For $15 a year, you can be a member of George Phillies’s Liberty for America promoting “libertarian centrism.” What are the “litmus tests” of libertarian centrism? The Libertarian Centrist Manifesto says:
- You must be pro-legal abortion
- You must ignore “critics of central banking” (i.e. be pro-Fed)
- You must “shun” so-called “Confederate sympathizers” who are on par with “Holocaust deniers”
- You must support the idea that it’s “only through government that men will stay free”
- You must oppose “states’ rights”
- You must support equality in marriage, adoption, and access to military service
88 responses so far ↓
1 Trent Hill // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:17 pm
GE,
Where does the linked-site say this? Or are you ediotorializing?
2 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I’ll pass.
Trent: it’s on Last Free Voice.
3 Eternaverse // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Why does Phillies like the Fed, whats his agreement about this being libertarian?
4 Eternaverse // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Argument I mean.
5 sunshinebatman // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Eterna – Homosexual neo-pagans have an inalienable right to engage in military genocide against Arab people. The best way to secure this right is to have a central bank printing currency to pay for it. Anything less would be unlibertarian. Thank Cthulu for the heroic George Phillies!
6 rdupuy // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I pass the test technically, but I would like the membership fee to be more. I cannot pay less than $500 and that’s final.
7 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Trent – Whoops. Link is now provided to the “Libertarian Centrist Manifesto.”
8 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:28 pm
You see what I mean? There are three factions at play here, because when sunshinebatman says something against this ridiculous libertine statist wing of the LP, I am in full agreement.
9 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Here’s the TRUE libertarian counterpart to this horrendous statist “manifesto”
1. Libertarians disagree on what constitutes personhood. All agree that the initiation of force against persons should be illegal. All agree that Roe v. Wade has no constitutional authority and thus should be repealed.
2. Like Jefferson said, central banks are a greater threat to liberty than standing armies. It is the central bank that makes war and tyrannical government powerful, and the number-one priority of libertarian political action should be the abolition of the central bank.
3. Libertarians recognize the right of political secession and that holding individuals within a union against their will IS slavery.
4. The monopoly state is by definition the enemy of liberty. Attempts to “limit” government have been utter failures throughout history.
5. We affirm the principle of political decentralism and the idea that small, competing states are superior to large, monolithic ones.
6. We support a complete separation of marriage and state, a free-market in adoption, and abolition of government-funded standing armies.
10 VTV // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Woah…. I cannot believe that was even suggested as a Libertarian position. (Meaning Phillies’s platform).
11 Sivarticus // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Eh? Oppose states’ rights and not oppose the Fed? No way.
12 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:44 pm
George Phillies is endorsed by the Boston Tea Party. Does he follow the platform of favoring smaller government at all levels, and bigger government at no levels?
In what way does he favor smaller government in the issuance of currency?
Does the BTP admit people who consider abortion an act of aggression, and thus think that “more government” should be implemented to curb this legalized aggression? I personally think proactively legalizing abortion is the act of government.
13 Arthur Torrey // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:47 pm
As I understand George’s position, the problem with the Fed isn’t a case of liking the Fed as an institution, but of having problems with the various “Tin-Foil-Hat” conspiracy theories put forth by some of those opposed to the Fed…
IOW, he doesn’t buy the owned by the Bilderbergers / Rothschilds / Swiss Bankers / Green Aliens / etc. theories, and some of the similar claims.
I’m not sure about some of the other things as far as whether he thinks the Fed is Constitutional or not.
Note that when I talked with him the other day, he said that he didn’t see any big problem w/ backing the RP / C4L clause on investigating the Fed, or a call for getting rid of it.
ART
14 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:49 pm
George Phillies is a Keynesaian and not a libertarian. He’s worse on the issues than Bob Barr, by a long shot.
15 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Oh, but wait: No I’m being “hypocritical” again, for supporting Art’s RIGHT to free speech and not agreeing with the candidate he likes.
16 Hugh Jass // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Can someone explain why this xenophobic, monopolistic, centralist, anti-property, racist, statist joined the LP in the first place?
17 Dodge Landesman // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:54 pm
These sounds like me. I for one am sick of the homophobic, gay hating Libertarians. We’re about equality. There needs to be more people like George Phillies. His message doesn’t sound radical, and will appeal to the outside world. Thank you, Mr. Phillies. I’m running for city council on a platform pretty much identical to Mr. Phillies:
http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=35970955534&ref=ts
18 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Gay hating libertarians? What?
Libertarianism is NOT about “equality,” Dodge. You didn’t understand what “neocon” meant, and apparently, you don’t know what “liberty” means either.
19 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Hugh- Yeah… Why doesn’t L4A have planks mandating opposition to free trade and opposition to immigration?
20 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Because the Democrats weren’t proactive enough in endorsing equal welfare for gay couples.
21 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 7:59 pm
At least this will do away with the misguided notion that George Phillies is a “radical” libertarian… Or a libertarian at all.
22 Hugh Jass // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Dodge,
Why should it be the government’s business what people do with their own property?
23 Hugh Jass // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:03 pm
As bad as Barr is, he is still better than Phillies. Both distort libertarianism, both insult a man who displayed liberty to a new audience, but at least Barr could have at least theoretically gotten the LP media attention. Not so with Phillies.
Overall, Ruwart, Gravel, or Kubby would have been better nominees, though.
