Libertarians Hear, But are Apparently Mute
As the American political scene increasingly takes on the shape of an ideological war zone, we are witnessing the emergence of countless born again constitutionalists that are railing against business as usual in Washington. And it’s little wonder since both political parties seem to be engaged in speed trials on shredding the constitution, even as they compete for the hearts, minds and wallets of the voters.
The Libertarian Party has gained some valuable real estate in the shifting political landscape and is riding a modest but growing wave of support among the disenfranchised and disheartened electorate. It’s an offshoot partly of the Ron Paul Revolution, promising a restoration of America to its constitutional ideals and a return to the fundamental liberties embodied in our great constitution.
The question is, is this revolution real, or is it just more antics by political hacks scamming votes and bucks off the citizenry, as the nation continues to decline?
While the rhetoric from the new wave seems genuine, some the realities simply point to more shenanigans.
In his article “No Large Men‘s Groups?” September 22, 2009 Men’s Rights Activist, “Angry Harry” pointed to the problem of “self serving government” and how the political system benefits from profitable, woman-centered programs and ignores men’s programs because they are not so economically viable.
In response to Harry’s piece, Eric Dondero, publisher of The Libertarian Republican submitted the following comment.
“There are a handful of us bloggers on the right that do see a connection between the men’s rights agenda and the libertarian/conservative agenda. Not all of us have a closed ear to the concerns of the men‘s rights movement.”
Heartened by this statement, I went to the Libertarian Republican hoping to see some column space that supported Dondero’s claim and lent support to men’s initiatives, or that hopefully even acknowledged them.
I might as well have been looking for icebergs in Arizona.
In a review of the last two months of their archives there is no reference to men’s issues at all. A keyword search on the site yielded the following results, as of this writing.
Men’s rights- No returns
Fathers rights- No returns
VAWA- No returns
Family Court- Bingo! We have a winner!
Oh, but wait.
The single return for family court was an article supporting Fahtima Rifqa Bary, the seventeen year old girl from Gahanna, Ohio who told the world she ran away to Florida because her Father was going to murder her for converting to Christianity. It’s a claim that she maintains despite the fact that three separate law enforcement investigations found that no such threat ever existed, and despite the fact her father, the Muslim “extremist,” allowed her to be a high school cheerleader, dancing in shorts in front of cheering crowds, and knew about her Christian conversion a long time before she ran away.
By all reasonable indications, this is just another case of false allegation by a woman against a man, only with an Islamic twist. And it sheds about as much light on men’s issues as Ms. Magazine, except to the extent that we get yet another example of politics as usual. Even with libertarians, it’s still about the great partisan divide; about Muslim and Christian, conservative and liberal, right and left, but not about right and wrong. And it sure as hell isn’t about constitutional values.
This problem pervades the Libertarian Party as much as it does Republicans and Democrats. And it is symptomatic of the political cowardice that infests the American body politic, libertarians included. They rail on about our loss of rights, but conspire to servile silence the moment the issues of men are raised, or worse, as in the Bary case, capitulate and abandon even the most fundamental respect for innocence until guilt is proven.
Perhaps they are just gagging on their own tea bags.
Right now this country is inhabited by millions of men that have been stripped of their property and assets, restricted in their movements, severed from their homes and children and forced into indentured servitude by family courts run amok. It is the greatest collective violation of civil rights since slavery itself, and none of these would be emulators of the founding fathers have the resolve to open their mouths and speak out about it.
Not one of them.
Instead, they have joined with the D’s and R’s, colluding to placate the implacable enemies of freedom that practice an all but unrestrained tyranny on men and boys. They cry foul at comparatively minor indignities but look the other way and whistle when the worst losses of liberty are mentioned.
They boisterously bash Biden for committing money to Amtrak, but become a mischief of church mice when the same man commits heinous attacks on the freedom of men in their own homes through acts like VAWA.
Our founding fathers risked imprisonment and death to unshackle us from the chains of tyranny. These men hide from opinion polls and angry wives. It is enough to make Thomas Payne scream, even in his current condition.
Harry had it right. One of the biggest reasons that men’s issues remain cloaked in the blackness of a great political void is because there isn’t a buck or an elected office or a cushy government job to be had from speaking up and doing something about it.
It will take real men to get the job done, but as anyone should be able to see by now, they won’t be men with an R or a D or even an L behind their name. Buying into the lesser of evils mentality of one party over the other is just a pipe dream for the hopelessly polemic; those with more interest in playing the game-as-usual than in the actual outcome.
But with time, men with more guts and less tendency to be cowed by disapproval will rise to this task. And when they do, they will do for the culture what most men won’t currently do for themselves.
The right thing.
Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.
Possibly related posts...
Bio available at my website | More from Paul Elam
Stumble It!
Didn’t the 2004 LP presidential candidate have something in his platform on father’s rights? If I recall correctly, Glenn Sacks had a half-hearted endorsement based on this. I’m sure there were a few pieces which could be found in the MM news archives.
Anybody know what happened to this sentiment within the LP? It seems to have died out rather quickly.
The Libertarian International Organization and the Libertarian Circle of Pittsburgh sponsored a seminal conference on the subject in 1986, where Libertarians presented some of the first staistical evidence of the injustices to top activists. There were some 300 attendees. What has chained since then is awareness. Keep up the good work.
@NotNow
“There is no reason for me to rationally engage you in a struggle when I am sure you can resist me effectively. It would be a waste of my time and resources to do so, and would therefor be irrational. Your point is not made.”
