Is the Libertarian Party a joke?

They claim to for smaller government, and capitalism. But look who was accepted into the party with open arms: Mike Gravel.





Is this party really after what it preaches? Surely this man has many contradicting views of the party's claims on the surface.








"We're honored to have a former member of the United States Senate join our ranks," says Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory. “Senator Gravel has a sincere dedication to empowering the American people and eliminating the corrupting influence of the two major parties. His switch from the Democratic Party, as well as former Congressman Barr’s abandonment of the GOP, shows that the Libertarian Party is truly a big tent organization moving firmly in the direction of Liberty.”





http://www.lp.org/media/article_573.shtm...





Read additional comments for his stances on the issues, and how he clearly opposes capitalism and the so called Libertarian ideals.

Is the Libertarian Party a joke?
The LP has become something of a "catch-all" party for anyone that is disillusioned with the 2 major parties (or one major party with two wings). Mostly because it is the 3rd party that is most viable on the national stage. Gravel would not, at face value, appear to be a Libertarian. Obviously, socialized healthcare is not a Libertarian ideal. But those are really surface issues. If you believe in individual liberty and "the people" running the nation, those are certainly overriding issues to healthcare and social security and abortion, all these issue which the elitist establishment uses to cloud the real issues and divide us so we can't "take back" our nation. The real beauty of the LP is that it accepts differing philosophies with a common goal of leaving people alone and giving us power back in the running of our nation.
Reply:I remember reading this last week. This guy is like a walking contradiction. I like how just before joining the Libertarian party, he backed a green party candidate.





I think this is an attempt at expansion for the libertarian party. They intend to bring in Democratic supporters of Gravel and are just looking to expand their presence, though Gravel holds a few contradicting views. I don't believe either gravel or the libertarian party fit together, but they will help one another. Gravel gets an additional shot at the white house and the libertarian party gets additional exposure and draws in Gravel's loyalists. It's that simple. In an attempt to expand every major party is willing to sacrifice some of its ideals; it's not about what's right, but about winning.
Reply:you know the answer. you know team america (f*ck yea!)
Reply:I think the answer is - YES !! But I still like those ideas
Reply:I think some of the main problems with the Libertarian party are the constant accusations that so and so isn't "Libertarian enough". I happen to be a dues paying Libertarian, and have been for quite a while. And I've seen quite a few people and candidates in the party that I disagree with. Take, for instance, the Fair Tax. I would argue that it is perhaps the biggest Trojan horse to ever be set in front of our society. Imagine, putting EVERY American on welfare! But you know what? Some people don't look at it that way, even though they're "good" Libertarians. You will find this in any party. Giuliani is still a republican even though he's pro-choice. McCain has left the pack more times than I can count. Gravel does veer from the Libertarian platform on several issues. But overall his message is one that fits in well with the party's overall ideals. His health care plan is tied into the Fair Tax, which has broad Libertarian support, although I don't understand why. And his SS plan is one of privatization. I think Gravel fits in about as well as Ron Paul. Neither one is an ideologically "pure" Libertarian, but so what? Neither am I. The party is not a joke, it just doesn't require its members to march in lockstep. Unfortunately a lot of its members do.
Reply:I don't think it's a joke. People are allowed to change parties you know.
Reply:In the first link he does not say he is opposed to "capitalism," but rather to "the military industrial complex and American imperialism."





But the party claims to be founded on Ayn Rand's philosophy, and she hated the party and probably still would. WHY?





"The "libertarians" … plagiarize Ayn Rand's principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute …





"In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the "libertarians" are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivism and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one's own future." Harry Binswanger "Q %26amp; A Department: Anarchism,"


The Objectivist Forum, Aug. 1981, 12.





"...I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with...[those who claim] simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of [Libertarian] anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs."





"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to "do something." By "ideological" (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the "libertarian" hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see "The Anatomy of Compromise" in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)"





Rand said several times that Liberarians value the freedoms of her philosophy but intellectually ignore the virtues that give those freedoms their value in the first place. It's like eating your cake without having to worry about anyone to bake it. Who cares what the reasons are for freedoms? Freedoms are freedoms and "We want them NOW!" (to quote an entirely different TV commercial.)





Forgetting the principles behind American freedoms and the principle of Federalism is what has led us into the Nationalistic quagmire we are in now.


We need a PRINCIPLED return to Federalism, and then we will automatically have libertarianism no matter what party is in power.
Reply:Your right. In fact, we have a lot of social ideals that need to be done away with:





No to Universal Healthcare - nobody deserves medical treatment.


No to county and state taxes. Everyone should volunteer time to do road work and cleaning of the streets. We don't need police, etc.


No to federal taxes - who needs a military?
Reply:Since 3rd parties NEVER win, they are pointless.

shoelaces