24 Thomas M. Sipos // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Ironically, when I was in Phillies’s suite at the Denver convention, I met a Druid pagan who was also a neo-Confederate.
He told me that, while he was not pro-slavery, blacks were better off under slavery than in the decades immediately following the Civil War.
I kid you not.
I also know of a Wiccan neo-Confederate here in California.
So that’s two pagan neo-Confederates I’ve met over the years.
I’m sure Phillies wouldn’t endorse them. But some pagans are also neo-Confederates.
25 darolew // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Well, let’s see…do I pass the litmus test?
You must be pro-legal abortion: Check.
You must ignore “critics of central banking†(i.e. be pro-Fed): Not check.
You must “shun†so-called “Confederate sympathizers†who are on par with “Holocaust deniersâ€: I support secession, so…not check? I guess.
You must support the idea that it’s “only through government that men will stay freeâ€: I read this as “you must not be an anarchist”, in which case, check. However, I strongly object to the phrasing…
You must oppose “states’ rightsâ€: Not check. Decentralism is a key libertarian value. While states don’t have rights, it’s better that they have power than the federal government.
You must support equality in marriage, adoption, and access to military service: Not check? Marriage and adoption should be privatized; I don’t think that’s what Phillies means by ‘equality’. I don’t have a problem with gays in the military, though frankly I don’t see why anyone would want to be in the military.
That’s 2/6. I guess I’m not a centrist libertarian.
26 Dodge Landesman // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Alright, there’s a lot of comments on my statements. It’s not the state’s bussiness as in terms of marriage. But while it has to be, we should let homosexuals have the same rights as straight couples. Also, to me, Libertarianism is indeed about equality. Isn’t equality (in law atleast) an essential proponent of liberty? Also, I think the fed is terrible, but to believe in all these conspiracy theories is what makes us seem non palpable to the outside world. Also, state’s rights means more government, not less. Just more confusing government.
27 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I don’t believe in welfare, but so long as some people get it, why not everyone? = Dodge’s rationale.
Yes, there are plenty of anti-Fed activists who DON’T GET IT and give the movement a bad name. Libertarians should be principled enough to make the LIBERTARIAN argument against the Fed, not the right-wing nut argument.
And to support centralism over decentralism in the name of “less government” is just fucking stupid. No other words for it. It’s as dumb as thinking Scoop Jackson wasn’t a neocon but Chuck Baldwin is.
28 Dodge Landesman // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I never said I supported wellfare. I am against the fed. Also, I never said Scoop Jackson was a neocon, I asked if he was. I said FP wise he was, and I realize that now he fully is. And state’s rights does not help our cause. It just gets confusing. Don’t you think all the northern states would go gaga over states rights and create a huge welfare state? Atleast now we have Republicans (who I’m none to keen on, but they’re of course better than the dems of the economy). I would guarantee that if state’s rights was enacted, about atleast 30 states would become massive government instead of just big government like we have now. They both suck, but living in New York, I’d be scared if my state had ultimate power of their people.
29 Dylan Waco // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Well Phillies did use his LP convention speech to extol Goldwater as the pinnacle of American libertarianism so this really isn’t surprising.
Join Phillies by being wrong on every issue!
30 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Dodge – If some states built up massive welfare states, then you could MOVE TO THE STATES THAT GAVE YOU THE MOST FREEDOM.
There’s nothing “confusing” about being ruled by local government instead of by faceless bureaucrats in Washington. Jesus, man!
31 Dodge Landesman // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:38 pm
But that’s the problem. I love NYC, and I would never ever leave. I think we shouldn’t impose more government on our people who live in big gov’t. Asking me to move for the good of states rights seems a little crazy. I think I’d get too sleepy in New Hampshire, though I do admire their liberty.
32 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:41 pm
You love NYC and would never want to leave, so that means the rest of us have to live under a centralized state? You really DO NOT GET libertarianism.
33 Dodge Landesman // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I’m pretty sure I get Libertarianism. I’m saying other people would have the same problem, and each state would pander to their people. There would be a dominance of huge government, and I bet the other states except for possibly New Hampshire and Nevada would be massive government too. When states had more of their own power back in the 40′s and 50′s, Southern states all voted Democrat for their welfare benefits. This would happen again, with the liberal states keeping their massive government veiw. I can cite George Wallace who was a state’s rights guy, and was in ’64 , ’72 and ’76 primaries and in the ’68 general election known as really the “pro-union” guys. The union people voted for him in droves. With more states rights, unions would develop an extremely tough stronghold on each state government, and each governor would be a slave to the union, hence bringing even bigger government. To me, more states rights equals more union power which equals a much bigger government then we have today.
34 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Absolutely absurd. It is the NATIONAL Labor Relations Board are related legislation that gave unions special rights.
You not only don’t understand libertarianism, you don’t understand economics.
It is only by monopoly that socialism can be imposed.
This is tedious. You are not a libertarian if you support centralism over decentralism. I’m not one for litmus tests (unlike your hero George Phillies), but that is a pretty obvious one. You have a desire to control other people’s lives. Why stop at national government? Why not WORLD GOVERNMENT? Is that your platform for city council — do surrender all authority to the central state? JFC!
35 svf // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Now, by popular demand
Memberships
Liberty for America Membership Dues are $15 per year
Send your check, payable “Liberty for America” to
George Phillies
48 Hancock Hill Drive
Worcester MA 01609
** spit take **
you have GOT to be kidding me…
for fuck’s sake, George.