Of course my point is made. You have just endorsed it.
For example, what if I CAN’T resist you effectively?
Without the law to help me, what do I do if I CAN’T resist you effectively?
You seem to think that those with the muscle power should call all shots as **they** see fit.
“I said government should protect people from force and fraud. If the women entered into the contracts of their own free will, there has been no force or fraud,”
Maybe not; but it doesn’t mean that the contract is fair.
Maybe the woman didn’t understand the contract or its longterm implications.
Maybe she had a weak lawyer.
And, of course, in practice, do we really want to have to deal with re-writing contracts all the time as our relationships keep changing?
“Honey; now that we have had sex, can we change the contract a bit?”
“Honey; now that you have got a pay rise, can we change the contract a bit?”
“Honey; now that we have been together for a year, can we change the contract a bit?”
No thanks!
“there is no case for the government sending men with rifles to my house and seizing my property in order that these women and their children can be fed, clothed”
Yes, there is a case. You just don’t agree with it.
Anyway, it would take too much time for me to comment on each of your generalisations but I think that you are being too simplistic.
I spent years looking at the libertarian arguments – always desperately wishing them to be true – but, it seemed to me that whenever you followed the trail, you ended up with something not much better than what we’ve got.
But, to repeat myself, I do agree with you that government has gone too far
“The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
“Your last two words just blew away your own argument! Because if fear comes into it, then we do not really have two equally powerful individuals, do we?”
Why not? There is no reason for me to rationally engage you in a struggle when I am sure you can resist me effectively. It would be a waste of my time and resources to do so, and would therefor be irrational. Your point is not made.
“Otherwise, fear, indeed, will be the tactic that people use in order to get their way.”
Fear is also the tactic that is used by the common man to enforce his right to be left alone. This is the purpose of an armed populace. Armed people are citizens, disarmed people are subjects and slaves. You want to be free, and also free from fear. That is not possible. By granting overweening power to the government you merely substitute one fear for another.
“But I thought that Libertarians believed that government should protect people.”
I said government should protect people from force and fraud. If the women entered into the contracts of their own free will, there has been no force or fraud, and so the government has no authority to intervene; in fact, the government is obliged to enforce the contracts.
“So what happens to the women and children? Indeed, what happens to those thousands of feckless women who have multiple children? Do we leave them on the streets?”
While this may be a moral concern, and while there could be a case for urging me to make voluntary contributions to aid them, there is no case for the government sending men with rifles to my house and seizing my property in order that these women and their children can be fed, clothed, housed, educated, provided with health care, electricity, cable TV, transportation, college, etc.
“Would the electorate stand for this?”
No, because they have been educated in tax-supported public schools, and taught that they are part of a giant collective who are legally (not morally, but legally, and this is an important distinction) responsible for each other. Once this principle is admitted to the public debate, the rest of politics is reduced to a mere bidding war over what percentage of my income and property can righteously be seized in the name of caring for others, and which of my rights must be sacrificed on the alter of “fairness” and ultimate submission to majority rule.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
“More importantly, however, is that when government butts out, the rich and the money-makers take over. They will then exert the power, and we won’t be able to do anything about it.”
If the government is actually doing its real job, which is protecting me from force and fraud, then I will be dealing with the machinations of private corporations which can’t send police to my house to enforce their will on me.
“Now, I am sure that you have many counter-arguments, but, in the end, you need some kind of method for controlling amd organising complex interactions – social, personal, financial etc.”
This is an extremely common argument and is completely false on its face. It embodies the notion that individual people are incapable of using free will, without coercion, and creating systems that work for them and meet their needs, and that some higher and wiser authority must “organize” and “control” “social, personal, and financial” interactions. This is where we are now? Do you like it? I don’t.
Mises: “People do not cooperate under the division of labor because they love or should love one another. They cooperate because this best serves their own interests. Neither love nor charity nor any other sympathetic sentiments but rightly understood selfishness is what originally impelled man to adjust himself to the requirements of society, to respect the rights and freedoms of his fellow men and to substitute peaceful collaboration for enmity and conflict.”
Mises: “Government is not, as some people like to say, a necessary evil; it is not an evil, but a means, the only means available to make peaceful human coexistence possible. But it is the opposite of liberty. It is beating, imprisoning, hanging. Whatever a government does it is ultimately supported by the actions of armed constables.”
I choose to minimize the actions of men with the power to imprison me for merely trying to live the way I choose and while not interfering with others making the same choices.
We have tried it your way. It’s not working. Is it?
“Finally, with regard to your views about everyone making contracts hither and thither, surely this just hands power over to the lawyers and the judges etc.”
Quite the opposite. It puts total control of my economic interactions with others into my hands, and into my hands alone. Standard contracts for most such interactions exist right now, and it would be a simple matter for most people to use these simple standard contracts with widely recognized and accepted wording and meaning. Lawyers be damned. More complex contracts, such as between large businesses, and to which I was not a party, would still require specialized lawyers.
@NotNow
“I really can’t understand why one party being strong and powerful precludes another party also being strong and powerful, and even their avoiding conflict with each other out of mutual respect (in this case, perhaps fear).”
Your last two words just blew away your own argument!
Because if fear comes into it, then we do not really have two equally powerful individuals, do we?
But the essential problem is that people compete for various resources. And so some law (rather than fear – which equates to ‘lack of power’) needs to govern this competition.
