of limitation is more like it.

 

I don't know why the 'third' parties do not coalesce.

If the Green, Reform, Constitutionalist, and Libertarian parties were to combine funds and run people for specific roles of power (governor of CA, TX, Senate/House, Sheriffs, etc) there would be a much better chance of undermining the two party system.

Think about the hype that Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Peter Schiff, Judge Nap, Chuck Baldwin, and Pat Buchanan & LaRouche types could get acting in a coordinated manner.  Sure it wouldn't be great, but what's worse.

They all agree on ending wars, ending the FED, ending WTO and NAFTA, etc.  all of the important things.  Who gives a shit about abortion?

The conflicts would only erupt AFTER they got some power where they would run into irreconcilable problems, but at least they will all have say and not just the Repubs/Democrats