36 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:58 pm
First sunshinebatman and then svf = I’m in agreement.
37 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Classic ignorance = Dodge opposing the principle of decentralism because some of the supporters of one allegedly decentralist candidate were union members.
38 svf // Sep 12, 2008 at 8:59 pm
First sunshinebatman and then svf = I’m in agreement.
Thank you, George Phillies, for unifying the Libertarian Party!
39 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 9:01 pm
There are essentially three wings of the LP that cannot agree on anything except opposing one another.
The Outright “Libertarians,” which endorsed solidly statist George, have been applauding Barr behind the scenes for his snub of Ron Paul, whom they loath for the crime of not overtly celebrating “sexual freedom.”
40 langa // Sep 12, 2008 at 9:16 pm
God, I get tired of these endless “varieties” of libertarianism.
For the record, I do not consider myself a centrist libertarian, a leftwing libertarian, a rightwing libertarian, a populist libertarian, a conservative libertarian, a liberal libertarian, a moderate libertarian, a cosmopolitan libertarian, a libertine libertarian, a paleolibertarian, or any other “branch” of libertarian.
I’m just a plain libertarian, who’s always against the state, on every issue, without exception. Period.
41 svf // Sep 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I’m just a plain libertarian
Aha, so you’re part of the “plain libertarian” faction! That explains EVERYTHING! STEP FORWARD!
42 Dodge Landesman // Sep 12, 2008 at 9:27 pm
G.E., I think I have a sense of economics. History has proven that unions rise up if states have more rights. Then they take control and take our liberty. I have a Libertarian veiw on the government. I beleive they should pretty much just be there for our courts. I think the best way to do that is change it on a national level, then on a state level. We want our country to progress, not our states to regress into massive government. Also, I’m big on states rights on the economy. Just not on any social issue. You want for everything to be completely state’s rights. That’s dixiecrats, not Libertarian. I don’t know what you’re so angry about, and I am a Libertarian. I don’t want people to control our rights, and that’s a completely ignorant thing for you to say for yourself. You’re running out of logic so instead you use absurd insults. You are a fine writer, a good advocate for liberty, and I admire your reporting, but your accusations are insane.
43 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Dodge – I want anarchy. But failing that, minarchy. And that means local government, not world government. I’m sure you will grow into a fine libertarian — you obviously have libertarian instincts. But you are VERY WRONG and unlibertarian on this issue.
44 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 9:59 pm
BTW: It’s my “faction” that wants greater coalition between like-minded groups. It’s the two other factions — one led by Redpath and the smaller one led by Phillies — that want to LP to be an exclusive club, kowtowing to the powers that be in the Establishment parties.
45 langa // Sep 12, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Dodge,
The problem with centralized government is that they expand their power under the guise of “protecting” individual rights, but then use that same newfound power to circumscribe and erode the same individual rights that they claimed to be protecting. A perfect example is the recent Heller gun decision, which used the federal courts to overturn a local gun ban.
This was supposed to be a victory for gun rights, but it is already being used as precedent for upholding new, more restrictive gun bans. This is no coincidence. Once you grant power to the federal government, you never know how they are going to use it, but it’s virtually impossible to take it away from them. It’s like trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
46 Thomas L. Knapp // Sep 13, 2008 at 1:02 am
The history of centralization of government power with respect to unions is almost precisely 180 degrees opposite the ignorant bullshit being purveyed here, from the invocation of the interstate commerce clause to break local strikes to FDR’s fight with organized labor over his attempt to set up national labor conscription to the Wagner Act to RFK’s anti-Teamster jihad.
Yes, Taft-Hartley sucks. It’s also one tiny, allegedly pro-labor, appendage on a century of anti-labor big government that 90% of alleged “free marketeers” completely ignore when it’s time for the ceremonial bashing of the unions.
47 G.E. // Sep 13, 2008 at 1:07 am
I don’t even know who you’re attacking here, Tom. But I guess I’m “purveying ignorant bullshit” by pointing out that the federal government, through the NLRB, gives unions special rights at the expense of property owners. That’s a fact. It’s a fact that federal laws force employers to rehire strikers — even ones who’ve committed acts of violence or property destruction. Unions deserve to be bashed at every opportunity. They are communist collectives of violent thugs who exclude “others” (historically, minorities and women and now foreigners) to line their own pockets, and always have their hands out for more money for less work.
48 G.E. // Sep 13, 2008 at 1:11 am
To be clear: I’m all for the right to organize and collectively bargain, so long as its done nonvi0lently and without special rights. If my employees try to unionize, I have a right to fire them, which I would.
49 G.E. // Sep 13, 2008 at 1:13 am
Oh, and of course, it’s WRONG to use violence to prevent organizing and to get government immunity or even aid in doing that. Do I really even need to say that?
50 mattc // Sep 13, 2008 at 2:00 am
I love that there are 2 presidential candidates on LP ballot lines this fall, and it’s looking more and more like neither is a libertarian at all.
51 Trent Hill // Sep 13, 2008 at 2:04 am
hahah. Indeed.
Vote Chuck Baldwin 08.
52 mattc // Sep 13, 2008 at 2:07 am
I’m not really excited about it, but it looks more and more like that’s what I’m going to do.