Otherwise, fear, indeed, will be the tactic that people use in order to get their way.
Is this what you want?
No.
And it’s no use you saying that people can just ’step aside’ out of mutual respect when they disagree, because, quite simply, they might not do so.
Regarding the rich guy who divorces five women, you said;
“If they, as consenting adults, entered into a contract that stated the conditions you specified, then the government has no business interfering in that arrangement. None. If adults cannot decide the conditions under which they choose to live, and must have the government intervene and abrogate private contracts to protect them from themselves, we have the Nanny State we now live under, and all of its abuses. By the way, the government has no business taxing me to pay for the women and their offspring.”
Hmm.
But I thought that Libertarians believed that government should protect people.
So what happens to the women and children?
Indeed, what happens to those thousands of feckless women who have multiple children? Do we leave them on the streets?
Would the electorate stand for this?
More importantly, however, is that when government butts out, the rich and the money-makers take over.
They will then exert the power, and we won’t be able to do anything about it.
And they will be EXACTLY the same lot who would have been in government!!!
(They pretty much are already.)
LOL!
Indeed, we have seen recently how the bankers ripped off so many people. And the Enron scandal further demonstrates just how corrupt can be the money men – with far-reaching consequences.
Don’t we need laws to protect people from such things?
If so, then we need judges, courtrooms, police officers, lawyers, accountants, politicians, and so on – i.e. government.
Now, I am sure that you have many counter-arguments, but, in the end, you need some kind of method for controlling amd organising complex interactions – social, personal, financial etc
Whether this control comes from government in the form of laws, or from some other force, makes precious little difference, because the force has to be of the same ’strength’ to have the same effect.
And whoever, or whatever, has this force, is the being who has the power.
Now, your view is that when this power resides mostly in the government, it is not good.
My point is that WHEREVER it comes from, it will turn out to be ‘not good’ – at least, from your point of view.
I agree completely with your view about government corruption, waste, incompetence, over- intrusiveness, self-servingness and so on.
And I agree that government needs to be cut down in size quite dramatically.
I just would not go quite as far as you.
Finally, with regard to your views about everyone making contracts hither and thither, surely this just hands power over to the lawyers and the judges etc.
With the best and trickiest of lawyers – and those who can afford them – calling the shots.
Is this really so very different from government?
Do we really want to spend or lives pouring and arguing over long, detailed contracts whenever we engage in anything?
True; it is almost becoming like that now.
But will it really be any different if we exchange general laws for specific contracts?
I’m not so sure it will be.
” And the problem is that if you are strong and powerful then, presumably, someone else isn’t.”
You haven’t addressed this at all.”
I really can’t understand why one party being strong and powerful precludes another party also being strong and powerful, and even their avoiding conflict with each other out of mutual respect (in this case, perhaps fear). “Peace Through Strength” doesn’t mean “Peace Through Pre-Emptive Wars”. Can’t I be strong merely to deter you from attacking me? I don’t see your point.
The following two are separate, and must be considered separately.
“So, let us say, that some rich polygamous guy marries five women, and they all have children. And the pre-nup contract that they made between themselves excludes said women and children from any of the rich guy’s assets in the event of a divorce….And so he divorces the five women; leaving them and their children penniless”
If they, as consenting adults, entered into a contract that stated the conditions you specified, then the government has no business interfering in that arrangement. None. If adults cannot decide the conditions under which they choose to live, and must have the government intervene and abrogate private contracts to protect them from themselves, we have the Nanny State we now live under, and all of its abuses. By the way, the government has no business taxing me to pay for the women and their offspring.
When we separate people from the consequences of their own bad decisions, we get a populace that quickly becomes expert at making bad decisions and foisting the liabilities on the public (taxpayer). In banking parlance, it is called moral hazard. Wall Street bailouts are no different than welfare for stupid adults.
Now, wrt the man’s desire “to marry my missus.” That is between you and your missus, and the arrangement you’ve made between yourselves. If you have a contract, the terms of that contract should be enforced in the courts. That is the purpose of the courts: to enforce contracts. Where no contracts exist, but where the government has been made a party to the deal (as it is in government-licensed marriages) and there is no written contract, the government imposes its will on the parties and decides the terms under which the arrangement will be terminated. This is exactly what is happening now. Judges have total authority absent a contract.
Written contracts aren’t romantic, and they presume there might be some need for the terms in some future breakup, which new couples hot for each other don’t want to discuss. I will advise both of my children to write contracts should they choose to marry, and not to use a government license if the courts can still be relied on to enforce the contract.
The right to contract is also a core libertarian idea. Pre-nups are a fantastic example. It is the duty of courts to enforce them.
@NotNow
“Government has no business in the marriage business.”
So, let us say, that some rich polygamous guy marries five women, and they all have children. And the pre-nup contract that they made between themselves excludes said women and children from any of the rich guy’s assets in the event of a divorce.
Years later, the rich guy meets my missus and says, “This is the only one for me.”
And so he divorces the five women; leaving them and their children penniless in order to marry my missus.
Would this be OK? – from your libertarian point of view?
@NotNow
Well, I think that you are missing my fundamental point. To repeat.
“Maybe you have to be strong and powerful in order to be free. And the problem is that if you are strong and powerful then, presumably, someone else isn’t.”
You haven’t addressed this at all.
WRT government being too powerful at the moment, I agree. And I spend MOST of my activism time these days decrying this state of affairs.
