I am posting this because I sense that the overwhelming majority of American voters have virtually little or no knowledge concerning the subject of Libertarianism. The Libertarian Party is the third largest and fastest growing political party in the United States. In point of fact a study of Libertarianism is sufficiently complex that it would require a full semester college level course to introduce it to the uninformed.
For the typical American voter whose primary concern should be what will happen to government after this person assumes office; only a reasonable consideration of the ideology of the two main divided components of American Libertarianism, .i.e., Libertarian Anarchism versus Libertarian monarchism is actually needed.
Most of the material provided below the fold can be found in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia under the reference for “Libertarian Party (United States)”.
Minarchism was a word coined by Samuel Konkin III in 1971 to describe Libertarians WHO DEFEND the existence of some form of compulsory government (otherwise known as Limited -government Libertarianism). Minarchist Libertarians would NOT advocate destruction of all form of governments, local and federal.
Anarchistic Libertarianism on the other hand is dedicated to the political theory that all forms of governmental authority are unnecessary and undesirable and therefore proposes abolition of ALL forms of GOVERNMENT. Traditionally anarchists dedicate themselves to a type of behavior intended to OVERTHROW or WEAKEN a society’s formal system of government.
The Libertarian Party was formed in the Colorado home of David Nolan on December 11, 1971. Nolan and other Libertarians were enraged at President Richard Nixon for taking the United States off of the Gold Standard and considered this to be the “final straw” in governmental over-reaches. In 1972 John Hospers ran for president on the Libertarian Party Ticket, thereby establishing the Libertarians as a valid third political Party. There are many aspects to Libertarian Party positions on the issues, but it is safe to say in a general sense that Libertarians are fiscally stark Conservative and Liberal on most social issues.
The longest unresolved debate among Libertarians is known as the Anarchist-Minarchist debate. (These terms have been defined above.) This debate actually split the Libertarian Party in two during their presidential convention back in 1976. The atmosphere was so acrimonious that many Minarchist Libertarians left the party in disgust.
Ronald Reagan during his first presidential campaign in 1980 successfully recruited large numbers of these disgruntled Minarchist Libertarians into the Republican Party and his presidential campaign. Regan was highly successful at convincing the Minarchist Libertarians of a common interest in the Republican idea of small government and the Minarchist goal to achieve the least amount of government possible. During Reagan’s two terms as president he integrated many Libertarians into his administration and throughout other government agencies. It was during this period that the political label of Republican/Libertarian gained full acceptance and legitimacy. However, it is important to keep in mind that these were virtually all Minarchist Libertarians who became Republican/Libertarians.
Fast forward to 2010 and the advent of the Tea Party rise in opposition to America’s first African American President, Barack Obama. The Tea Party agenda established by privately funded groups like Freedom Works embarked on a frantic campaign to elect a swath of new members to the House Of Representative in the 2010 Congressional elections. In the process of searching for “Republican Tea Party” candidates, the Freedom Works dragnet managed to pull in many anarchist Libertarians. There was a great deal of mutual symbiosis in the anti-Washington rhetoric dominating the stump during this period, so little attention was paid by the Freedom Works organizers to the degree of radicalism espoused by these new potential Republican/Libertarian Tea Party candidates.
The success of the Tea Party House Candidates produced a block of 83 freshmen Tea Party members in the House. Keep in mind that these new House members are all anarchist Libertarians who both as a group and individually are DEDICATED to the OVERTHROW or UNCONDITIONAL WEAKENING of the federal government.
The cover of the obstinate behavior of the 83 new Tea Party House members has been incorrectly reported in the media as just the manifestation of solid uncompromising opposition to President Obama simply based on Obama’s race. This canard has gone unchallenged throughout Obama’s first term as president. However, it is natural that these members are against anything the President is for because as the Chief Executive of the federal government, the president’s responsibility is to administer the spending of funds required to manage and operate the federal government and all of its myriad agencies. On the other hand, the anarchists Libertarian/Republicans in the House see their duty is to maintain steadfast uncompromising opposition to ANYTHING that will benefit, sustain or expand the federal government. These 83 Tea Party House members have absolutely no concern or fear of not being re-elected. They simply do not care, and their concern is ONLY for the AMOUNT of DAMAGE that they can do to the government AT THE PRESENT TIME.
They have already threatened the Speaker of the House, their leader John Boehner, several times with the possibility of tough primary challenges against him in the near future. As the situation currently exists for this Congress, the anarchist Libertarians are effectively in control of the House of Representatives. This is why the only bills that have a chance of moving forward in the House are those that inflict huge cuts in funding against any government entity. Since the anarchist Libertarians are socially liberal, any legislation that is put forth to name a Post Office after some local dignitary will also most likely receive attention and pass into law.
In summary, which type of Libertarian would be a better Congressman or President for the preservation of the American government that has made this country great over the past decades? There is only one answer to that question and that is NEITHER! To use an analogy, consider the question of the status of the American military. Simply put the Anarchist Libertarians unconditionally would NOT ALLOW any standing military, PERIOD! The Anarchist Libertarians would depend exclusively on the ability of the citizens to voluntarily raise a defensive militia in the event the country was attacked by foreign forces. On the other hand the Minarchist Libertarians WOULD SUPPORT an American military, but one that was no larger than half of the size of the forces available to the United States in the period one week after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. From the perspective of this analogy, neither would be a viable choice for America’s security as the nation goes forward in the world of the 21st century.
Likewise, funds to increase the education level of American youth, along with cherished programs such as Medicare and Social Security would no longer be available in a Libertarian society. Furthermore grants and funding to facilitate development of new technology to make America a leader in the 21st century would only be available at the whim of an occasional motivated super wealthy Libertarian philanthropist in a Libertarian society. All in all it is a pretty grim picture for any aspiring American citizen, and I for one will cast my vote in 2012 for a large vibrant visionary government to provide the best future for the American people.