53 DarkDiscordian // Sep 13, 2008 at 2:52 am
I generally agree with G.E.’s list of values, but I have to disagree on Roe v. Wade. I’m against abortion actually, but since people disagree on what constitutes personhood, it seems it should be left to the smallest political entity to decide: the individual. While Roe v. Wade was decided for stupid reasons, the decision seems to be in line with the 10th Ammendment, leaving it to the people rather than the states. But regardless, I’m a libertarian first and a Constitutionalist second, so I think it should be left to the individual.
54 Peter Orvetti // Sep 13, 2008 at 3:59 am
I’m a Buffalo wing Libertarian. Mmm, Buffalo wings.
55 Lance Brown // Sep 13, 2008 at 4:46 am
1. G.E., the Phillies “manifesto” does not say that “you must…” do or be or think those things. He explicitly says that not all “centrists” will agree on with him all points, or pass all the litmus tests necessarily. Then he says that “most” of them believe such and such. Maybe you misread “most” and thought it was “must”? That’s the best way I can find to give you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise it seems like you are (in classic G.E. fashion) trying to hyperbolize things to support your agenda of dividing the freedom movement.
2. Dodge, G.E.’s M.O. is basically to divide Libertarians into two camps: heroic libertarians, and non-libertarian criminal gun-grabber statist death merchant neocons. Make one mis-step, or speak casually about anything, and you will pretty much end up in the second camp, you world-police-loving, communist, no-knock-warrant, welfare-queen-breeding, Stalin-fellating fraudulent statist murder advocate.
3. States’ rights is not especially libertarian, as G.E. well knows. And libertarians do advocate a role for government – to, as Jefferson said, “secure those rights”. (Those individual rights, BTW, not states rights.) As I understand it, that’s pretty much what divides libertarians from anarchists.
4. Libertarians do believe in equality under the law. Government is the one place where Libertarians do not tolerate discrimination, bias, or free association. Every single person’s rights should be equally protected – and if the government is going to establish anointed classes of citizens (like parents, or married couples, or whatever else – disabled people, business owners, , chidren, etc.) then it should do so with total blindness as to that person’s appearance, lifestyle, (nationality, race, gender, etc.) or beliefs. As long as the anointed classes (or benefited groupings) exist, gay people should be allowed equal access to said classes and groupings. To suggest that favoring gay marriage is akin to being pro-welfare is an extremist position, IMO. And one that seeks to sidestep an important and legitimate human rights concern. If the state is sanctioning something for heterosexuals, it should do so for homosexuals as well. Marriage, adoption, military service, spousal benefits, etc. People are people – or they should be, as far as the government is concerned.
While of course the ideal would be the elimination of all anointed groups and benefited groupings, a first step toward that is eliminating some of the key hurdles that remain for some groups to be recognized and treated as full persons under the law in the U.S. In a way, I think that’s the “basic math” we still have to learn before we can move on to the “algebra” of getting rid of the rest of government’s social engineering schemes.
So I oppose state-sanctioned marriage wholeheartedly – but guess what? It’s not going anywhere any time soon. That issue is not on any mainstream anyone’s political radar. But gay rights is, and will be until it’s settled (in favor of gay rights). Libertarians can be champions on that issue, or we can be chumpions who are obsessed with trying to shift the issue to their politically obscure notion of ending state marriage licensing altogether.
IMO, on the issue of gay rights, Libertarians should lead with “gays (of course) deserve equal treatment, including the ability to marry”, and follow it with “but almost all of these situations/decisions shouldn’t be in government’s hands anyway, and true free association would be a better way to handle this.”
56 Lance Brown // Sep 13, 2008 at 4:53 am
…Rather than the other way around.
57 Lance Brown // Sep 13, 2008 at 5:06 am
On the other hand, if anyone wants to get a bill or initiative passed that would end state marriages somewhere, count me in as a supporter. Lacking such an actual venture to get behind, I don’t think the issue has political legs. Unlike, again, gay rights, which is going to be on the ballot, at least in CA (and probably elsewhere).
58 Thomas L. Knapp // Sep 13, 2008 at 10:03 am
GE,
Actually, no, federal law does not require companies to rehire striking workers. That’s why you’ll occasionally see labor-oriented candidates agitating for a federal law that does require them to do so. I don’t support any such law.
You’re right — Taft-Hartley and the NLRB system should not exist. But, once again, you ignore the mountain (the Wagner Act) that Taft-Hartley is a tiny teat sticking off of. These days, probably 90% of government intervention in labor disputes is pro-company (for example, Clinton ordering the steelworkers to end their strike) rather than pro-union (for example, fining this or that company for “failure to bargain in good faith”). Before Taft-Hartley, it was closer to 100%. That doesn’t mean Taft-Hartley is good — it means that Taft-Hartley AND the Wagner Act need to go.
59 Gene Trosper // Sep 13, 2008 at 10:04 am
In California, we have Proposition 8 on the November ballot. It would reverse the California Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized “gay marriage”. So far, polls show that it is heading to defeat.
I’ll be voting against Proposition 8 not because I think gay couples should have the right to marry, but because I believe in the free association of individuals. I even support the right of polyamorous “marriages”.
60 Gene Trosper // Sep 13, 2008 at 10:12 am
When I say that my opposition to Prop. 8 is “not because I think gay couples should have the right to marry”, it’s due to my belief that no one has an inherent “right” to government licensure and classification. If anything, one has an inherent right to be free of government licensure and classification.
Just wanted to clarify that because my previous post could potentially be misunderstood (I need to learn to not email or make postings after having woke up mere minutes earlier).