“I find many in the men’s rights movement are still trapped in the left-right paradigm,”
I agree.
“Knowing that government will be corrupt, I seek to minimize it. ”
I agree – but I suspect that I would want more government than you.
” I am willing to fight for my freedom; while not wanting to fight,”
I understand.
But, IN PRACTICE, as per my most magnificent piece, the Aggressive Tribe always wins.
And this MIGHT be a FUNDAMENTAL and UNSOLVABLE problem.
I hope that this is not the case; but I suspect most strongly that it is.
“In other words, how are those who do NOT want power going to disempower those who DO want it?
How does someone who does NOT want to fight survive in the face of those who DO want to fight with them?”
I see this as another false choice. I am willing to fight for my freedom; while not wanting to fight, I remain willing, and in fact am now actively engaged in such a fight, a political one at this time. Our Second Amendment is a prime example. It leaves final political power dispersed into the hands of the many where it cannot be politically abused. Only political circumstances that are so heinous as to be widely recognized as worthy of a shooting revolution will result in a large enough number of Americans taking up arms and reclaiming their lost liberty.
“Maybe you have to be strong and powerful in order to free.”
If your government is the thing that is powerful, then you are NOT free. Patrick Henry again, arguing against Virginia’s ratification of the U.S. Constitution:
“But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism! Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition; and those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom.”
“The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.”
By the way, we now have such an act in America, it is called the (Pat)riot Act. Thanks to Henry and others, we retain our arms. It is my earnest hope that we will not need to use them.
Strength can be utilized to restore the proper relationship between government and citizens; they work for us, and not vice-versa. I mean for my servants to stop telling me what to do. Knowing that government will be corrupt, I seek to minimize it. That does not mean a weak national defense. I find this desire completely consistent with my involvement in men’s rights. I find many in the men’s rights movement are still trapped in the left-right paradigm, and I am certain that is one of our problems. Government has no business in the marriage business.
@NotNow
“Please address the point: is it inconsistent to create and admire a great and powerful government and then bitch about its abuses of power?”
Well, I think that I have addressed it – in my previous post.
To quote my good self, …
“Maybe you have to be strong and powerful in order to be free.”
And the problem is that if you are strong and powerful then, presumably, someone else isn’t.
LOL!
@NotNow
The Libertarian ideas are, of course, extremely attractive to me.
But, when I look at REALITY, many of the things that libertarians argue for just don’t pan out very well when you follow their trails.
For example, you talk about the freedom to take whatever drugs you want.
But, in practice, they can cause a lot of people a lot of harm.
For example, you get hooked on heroin, and your children’s lives MIGHT be horribly affected.
Multiply this by 1 million, and you can get a lot of societal badness coming out of this.
Maybe you will also get an extra 5,000 road accidents per year.
My point being that it is very difficult for individuals to isolate themselves from the rest of society.
I wish this wasn’t so – but, in practice, it is.
” I’ve read your link (actually, I read it some time ago and recognize it) and I think it offers a false choice of “kill or be killed”.”
Yes, I agree.
But maybe this is the way that it is!
Maybe, we can never do anything about such a choice between “kill or be killed” – and I do not mean this in the physical sense.
For example, it MIGHT be the case that only those who WANT power can actually get it.
If this is true, then we are doomed to be governed by people who WANT power. And this means having power exerted over us.
In other words, how are those who do NOT want power going to disempower those who DO want it?
How does someone who does NOT want to fight survive in the face of those who DO want to fight with them?
Maybe, just like gravity, there is some fundamental law going on here.
Maybe you have to be strong and powerful in order to free.
Catch 22.
One more thing for the greater audience: MRA’s are not alone, not nearly as alone as you’d think. I post frequently at this site, but this is not my thread nor will I say whether or not I have posted in it. This subject and similar subjects come up more than occasionally here. It amounts to an overt questioning of the sexual status quo, mostly by young men.
http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=411848
“I did not make a small point. You exaggerated very considerably LewRockwell’s concern with feminism in an attempt to undermine Paul E’s credibility.”
“And yet it is you who have shown yourself to know shockingly little about libertarianism – given that LewRockwell is one of the best recognised libertarian sites on the web – and you, unlike Paul E, completely misjudged it”
If you’d like me to start posting links, and embedded links therein, that would be a waste of both of our time. On the other hand:
“With regard to your other points, it would take me too long to address them. I would simply point out that, in my view, the ‘official’ libertarian philosophy has many pitfalls and inconsistencies within it.”
You wave your hand and dismiss the great body of my argument. That is no argument at all, is it? Please address the point: is it inconsistent to create and admire a great and powerful government and then bitch about its abuses of power?
Harry,
“Indeed, perhaps you should ask yourself why such a seemingly attractive notion – ‘Libertarianism’ – which tells people that they should all be permitted to do as they please, more or less, receives so little support throughout the nation.”
I’d be delighted. The fact is, it once did receive the support of a majority of Americans. In fact, the reason America exists at all is exactly to establish a new idea where mankind would be free to achieve, or fail, without hindrance by or claim on others. Early comers to America sought to escape the captured, classist, opportunity-free existence they were relegated to in Europe. Read any of America’s founding documents are you will see this spirit here. I’d be happy to provide you with extended quotes from my personal favorite, Patrick Henry. For now, try these:
“You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.”
“Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessing — give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else! But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old-fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned; if so, I am contented to be so. I say, the time has been when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American”
Slowly, over time, this spirit has died, or rather was killed, and American brilliance was killed along with it. We now share with Europe entrenched political bureaucracies, increasingly rigid class structure, the over-regulation of everything, and promulgation of a statist utopia. What you see across the water now is a hollow shell of what America was, and was meant to be.
To achieve its ends the government requires control of everything. Feminism was a convenient vehicle for achieving some of those ends. The political marginalization of men and masculinity greatly aided government’s expansion of its own power over us. I am sorry that you apparently cannot see, or cannot bring yourself to respond to my assertion that it is entirely inconsistent to desire a powerful government while and simultaneously decrying what it does with its power.
There are many libertarian ideas that repel people, for example gay marriage and private recreational drug use; a true libertarian is able to draw a clear line between behaviour he personally disapproves of and behaviour he would make illegal.
Do you love power? Do you only wish that you could be the one using the power instead of having it used on you? I’m not trying to provoke you, I really want to know. I’ve read your link (actually, I read it some time ago and recognize it) and I think it offers a false choice of “kill or be killed”. You cannot create Leviathan and then hope to remain in control of it. Human literature is replete with stories of monsters created which then kill the creator.
Power corrupts; government, by nature of having a legal monopoly on the use of force, will be the subject of power-seekers, and since men are corruptible, government must be corrupt. I choose to minimize the impact of corruption in my life, and I choose to do that by advocating small government. Rather than protecting me from force and fraud, government has become the source of the force and fraud.
I maintain that genuine libertarian thought is entirely consistent with human freedom. If that is what you seek, then seek out the libertarians. If an authoritarian state that has power over you is more to your liking, then you will find yourself taking what you get and liking it.
@NotNow
“Would you care to respond to the points I made in my much longer post, or do you consider your ability to discredit one small point to your own satisfaction to be a refutation of my entire argument?”
I did not make a small point. You exaggerated very considerably LewRockwell’s concern with feminism in an attempt to undermine Paul E’s credibility.
Indeed, you actually accused Paul E as follows, …”Your willingness to try to divine libertarian philosophy from a person calling himself a “libertarian republican” shows how shockingly little you know about libertarianism.”
And yet it is you who have shown yourself to know shockingly little about libertarianism – given that LewRockwell is one of the best recognised libertarian sites on the web – and you, unlike Paul E, completely misjudged it
In other words, Paul E’s complaints about most self-professed libertarian pundits failing to address feminism – including those who write for Lew Rockwell – remain valid.
With regard to your other points, it would take me too long to address them. I would simply point out that, in my view, the ‘official’ libertarian philosophy has many pitfalls and inconsistencies within it.
It sounds great, until you think about what it means in practice.
And this is one of the reasons why libertarianism has failed to catch on.
Indeed, perhaps you should ask yourself why such a seemingly attractive notion – ‘Libertarianism’ – which tells people that they should all be permitted to do as they please, more or less, receives so little support throughout the nation.
I would be far more interested in your answer to this question.
Here is one of my answers to such a question, …
http://www.angryharry.com/esWeregoingtobecomeextinct.htm
Just quickly scanned LRC and found these articles that could easily have been written by an MRA:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/fiori3.html
which included a link to this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch70.html
Harry,
Yes I looked. The subject matter isn’t devoted entirely to feminism. LewRockwell.com isn’t an MRA site, it is a political site. If your point is that there’s not enough there to suit you, I can’t argue that. My point is that the destructiveness of feminism isn’t entirely lost on libertarians. You might be able to speak to a larger audience if you would participate, as I suggested, from a human freedom perspective. That is, if you are truly interested in human freedom and not merely in taking the reins of the authoritarian state from your enemies like republicans are.
Would you care to respond to the points I made in my much longer post, or do you consider your ability to discredit one small point to your own satisfaction to be a refutation of my entire argument?
@NotNow
“P.S. Go to lewrockwell.com and do a search of his site for “feminism”, then start reading. Call me in a few years when you’re finished.”
Nope.
Only 271 articles listed via Google – most of them over three years old. You obviously didn’t look.
Furthermore, given that LRC posts about 50 articles per week = 2500 per year = 25,000 over 10 years, I would say that 271 articles which make reference to ‘feminism’ is not very much.
About 1.5%.
NotNOW I am not screening at my keyboard. If I had to describe myself politically I would call myself a Lew Rockwell Libertarian. I don’t have to call you in a few years time as I have been reading LRC for many years. I can not claim intimate knowledge of Austrian Economics but the ideas of Rothbart are known to me. Anyway who needs more than ‘government is a gang of thieves writ large’. I expect I am not the only one here to be so familiar.
I take your point though that many might not be or are only partially aware. Although I think there is not a distinct MR element in LRC it is implicit and indeed explicit in the idea of liberty as propounded by LRC.
In passing I think many misunderstand the Ron Paul element in Lew Rockwell Libertarianism. I think many just latch on to one or two of the ideas (i.e. End the Fed) but miss the totality of what he stand for. They don’t understand they he would end big government altogether, so not only would he withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan he would withdraw entirely from the empire and close seven hundred or so overseas bases. There is total consistency in Ron Paul’s thinking which for me is one of its attractions.
I agree for many (not limited to this site) they are only interested in as it where partisan diminishing of government. Shrink the bits they dislike and grow the parts they don’t.
I too see that as hopeless. But then again I see things as pretty hopeless anyway.
