Libertarians advocate one party dictatorship

[IcarusAngel]

Looks like dejavu's heroes openly supported tyranny:

According to Rothbard, the prerequisites for liberty are as followers: "organization, hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires [who succeed by renting...], and a libertarian political party...,"

http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbardkonkin.htm

"Hierarchy," and especially one political party, are the very things anarchists OPPOSED.

It's interesting when you combine this with the fact that Nozick and Buchanan supported slavery as well (literal chattel slavery).

[pusher robot]

Looks like dejavu's heroes openly supported tyranny:

According to Rothbard, the prerequisites for liberty are as followers: "organization, hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires [who succeed by renting...], and a libertarian political party...,"

http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbardkonkin.htm

"Hierarchy," and especially one political party, are the very things anarchists OPPOSED.

It's interesting when you combine this with the fact that Nozick and Buchanan supported slavery as well (literal chattel slavery).




To be fair, he did not include in the prerequisite that that libertarian party actually hold any offices.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

DejaVu also toasts to Robert E. Lee in his cups and brags about people who backed the Pinochet dictatorship.

It must be hard coping with the idea capitalism requires a state to exist.

[Self-Owner]

Looks like dejavu's heroes openly supported tyranny:

According to Rothbard, the prerequisites for liberty are as followers: "organization, hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires [who succeed by renting...], and a libertarian political party...,"

"Hierarchy," and especially one political party, are the very things anarchists OPPOSED.

Where does Rothbard say there should be one political party? Of course, he didn't. It's also interesting that you missed the part where he says "there is nothing in the slightest unlibertarian about organization, hierarchy, leaders and followers, etc., so long as these are done voluntarily." For an anarchist who opposes coercion, I don't see the problem.


It's interesting when you combine this with the fact that Nozick and Buchanan supported slavery as well (literal chattel slavery).Even if Nozick and Buchanan think that people should be in principle allow to sell themselves into slavery (which I'm not sure about in the first place), it's extremely disingenuous to say that they "support" it - it would be like saying that I support neo-Nazis simply because I'm in favour of free speech.

[IcarusAngel]

Where does Rothbard say there should be one political party? Of course, he didn't.

That is what one is to infer from his comment. If he believes in a multi-party system, why doesn't he say that a multi-party system is necessary for liberty? That is the way a social scientist would phrase it.

Instead, he just claims a certainly political party, the Libertarian Party, will bring us freedom.

And, we know from the LP platform that the only way to be a Libertarian is to ATTACK democracy, even representative democracy, the weakest form of democracy.

Libertarians do NOT believe in political science; they believe they have "discovered" all the rules of economics and this means that people should not be able to make decisions themselves (supposedly they make them in the market, but this is faulty).

So, yes, it's correct to infer he meant a one party dictatorship.

Now, it's interestings that Communists have had this same problem. But not really communists, Stalinists.

Stalin also wrote that only ONE political party was necessary, only he claimed one political party was essential for democracy -- the communist one. The essay made little sense, but it is the same type of reasoning Rothbard is using.

It's interesting to see how tyrants think alike.



It's also interesting that you missed the part where he says "there is nothing in the slightest unlibertarian about organization, hierarchy, leaders and followers, etc., so long as these are done voluntarily."

The capitalist concept is not voluntary.


For an anarchist who opposes coercion, I don't see the problem.

He wasn't an anarchist because he believed in one political party and hierarchy (which anarchists opposed), and he didn't oppose coercion - he supported wage slavery.


Even if Nozick and Buchanan think that people should be in principle allow to sell themselves into slavery (which I'm not sure about in the first place), it's extremely disingenuous to say that they "support" it - it would be like saying that I support neo-Nazis simply because I'm in favour of free speech.

This is your most ridiculous argument yet.

There is a huge fucking difference between supporting free-speech and supporting slavery.

If I support a system that allows slavery or tyranny, then I directly SUPPORT tyranny.

Likewise, if I support a decentrialized system of communual federations, I would be a supporter of some variant of Socialism.

And both advocated slavery.

Buchanan even said it's the duty of each individual to own as many slaves as he can.

[IcarusAngel]

To be fair, he did not include in the prerequisite that that libertarian party actually hold any offices.

What would be the point of the Libertarian Party then? The point of "parties" is that they generally can provide certain individuals with enough resources and so on to compete with other individuals. This, in theory, helps "level the playing field" so that politics isn't a game between only the rich. Bill Clinton, for example, probably wouldn't have gotten very far without pandering to the Democratic Party. They also outline a collective political philosophy that usually implies what they will do when in office. The Libertarian Party has one of these, for instance.

What was Rothbard's "party" supposed to do?

To me, it sounds like the old Stalinist rhetoric that one must have one party (be it Libertarian or Communist) always in chage, because they know what the right thing to do is.