61 Peter Orvetti // Sep 13, 2008 at 10:17 am
I’ll risk the wrath of my friend G.E. and say I kinda like George’s idea. I do not agree with all aspects of his agenda, but it seems like a good halfway point for us nonideological types.
62 langa // Sep 13, 2008 at 10:28 am
“To suggest that favoring gay marriage is akin to being pro-welfare…seeks to sidestep an important and legitimate human rights concern.”
On the contrary, it is the “libertarian” advocates of state-sanctioned gay marriage that seek to sidestep the real issue, by presupposing the legitimacy of state-sanctioned marriage.
Using your logic, libertarians should support the extension of Medicare to cover those under the age of 65. After all, if Medicare is going to exist, shouldn’t we work to end “age discrimination” in its administration?
“While of course the ideal would be the elimination of all anointed groups and benefited groupings, a first step toward that is eliminating some of the key hurdles that remain for some groups to be recognized and treated as full persons under the law in the U.S.”
This is a complete nonsequitur. How does expanding the size and increasing the legitimacy of these “anointed groups and benefited groupings” bring us any closer whatsoever to their elimination?
Do you also believe that a “first step” toward ending the War on Drugs would be adding more drugs to the list of banned substances, so that the law would not “discriminate” between heroin addicts and alcoholics?
63 Hugh Jass // Sep 13, 2008 at 11:22 am
Lance Brown,
A position that would be more libertarian and make more sense would be, “if the state is going to be involved in marriage, it is best to limit its scope of involvement as much as possible”. My reasoning is that if the state has no legitimacy getting involved in marriage, we shouldn’t be spreading its involvement into gays, polygamists, etc.
Dodge,
You fear that if states are given power over the central government, than they will expand government more. My question, if you fear that a government more local and accountable to the people is going to expand government, what makes you think that a centralized government less accountable to the people is going to be more limited. As G.E. says, why don’t you support world government on that basis?
64 Hugh Jass // Sep 13, 2008 at 11:39 am
“We are 100% pro-choice, because government has no valid business running women’s lives for them.”
While I don’t really have any quelms about this, I can see how a libertarian who has a different definition of when life begins would object.
“All Americans are entitled to equality in marriage, adoption, divorce, and access to military service.”
No, because the government shouldn’t be involved in these services in the first place. Marriage should be a contract between two individuals, and thus government has no business interfering. If a church doesn’t want to wed gays, that’s fine by me. Adoption should be a private agency, and again, they have every right to discriminate against homosexuals. In the military history of the United States, only three wars at best were arguably defensive, and undoubtedly none since 1941 (I’m not going to alienate non-WWII skeptics). The rest were all acts of aggression. Thus, why should we allow homosexuals to take part in the aggression? If wars are going to aggressive, at least limit the amount of people who can join the armed services.
“Slavery was the American Holocaust. Confederate apologists are rightly grouped with Holocaust deniers, and are shunned by all decent people.”
Except that slavery existed over 20 times longer under the American flag than under the Confederate flag. The federal government has no right to restrict the peoples’ right of secession if they do not want to be a part of the federal government. Any other position is tyrannical.
“Thomas Jefferson correctly wrote: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men’. It is only through government,limited government, that men and women will stay free.”
This positivism has no place in the Libertarian Party. Interesting, though, that Phillies says that men institute governments, and also says that men do no have the right to alter or abolish that government.
“The so-called ‘States Rights’ doctrine, claiming that states may keep African-Americans from voting and women from having abortions, is un-American. Politicians who say ‘leave it up to the states’ are an
opposite of libertarian.”
This is a straw-man if I’ve ever heard one. It seems that Phillies is a complete racist, given that he believes that were it not for the government, society would divide along racial lines. Funny that he can cite two examples where the federal government has a better position than the state governments, yet he fails to cite the numerous other examples where the state government is better than the federal government (medical marijuana, drinking age, safety requirements, etc.). Apparently, by Phillies’ own logic, Phillies is a prohibitionist as well.
“While there have been conspiracies, the incoherent mutterings of conspiracy theorists, including 9/11 truthers, central banking foes, and 16th amendment deniers, offer nothing to the Libertarian political
movement. They should be politely ignored.”
While I agree that conspiracy theorists do more harm than good to the movement, what is libertarian about not questioning the government about monopolizing banking and stealing people’s paychecks? If anyone deserves to be politely ignored, it is Phillies.
“More important, what does Libertarian Centrism offer America?”
statism
“What is the clear, positive, uplifting message we send about the American future?”
‘The federal government is superior in every way, and if you disagree, you are a racist.’
“How will Libertarian centrism advance the Libertarian political
movement?”
Maybe negatively, but certainly this will not advance the movement in a positive direction.
65 Hugh Jass // Sep 13, 2008 at 11:46 am
“Libertarian centrism” = socialism, neoconservatism, centralism, positivism, racism, prohibitionism, monopolism, legalized theft, plus the unmentioned xenophobia and protectionism that Phillies also advocates.
Radical libertarianism = individualism, non-interventionism, decentralism, natural law, racial peace, legalization, competition, property rights, immigration, and trade
I think I’ll take radicalism over centrism.
66 George Phillies // Sep 13, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Thank you all for agreeing that the tests seem to do a reasonable job of separating out the libertarian centrists from the radicals, the conservatives, and the conspiracy folks and their relatives.
That’s what it is supposed to do: Persuade the centrists that their is centrism. Persuade the non-centrists to go someplace else.