P.S. Go to lewrockwell.com and do a search of his site for “feminism”, then start reading. Call me in a few years when you’re finished.
You are right to call the LP to task for failing to make an issue of men’s rights. The topic is largely NOT understood. I say that to distinguish from MISunderstood. I suggest, if you haven’t already, posting / sending info / etc. Get a logon to a libertarian forum and start a topic, present facts. I think you’ll find more than a few reasonable and intelligent people.
That said, your willingness to try to divine libertarian philosophy from a person calling himself a “libertarian republican” shows how shockingly little you know about libertarianism. Libertarians find few redeeming qualities in republicans. For one, republicans are much too willing to use force against others and are much more likely to favor heavy-handed police-state tactics, like throwing people in jail unjustly and asking questions later. Like roughing up G-20 protesters who have merely tried to exercise their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble, for example.
“Small-government republican” is a contradiction in terms. Republicans, like most of you, love the war on drugs, the war on terror, and fail to see that these wars are fought as wars on our civil liberties and must count citizens as casualties. They empower big government. Once government has taken it upon itself to imprison citizens for private behaviour, and for Constitutionally-protected public behaviour, who can complain when government imprisons men for failing to comply with court orders? One cannot support a powerful government while complaining that that very government abuses that power. Who can be surprised? Can any of you see the inconsistency of your position?
If you wish to approach the libertarians with men’s rights issues, do it from a human freedom perspective. Libertarianism is based on literal ownership of self. I own myself, therefore what I put into my body is my own business, who I associate with is my own business, how much I am willing to work for is my own business, what I choose to eat, how I raise my children…those things are my business and my business alone, until I endanger or harm others. The purpose of government is to protect me from force and fraud perpetrated by others. It has no other purpose. I believe in genuine human freedom and equality. That means men and women are equal in the eyes of the law. Period.
If the government has no authority to enforce marriage contracts, then the government cannot abuse its authority in this area. Why does government “license” marriage? What business is it of the government? Most of you guys, for example, probably oppose gay marriage. Yet you see how vile the government’s interference into personal choices (marriage) has become. Can you see the inconsistency in your position? Get government out of marriage, period. It’s none of your business who I marry, as long as they are a sentient consenting adult, and it’s none of my business who you marry under similar circumstances.
Most of you are screaming at the keyboard by now. You fail to see how the government itself is the enemy; you cannot fix Leviathan. This philosophy of genuine freedom is completely incompatible with republican thought. Republicans love big government, just like dems do. They only differ slightly on how they would use big government to force the rest of humanity to live the way they think they should, and to jail anyone who differs.
I’m glad the MRA movement doesn’t look at the problem from a purely political party lense. I tend to lean to the left, as I see Republicans generally as the party of the rich. Pure capitalism sure is good stuff when your at the top of the pecking order. All the small government, gun rights, and family value stuff, which I’m for mostly, is just fluff and wedge issues used to secure votes. I can’t help but feel, that at the end of the day, Republicans are just people of power, money, and influence looking out for each other. At least Democrats can disagree amongst themselves without being seen as traitors to the cause. For those who say they are against class warfare, I agree, just tell that to the Republican party, who uses its wealth and influence mainly to consolidate and secure its wealth and influence. Jesus didn’t like rich people much. I think it had to do with basic human nature, and power corrupting it. As far as the Libertarians go, sounds good on paper. I’m holding giving any opinion about them based on a lack of personal knowledge on the subject. And just because I lean left, don’t call me a Democrat. I’m an independent, at least until one party makes the MRM a leading platform. Certain issues just take priority.
@ Kevin
“As soon as men and fathers figure out that no one is coming to their rescue, maybe they’ll begin to take responsibility for their own destiny.”
Not trying to be sarcastic here Kevin, but it is hard for me to imagine you read that article and decided I was saying anything else.
In fact that is precisely what I was saying, and offering as substance that there is nothing of real benefit to men collectively in any of the political parties.
As to Ron Paul’s plans to cut off Title IV-D funds, you are correct, almost. It might have happened as a side effect of largely unrelated executive actions on his part. But when questioned about this he didn’t even know how title IV-D worked.
Notwithstanding that, Paul also voted for supporting the National Domestic Violence Awareness Month which we currently prepare ourselves to endure the start of in a few days. It is totally misandric legislation that gives impetus to law enforcement to launch even more attacks on innocent men.
He also voted to support International Women’s Day. More institutionalized misandry that it is.
Read this
In other words, Paul’s potential to address matters inTitle IV-D was purely accidental. He clearly doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about how all this stuff erodes civil liberties.
And I say this as a libertarian. Just one who is frustrated with the party not getting what the heck is going on.
Harry is right. I am trying to shame libertarians into breaking their silence and withdrawing their support of feminist legislation. Not only as a tactic, but because they should literally be ashamed of such ignorance and denial.
@Eric
“Your view of “Men’s Rights” seems to be focused on children’s issues, like rights of Men in divorce cases, custody and such.”
That’s true – but I think that this is because we old-timers are wise enough to see that such issues are more likely to galvanise the MM than the plight of swingers!
LOL!
The point of my own piece, as mentioned above …
http://www.angryharry.com/esFailingMiserably.htm
… and Paul E’s piece, is to say to people like you, “Why not incorporate some ***big*** MEN’S ISSUES in your propaganda and, thus, get more support for your own cause(s).”