I think in a federation of decentralized socialist communities, pure socialism, some forms of anarchy, and of course pure democracy, would have multiple parties, and these would govern according to most votes or most active, or most participation, or what have.

Some decentralized systems would have no parties at all, and people would just join one community or another.

But definitely the worst idea is to have only one party, or in the case of the US, a two party duopoly that acts as one party.

It's like what Karl Marx said: "The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."

That is the most accurate description of the American two party duopoly I can think of.

[Dean]

Looks like dejavu's heroes openly supported tyranny:

According to Rothbard, the prerequisites for liberty are as followers: "organization, hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires [who succeed by renting...], and a libertarian political party...,"

http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbardkonkin.htm

"Hierarchy," and especially one political party, are the very things anarchists OPPOSED.

It's interesting when you combine this with the fact that Nozick and Buchanan supported slavery as well (literal chattel slavery).




They have a dream: corporate martial law.

[pusher robot]

What would be the point of the Libertarian Party then?
What was Rothbard's "party" supposed to do?


It gives you a choice. Liberty, if it is to be meaningful, is all about choice. This is the reason that a multi-party government is better than a one-party government, irrespective of what those parties are. Having a libertarian option for government is a necessary prerequisite for freedom, even if the option is not exercised. By analogy, having the option to speak freely is a necessary prerequisite for freedom, even if the option is not exercised, and having the option to vote is necessary for freedom even if you do not, in fact, vote. You wouldn't argue that freedom of speech does not exist unless everybody actually goes out and publishes a newspaper, would you?



To me, it sounds like the old Stalinist rhetoric that one must have one party (be it Libertarian or Communist) always in chage, because they know what the right thing to do is.

I suppose each of us is predisposed to hear what is most familiar to us.

[pusher robot]

Looks like dejavu's heroes openly supported tyranny:

According to Rothbard, the prerequisites for liberty are as followers: "organization, hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires [who succeed by renting...], and a libertarian political party...,"

http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbardkonkin.htm

"Hierarchy," and especially one political party, are the very things anarchists OPPOSED.

It's interesting when you combine this with the fact that Nozick and Buchanan supported slavery as well (literal chattel slavery).




Oh and by the way, I followed your link, and I find your characterization of the quote misleading - he is clearly talking about things essential in the achieving political success, not "liberty" in an abstract sense. Here is the full quote:



Konkinian strategy winds up being no strategy at all. Konkin cripples libertarian effectiveness by creating moral problems where none exist: by indicting as non-libertarian or non-market a whole slew of institutions necessary to the triumph of liberty: organization, hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires, and a libertarian political party.

[IcarusAngel]

It gives you a choice. Liberty, if it is to be meaningful, is all about choice. This is the reason that a multi-party government is better than a one-party government, irrespective of what those parties are. Having a libertarian option for government is a necessary prerequisite for freedom, even if the option is not exercised. By analogy, having the option to speak freely is a necessary prerequisite for freedom, even if the option is not exercised, and having the option to vote is necessary for freedom even if you do not, in fact, vote. You wouldn't argue that freedom of speech does not exist unless everybody actually goes out and publishes a newspaper, would you?

If this is what Rothbard meant, he should have spoken more clearly.


I suppose each of us is predisposed to hear what is most familiar to us.

Yes, I read a lot of stuff that doesn't agree with my ideology.

I'm a syndicalist, for instance, but I've read stalinist material, and I've read Libertarian material.


Oh and by the way, I followed your link, and I find your characterization of the quote misleading - he is clearly talking about things essential in the achieving political success, not "liberty" in an abstract sense. Here is the full quote:


How are you getting to this?

Konkin is arguing that a Libertarian Party is actually harmful to the movement.

Konkin is arguing that wages are harmful to Liberty (I guess, it's kind of hard to follow either one of them; both Rothbard's statement and Konkin's rebuttal are mostly gibberish).

Rothbard, on the other hand, is saying that they are necessary to the triumph of liberty

He isn't saying that they help achieve Liberty (and they obviously don't, that's a ridiculous statement, we already have all of that stuff and things have gotten worse).

He's saying that they will exist even in the transition to anarchy.

And, like I said, Libertarians do not believe in any form of democracy, even representative democracy.

So, it's correct to infer that Rothbard believes this one Libertarian Party will be "necessary to liberty," as well as a whole "slew" of things anarchists and socialists have long since denounced (correctly imo) as tyrannical.

This is different from, say, a Democrat's position.

If the democrats controlled everything, since they still believed in democracy, there position would naturally imply that they would have to allow the existence of other parties, such as the Republican Party or the Green Party.

In fact, since it's a republic, or republican-democracy, other parties could come into existence and over take the democratic party, so long as they follow the constitution.