67 George Phillies // Sep 13, 2008 at 12:17 pm
That’s “Persuade the centrists that their position is centrism.”
68 mscrib // Sep 13, 2008 at 12:21 pm
* You must be pro-legal abortion
I completely agree. The government should not be involved in a woman’s reproductive system.
* You must ignore “critics of central banking†(i.e. be pro-Fed)
Right. Ron Paul sees the Fed as an example of everything wrong with government. The vast majority of economists see it as one of the few things the feds have ever chartered that works… for the most part. RP and his ilk always fail to mention that bringing back the gold standard is likely to be less stable, would put the United States at a competitive disadvantage in global financial markets, probably destroy the US credit rating, and would not prevent any misguided wars (heard of war bonds, Ron?). To steal/rewrite an old joke from Bob Solow: “Everything reminds Ron Paul of the gold standard. Everything reminds me of sex, but I try to keep it out of my platform.”
* You must “shun†so-called “Confederate sympathizers†who are on par with “Holocaust deniersâ€
Right. “It wasn’t about slavery” is about the dumbest thing I still hear on a regular basis (from morons who can’t connect A to B or apparently read past the haughty Confederate rhetoric).
* You must support the idea that it’s “only through government that men will stay freeâ€
True, although I hate saying it that way. Defining and protecting property rights is still the most crucial role of government. I have never seen a convincing model for doing this sans state (although David Friedman does give it a pretty good shot).
* You must oppose “states’ rightsâ€
Another thing that always bugged me about some libertarians. I’m generally for more local controls on just about everything, but not out of some intangible notion of “states rights.” “States rights” are about as coherent as “natural rights,” which is to say not very much at all.
* You must support equality in marriage, adoption, and access to military service
YES! It’s these social issues (stirred up by cranky religious fanatics) that we can win on. Supporting equality under the law is crucial.
69 Hugh Jass // Sep 13, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Dr. Phillies,
Does you anti-states’ rights position mean that you support the federal government on restricting cannabis from people like Steve Kubby and Peter McWilliams? Does it also mean that you support the federal government prohibiting kids between 18 and 21 from drinking the substances they choose? Does it also mean that you support the federal government’s plan for a national identification card (REALID)?
I’m not objecting to your seperation of the centrists from radical libertarians, reformist-right wing “libertarians”, and conspiracy theorists. I am objecting to your branding of centrism as “libertarian”. Clearly someone who prefers the federal government to be meddling in abortion, marriage, adoption, foreign affairs, medical affairs, substance use, identification, prohibition of individual sovereignty, racism, currency, banking, stealing income, immigration, and trade fits in better with the two Republicrat parties than with the Libertarian Party.
70 G.E. // Sep 13, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Lance Brown – Please pull the tampon out of your ass and get a life.
What the fuck do you call a LITMUS TEST if not a “you must.”
Qui dogging my posts and if you don’t like this site, GO AWAY and find something better to do with your time.
71 G.E. // Sep 13, 2008 at 12:33 pm
George Phillies = statist, and I don’t know how “centrism” = statism. No, Phillies is an extremist within the LP, and luckily, his divisive wing is a tiny minority (as reflected by his convention performance).
72 G.E. // Sep 13, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Lance – Yes, it is I who want to “divide” the Freedom Movement — not your heroes Bob Barr and George Phillies who want to do whatever they can to distance themselves from the C4L consensus that spans ideologies. The radicals are all for consensus and against litmus tests. It’s the libertine statists (Phillies/Outright) and the criminal faction (LNC/Barr) that want to divide and conquer and have their own make-belief Freedom Movement that they’re in charge of.
73 G.E. // Sep 13, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Notice that not only does Phillies’s statement of hardcore statism and denial of accurate history and economics fail to support any of the four points of the C4L statement, it specifically refutes one, by “ignoring” criticism of central banking. This is an open declaration of war against cross-party consensus. I guess THAT is what “centrism” means. Phillies should at least call it centrALism. What it really is is an ideology of LIES.
74 johncjackson // Sep 13, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I agree with half and I consider myself a radical.
75 Hugh Jass // Sep 13, 2008 at 12:59 pm
G.E., don’t let Barr’s and Phillies’s actions drive you from the LP. There are still lots of good candidates to support within the party (Munger, Schansberg, Gatties, etc.) If you leave the party, then the Reformists and Libertines win.
76 mscrib // Sep 13, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Hugh Jass,
That isn’t really the implication. “States rights” is a garbage term thrown around by conservatives, cranks and bigots. It has nothing to do with libertarianism. I don’t want the federal government sticking their nose into anybody’s business, but “states rights” has nothing to do with it. Libertarians are supposed to care about individual rights, not collective rights.
I just want a libertarianism we can actually sell to real, normal people, you know, rather than calling everyone a statist and expecting them to vote for our guy.
I will give Ron Paul (and C4L) this: his supporters include weirdos from every ideological persuasion. He has essentially united everyone I wouldn’t want near my hypothetical children.
77 G.E. // Sep 13, 2008 at 1:16 pm
mscrib – Don’t be so P.C. “States’ rights” is a bad term for decentralism, which is a libertarian principle.
Hugh – It won’t be Barr and Phillies who drive me out. It will be the cowards on the LNC who have taken far too long to take action against Barr. If we don’t even have two members willing to bring a removal motion, then the LP is completely worthless and not worthy of support to any degree.