In other words, link them up.
Weave them in.
For example, I don’t have any motivation to take on issues for swingers.
But I am quite sure that if you were to propagandise to men on behalf of swingers and kept pointing out to these men that all these anti-swinger laws (or whatever) were an insult to men, and just part and parcel of the government’s aim to break down **all** their relationships, then many men would support swingers!
Think about the Lord of the Rings.
All these strange and different beings had one common enemy.
And, bit by bit, they united against him.
(Great film. I’m watching Part Two at this very moment. LOL!)
@Kevin Merck
“How can we blame libertarians, Democrats or Republicans for the shortcomings of men and fathers?”
I don’t think that we are blaming libertarians or republicans, so much as castigating them for failing to take on feminism and issues such as fathers’ rights.
After all, they are the ones who persistently make a fuss about big government – so why are they failing to address one of the main causes of big government – feminism?
Surely, there is something fundamentally wrong with their thinking.
“How can anyone take people seriously who think that riding a bike or dressing up like Batman, for the right to custody of their children, is the right way to bring an end to a multi-billion dollar a year extortion racket?”
Come on, Kevin. Give f4j a break.
Did you do anything better?
Besides which, these Batman types are not lofty intellectuals – just decent men prepared to stand up for THEIR OWN rights.
They are heroes to me – win or lose.
I really admire them.
(Actually, quite a few of them have now won their own cases, and it is quite clear to me that, in the UK at least, judges are thinking slightly more in favour of fathers.)
“yet there was no support whatsoever for Ron Paul by the regulars who write for this website.”
What about Prof Baskerville?
And with regard to this site, half of us won’t even know about specific American laws.
I, myself, get so confused over which laws apply where, that I no longer bother to study them too carefully, but, instead, deal with overall issues and general notions concerning ‘men’.
“The criminals need to be brought to justice and held accountable for the tens of thousands of deaths they’ve caused.”
Agreed. That would be good.
And I think that you have been around the MM long enough (quite a few years, if my memory is correct) to notice that we are, in fact, making headway – slowly.
Finally, I think that Paul E’s article is simply designed to alert (some) libertarians to the fact that if they do not open their eyes a little wider, then they risk being seen as rather inept – intellectually speaking.
Basically, he is trying to shame them – just like the therapists of his previous article.
It’s a great tactic!
LOL!
Paul,
Well, said, as usual.
None of this makes sense — if one clings to the feminist-maintained frontman fallacy that men are in charge and running society primarily for their own benefit.
The truth is that women are, and always will be, the center of any successful society. The unbridled success of feminism in our own society is only evidence of how strong women’s position has become. It is useful for women that men predominate in positions of authority and power — the better to serve them.
It is also very useful for women that men are not only viewed as being disposable, but that men are actually sacrificed (on the job, in the military, etc.) for their benefit. Women benefit hugely from the fact that the often-deadly “glass cellar” is as male-dominated as it gets.
The supposed historical “restrictions” on women of which feminists incessantly complain were most often devices to protect women, upon which women themselves insisted!
When one sees that men are generally not masters, but are in fact servants — of women generally, and of the few Alpha males required to run the show for women’s benefit — then the lack of social support for men’s issues becomes understandable, indeed.
Just think of the antebellum South: would one wonder why “slave’s issues” just couldn’t seem to get any traction?
This will be a “from the bottom up” struggle, not a “from the top down” change. Those at the top primarily serve female, not male, interests as they enrich and emower themselves individually, and as they lead us all into greater subservience to government and corporate power.
When the day dawns that men are viewed as deserving equal rights and protection as compared to our socially-cherished women, even though they are disposable, and even as they are disposed of, then we will have come a long way, indeed.
How can we blame libertarians, Democrats or Republicans for the shortcomings of men and fathers?
As soon as men and fathers figure out that no one is coming to their rescue, maybe they’ll begin to take responsibility for their own destiny.
It’s easy to point the finger at political parties while men and fathers continue to be their own worst enemy. As long as it’s someone else’s fault that men are discriminated against, there’ll probably be no change.
How can anyone take people seriously who think that riding a bike or dressing up like Batman, for the right to custody of their children, is the right way to bring an end to a multi-billion dollar a year extortion racket?
You’re absolutely right that this is the biggest human rights violation since slavery and it needs to be dealt with accordingly. We need to stop giving these criminals our money in the form of child support and/or income taxes. The criminals need to be brought to justice and held accountable for the tens of thousands of deaths they’ve caused.
Ron Paul was the only candidate for office who would have ended federal dollars for the collection of child support. That measure alone would have gone a long way to resolving the issues faced by fathers, yet there was no support whatsoever for Ron Paul by the regulars who write for this website. The media convinced people that Ron Paul is a “kook” and the mindless masses bought into it as usual.
The truth is that most so-called men’s/father’s rights people are pathetic crybabies who expect to be rescued by the very people who are kidnapping and exploiting their children for profit. Is it any wonder why so few want to champion a cause comprised of so many gutless wonders?
The only non-custodial parents doing the right thing are those refusing to give these criminals the coveted child support and/or refusing to pay income tax.
Your view of “Men’s Rights” seems to be focused on children’s issues, like rights of Men in divorce cases, custody and such.
My view on Men’s Rights is more focused on legalization of prostitution, Swinger’s rights, free speech rights for (adult) pornographyu, favorable labor laws for Blue Collar guys to make sure that they’re not forced to join Unions, and keeping the government out of the car business to ensure that automakers still maintain the right to produce muscle cars which appeal to the male population.