78 Sean Scallon // Sep 13, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Oh brother, another little group. Libertarians for Centrism. No Confederates Need Apply.
I think this announcement tells one more about George Phillies’ phobias more than anything else.
Thanks for saving me the $15
79 G.E. // Sep 13, 2008 at 1:53 pm
What a disgrace it is that two statists are fighting over Libertarian ballot lines in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The “free state” chose the most statist of candidates to support. FSP = Joke.
80 mscrib // Sep 13, 2008 at 4:12 pm
G.E.,
I don’t know. I see no need to label decentralization as “state’s rights,” since on many issues, I, and I’d imagine you, want control handled even more locally than state government (which is often just as corrupt as the feds). It’s not about being P.C., it’s about using more precise language. The less-divisiveness is an added bonus.
***
Sean,
So… Libertarians should be welcoming to neo-Confederates now because we need more crazy, racist non-libertarians bastardizing everything libertarianism is supposed to fundamentally stand for within our ranks? LOTSers, Stormfront and VDARE already have Ron Paul.
81 G.E. // Sep 13, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I agree. And I think it’s a very poor choice of words that should be avoided. There is the literal statist meaning, the original (and good) Jeffersonian meaning, and the “code” (racist) meaning. When it can be used in specific audiences to conjure up the Jeffersonian meaning, then I guess it has value. If I write it, I always put it in quotes. But the point of “states’ rights” is not that the states should have more power, but that the central government should have less; and that it’s preferable to have local government when compared to national or global government.
Phillies is a Maoist democratic centralist. He uses the term “states’ rights” because of the literal and racist code meanings of the word, but what he really hates — just like Hitler — is the Jeffersonian meaning of the term. How ridiculous that this man uses Jefferson as an argument for statism, and then rejects Jeffersonianism in his pro-fiat currency, anti-decentralist, anti-secession planks. He invokes Jefferson, a slaveholder who sold his own children into slavery, and then calls slavery the “American Holocaust.”
George Phillies is a holocaust denier in that he denies the holocaust of wars perpetrated by central bankers, and the holocaust that was the War of Northern Aggression. Phillies has antipathy for economics and thus rejects the objective reality that slaves could have had their freedom purchased for less than merely the financial cost of the Civil War. No, as an arch-aggressor, he wanted bloodshed!
82 G.E. // Sep 13, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Oh, and about “neo-confederates” — I agree they are heinous. But what Phillies means by the term, and what any rational educated person would mean are two entirely different things.
Phillies hates the South not because it was racist — he himself is racist against Mexicans and the Chinese, etc. (he should join VDARE) — but because it was for free trade. Phillies is a mercantilist. So am I a neoconfederate because I hate Lincoln, centralism, and mercantilism? By Phillies’ definition, YES. Anyone who questions the statist school system’s (which Phillis supports and is supported by, by the way) simplistic account of the so-called Civil War is to be “shunned.”
83 Lance Brown // Sep 13, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Regarding equality, folks (who think equality under the law is not worth advocating) might want to consider that gay marriage is possibly the best vehicle for ending state sanctioned marriage. I don’t really like the reasons behind why that’s true, but it is true.
Decentralizing marriage control is one of the few avenues left for anti-gay folks to protect their precious tradition of heterosexual marriage. If the franchise of state-sanctioned marriage is extended to gays (especially under a human rights banner), the only way “out”, so to speak, for traditionalists is to invest in church-sanctioned marriages, and abandon the “tainted waters” of government-backed marriage. In other words, to recreate the marriage franchise in private society. The Libertarian goal. Keep gays out of that club, and you remove 100% of the motivation for the folks currently in the club to consider disbanding it. It’s ugly but true. (Not that all married folks would be upset by the inclusion of gay marriage, but the ones who cherish and protect the heterosexual tradition will be/are).
That path is the one that is being decided right now, in this decade. If gay rights prevail, the likelihood of privatizing marriage overall goes way up. Great for everyone – equality under the law, and no government involvement. If gay rights fails, the franchise of state-sanctioned marriages will not just remain, but be all the stronger (and uglier).
Someone asked if I think we should equalize drug prohibition before ending it. I don’t spend time advocating that, though I absolutely do argue for equality under the law for drug users. (And though I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, I think the drug war would be a lot more fair and make more sense if it included all drugs, or at least all psychoactive drugs. At least then it would be true to its mission, and not insanely hypocritical. And the fact that alcohol users get a free pass while marijuana users get the shaft is beyond crazy.) The asker has his minority mixed up, though, in terms of a comparison to gay marriage. I’m talking about ending government discrimination against selected minorities. Equalizing treatment under the drug laws would mean including the minority (users of the small list of banned drugs) into the much much larger benefited group of people who are allowed to ingest what they want. (And also extending the “franchise” to allow individuals – rather than doctors or regulators- to also choose how much they want, and when, and why.) However, it should be self-evident that extending drug prohibition equally to all drug users (say, for example a court decision recognizing the “rights” of currently-discriminated-against drug user groups) would bring the drug war to a complete end in a matter of moments. If the government had to either ban them all or allow them all, it would resolve the situation a lot more quickly than the segregated arrangement we have today. If all were allowed, problem solved. If all were banned, problem solved in few months, once the constitutional amendment banning drug prohibition (backed by the elderly, the alcohol and tobacco companies, and beer drinkers) was passed.