If you had Searched at Libertarian Republican for these topics you would have found a mountain of articles. We’re perhaps the ONLY! Republican group around for example, that stands up for the privacy rights of Swingers and is explicitly pro-legalization of prostitution.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican
Fmr. Libertarian National Committeeman
Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus
Personal Aide to two past Libertarian Presidential candidates Ron Paul (1988) & Roger MacBride (1976)
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul 1997-2003
My own dissatisfaction with the GOP is that they are in large measure responsible for the Financial Mess we are in. By embracing a phony Economic Model based upon Consumers Spending and massive Debt. Which favors Women’s spending of course. Women make 85% of Consumer spending decisions. Asset creation and tying our currency to a hard asset did not permit the type of leverage in the System that has created the mess we are in.
Additionally try talking to a GOP Politician about Men’s Rights. Is like trying to talk to a Cat about Mathematics. It is a completely one sided dialog with zero response from the other Side. Conservatives buy ad time on Liberal Feminist shows and then advertise their products and servcies. This funds Feminism with Conservative money.
ZenPriest revealed this dirty secret years ago. The promoters of the Feminist Dogma is the Left, the funding source is the Right. An Unholy Alliance that sees Men only as income producing assets not human beings with Rights, Needs and Wants. And the situation is not getting better. It is in fact worsening. As 80% of the jobs lost in the recession are male.
And Hilliary Clinton has now openly advocated Abortion of Boy babies only. Gendercide promoted by our Secretary of State. While primarily rural, White, Southern and Christian young Men die in Afghanistan to promote Gender Equality aka. “Feminism”. Which Feminists see with glee. Their enemies White Christian Men are being killed off.
Good focus Paul. Thanks for the investigation and giving us an objective assessment.
Paul Elam’s writing is not only insightful it is as inspirational. Of course mainstream Republicans will only discover that there is a constitution when they are out of office. The same can be said of Democrats.
Here in the UK we have something similar happening. The out of office Conservative party is promising, in a vague way, to reduce the size of government. This is just nonsense, in the end politicians want power and they are never going to reduce that power themselves.
It does not surprise me that what I think is a genuine desire amongst the people of America to restrain government is being manipulated by mainstream politicians for their own benefit. The essence of politics is untruth and manipulation. There can be exceptions to this but they are very rare indeed.
@ Tannin
If there are any factual errors in what I wrote, please cite them. Accusation by inference isn’t warranted here.
I never claimed Dondero was a spokesman for the party, but nether did I accuse him of insanity or belittle him with name calling. I simply responded to what transpired here, with facts.
Perhaps, since you seem informed about LP positions and politics, there are better links you can provide me with, like any from party officials that have written on the constitutional infringements related to family courts or rape shield laws.
Or any official position taken by the party that addresses how feminism in politics has eroded basic civil liberties.
I will indeed write Benedict and request an interview, though. We will see what happens.
Be nice if the author got some facts straight.
Eric Dondero is not a spokesman for the Libertarian Party. He holds no position within the LP except for that of court jester and raving lunatic who still thinks that statist pro-war conservatism equates to pro-peace libertarianism. He should not be taken seriously in the slightest.
Dondero was also fired some time ago by Ron Paul, for being so pro-war.
If the author is so inclined, a better answer would be to talk to someone who actually is a spokesperson for the LP–its Executive Director, Wes Benedict, with contact info at the link above.
Nice one Paul E !!!
Some MRAs tried to shame some libertarian writers into thinking and talking about men’s issues by sending them the URL of this piece …
http://www.angryharry.com/esFailingMiserably.htm
… wherein I somewhat belittle their libertarian efforts by pointing out that they are failing to address the many horrible effects of feminism; not only on men’s liberties and the justice system, but also on its promotion of very big government – something that libertarians are supposed to be vehemently against.
And I believe that invading their libertarian space and encouraging their supporters to view them dismally for failing to look at feminism might well be a way of growing the MM.
If they want liberty, then within the MM is where they need to be.
And, of course, any libertarian who supports feminism – as practised -ain’t no libertarian.
Right on. You’re not alone. There are people, even women – at least this woman! – who support your views on men’s rights and father’s rights. Mohamed Bary has been acused, tried, and convicted, all on the word of a hysterical, brain-washed child, who should be at home, being guided by her father and mother.
Hardly anyone seems to want to consider the feelings and rights of dads who lose precious time with their children after divorce and are looked upon only as check-writers, not as human beings who their children need, and miss when they are devalued in family courts and in society-at-large.
And the Libertarian Party doesn’t take a stance on anything but the safest issues, which isn’t much of a stance, is it?
Cheers to men and to fathers.
Karen C. Nolan
weeklycurrents.wordpress.com
weeklycurrents@comcast.net
@ Paul Elam,
Powerful and accurate assesment of the political conundrum. Where do men/fathers advocates go for help now? Nowhere to turn.
Earlier it was said in jest “A Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged. A Liberal is a Conservative who has been indicted”.
But like spoiler profet Ross Perot made it all sound so simple, “reform” .Libertarians are in similar soup. Link Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
I tend to think we should be flocking to the message boards and comments sections of the most popular sites and looking for opportuniteis to make our case. Treat sites like this as a home base to discuss wins and losses amongst ourselves.
http://www.alexa.com/topsites