Medicare is age discrimination, and that is a problem, but it’s not discrimination against a hated minority, it’s discrimination in favor of a beloved one. The “injured party” in that discrimination case is the power-holding majority. So, while social engineering sucks and Medicare should be ended for that reason as much as welfare-state concerns, it’s pretty hard to compare it to gay rights or the drug war, where the powerful majority is denying rights and benefits that most people are allowed to have to a few select, persecuted minorities.
People can have their own order of priorities, but I think it is just as libertarian to argue for equal treatment under the law as it is to argue for ending some form of government “treatment” altogether. Ideally, libertarians should argue both points. Which one to lead with should, in my view, depend largely on who is getting discriminated against. If it’s the minority, then it’s an equality under the law issue, and if it’s the majority, it’s almost certainly a welfare issue of some sort. Most government handouts are for the minority, from the majority. (Though all those minorities together are of course a majority as a combined bloc.) Marriage, however, is currently for the majority, at least broadly speaking, and against a few select minorities, who are blocked from taking part in it in the way that everyone else is allowed to do. In terms of gay rights, if you want to be part of the current debate as it exists, leading with equality under the law makes more sense to me. It’s what the debate is about.
I’m curious whether those who decline to argue for gay marriage rights today would also have declined to speak up for the right of people of different races to marry, back when that was the discrimination du jour.
—-
G.E.,
If you don’t want what you write to be read, don’t publish it.
If you don’t want folks to react to it, then don’t allow comments.
If you don’t want me here, kick me out. (Or attack and insult me enough; it might work.)
When is a litmus test not a “must”? When the person listing the “litmus tests” prefaces it by specifically saying that folks can still be part of the group without having to agree with all of them – and in fact many won’t agree with all of them. In other words, when “litmus test” is a poor choice of words whose intent is contradicted by their author.
In other other words, when saying you “must believe these things to be a George Phillies ‘centrist’” is totally not true, because Phillies explicitly explains that it’s not true.
84 G.E. // Sep 13, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Okay, Lance, P.C. word doctor. What i SHOULD have said to satisfy you and your kind, is that “in order to pass George’s litmus tests, you must…” That is implicit, of course, but you Hamiltonian types like to invent implications in people’s words when their language is anything less than 100% precise.
85 langa // Sep 13, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that if the state is doing something you don’t like, the best solution is to try to get them to stop doing it, rather than trying to get them to do it even more often. And yes, that would apply to interracial marriage. My stance then would be the same as now: the state has no business saying who can, or can’t, get married.
In fact, if the state had gotten out of the marriage business back then, we wouldn’t be having this argument about gay marriage today. As long as marriage is treated as a privilege doled out by the state, we will continue to have these problems.
As for saying alcohol should be made illegal in order to end the Drug War, that makes about as much sense as Charles Rangel’s claim that we need to bring back the draft in order to end the War in Iraq. Hey, I’ve got an idea! As the first step to ending affirmative action, let’s expand it, so that in addition to having to hire a certain number of blacks and a certain number of women, firms also have to hire a certain number of transsexuals, a certain number of Buddhists, etc. Eventually, every firm could be like a little microcosm of society.
Sure, it would be coercive, and it would certainly lead to losses in productivity as more qualified candidates were passed over, but hey, that’s a small price to pay for equality and diversity in the workplace, right? Who needs liberty, anyway? Not me. Not when we can have feel-good identity politics instead.
86 Hugh Jass // Sep 13, 2008 at 7:21 pm
A+, langa!
According to Lance Brown’s logic, if someone is breaking into your neighbor’s house, but you aren’t aware of it, the best way to stop the robbery is for you to start taking stuff from their house as well. When the neighbors see that you’re robbing their stuff, they’ll realize that the other person is robbing them as well.
For the record, I consider marriage to be how the dictionary defines it, “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a contractual relationship “. However, I wouldn’t prohibit gay couples from considering themselves to be married, I would just refuse to recognize it personally. That doesn’t mean that I would prohibit others with more liberal definitions than myself from recognizing it.
87 Hugh Jass // Sep 13, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Phillies and his clan, on the other hand, would rather force a one-size fits all definition of marriage down everyone’s throat, regardless if the population actually supported it. This position is sure to be counter-productive and cause more homophobia in more culturally-conservative states.
88 Lance Brown // Sep 13, 2008 at 7:52 pm
As for saying alcohol should be made illegal in order to end the Drug War, that makes about as much sense as Charles Rangel’s claim that we need to bring back the draft in order to end the War in Iraq.
Good thing I didn’t say that alcohol should be made illegal in order to end the Drug War, then. What I did say, I believe is pretty well backed up by history. If the courts decided that certain types of drug users could not be treated differently from others, the drug war would end.
G.E.,
What i SHOULD have said to satisfy you and your kind, is that “in order to pass George’s litmus tests, you must…†That is implicit, of course,
That’s just not true (that it’s implicit). What you say up top, explicitly, is that the Libertarian Centrist Manifesto says such and such. It explicitly does not. Your “in order to pass George’s litmus tests, you must…” rephrasing is a much, much more narrow claim than your misstatement about the Manifesto. (Simply because the Manifesto includes not just the litmus tests, but a broadly-worded emphasis that they are not mandatory prerequisites.)
There would be no need for the word “must” at all in an objective story about this, since there are no mandatory requirements in Phillies Manifesto. You said “must” in order to falsely portray Phillies initiative as being less open and inclusive than it actually is, because you disagree with it.
Leave a Comment