A logical look at liberty by Stephanie E. Watson.

The main site has been totally redesigned and relaunched:
http://www.goliberty.net

This blog is really just a supplemental piece, but I do hope to post here often and to aggregate my posts into the main site.

So, my campaign has started. Tonight at our Wake LP business meeting those of us in the room who were running for office were asked to speak and answer questions. I was happy to do so, and I was grateful for the support of those in attendance.

As my campaign is in its infancy, and as I carefully word my positions before posting them at goliberty.net, NC is being bombarded by all the Democrats (and a few Republicans) in our state pouring campaign money into colorful glossy mailings, hundreds of yard signs littering the roadsides of Raleigh, and TV ads that air every 5 minutes. We have primaries on Tuesday, May 6th… well, I say “we” as a registered voter, not as a candidate, as Libertarians in NC are not part of this state-funded primary process. For me personally, I grow frustrated at the campaigning of Democrats who sell so many socialist ideas as “the right thing to do” for North Carolina, and I hope to convert that frustration into thought-provoking prose for my own campaign that helps to fix this misleading message.

I don’t know why I should be bothered by the media barrage and primary mayhem, though, when I know we can rest for a while after next Wednesday. It could just be residual frustration over the struggle the Libertarians and libertarian supporters have had to get on NC ballots to start with. Then again, maybe it is just leftover irritation at the State Board of Elections that insists that the Wake LP, of which I’m currently Treasurer, file detailed paperwork on its modest donations and spending every six months despite our lack of access to the ballot.

While the Dems/Reps concentrate on primaries, though, the Libertarians in NC, who have already made their party nominations, can concentrate on the ballot access lawsuit which goes to trial Monday and Tuesday. I hope that the attendance is as good if not better than the hearing, both from the Libertarians and from the NC Green Party which, despite differing political views, shares in the third party efforts to lower ballot access restrictions. If the judge sides for lower restrictions, there is sure to be an appeal from the state, but in the meantime the judicial system would be checking bad legislation from the past three decades and reducing state spending required to validate so many thousands of petition signatures.

Mike Munger once said that one problem we have as Libertarians in North Carolina is that because we spend so much time and money to get on the ballot to start with, we arrive at the starting line of a race out of breath. For me, I’m definitely out of breath, but probably more because of venting frustrations such as those I have taken time to vent here.

Thanks to colleagues, friends, family, and blog readers for letting me vent over the last couple of years, and apologies for occasionally testing your patience in the process.

The venting is over now, though… it is time to look ahead with confidence that people are hearing the Libertarian message and starting to remember what it means to have liberty for all.

I decided to use www.goliberty.net as my campaign website for the duration of 2008. I am looking forward to the Libertarian Party being on the ballot in North Carolina very soon thanks to extensive petitioning efforts of the LPNC and the contributions (toward paid petitioning) of many who want more choices for NC on election day.

In my last post, I started commentary on the Libertarian Party Platform, as published by the Libertarian Party here in the United States. I started with the Preamble portion, which I was able to cover in a single post. Because of the much-debated language of the first sentence in contrast to the remainder of the statement, I am going to separate my commentary into two sections. This one is focused on just the single first sentence of the statement, which reads:

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

First, if you, like me, grew up hearing “cult” used to describe groups who were organized in favor of some obscure and seemingly ominous religion, this statement may not digest well. Putting aside this emotionally charged word choice, though, consider its varied definitions instead:

cult: noun
1 : formal religious veneration: see worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
(copied from m-w.com)

Definition 5 quoted above is the intended meaning of the word “cult” in this context. I do not perceive the party as stating that it is challenging some religious stance or worship of government, but that it is challenging the devotion toward an omnipotent government. Personally, I am against the use of the word “cult” in this context, not because of the emotion is stirs, but because it refers to a meaning of the word that is less popular. (Dictionaries typically order definitions, per part of speech, in descending popular use at the time of publishing.) For clarity of intent, I would prefer “movement toward an omnipotent state” instead of “cult of the omnipotent state.”

Second, “omnipotent state,” on first reading, may sound like a harsh criticism against all organized government. However, taken in context, it refers to the “cult of the omnipotent state,” which is an emotionally charged and brutally concise way of saying “the state that has absolute power over its people.” Libertarians are, first and foremost, in favor of individual liberties, recognizing that each statesman is elected for the purpose of representing these individuals. An omnipotent state sacrifices individual rights in favor of some “greater good” for all citizens, deeming its citizens incapable of personal responsibility.

Finally, there is one very tiny word that is making a big difference here, changing the tone of the sentence to conjure thoughts of accusation: the as used in “the omnipotent state.” Note that in my rewording I changed “the” to “an” to imply that the state could be omnipotent, but that it was not already, nor were the intentions of those in the “movement toward” it always aware that they are moving in that direction. In other words, I perceive the “cult of the omnipotent state” as an organized movement in favor of giving all power over to the government. Despite this perception, I think the actual intention of the party was to refer to the general attitude of giving government power, one sacrificed right at a time, to achieve some great goal we feel strongly about, and often without awareness of how each sacrifice impacts our individual rights over time.

There are several in the Libertarian Party who oppose this wording and move regularly to change it. If that movement becomes a large enough majority in the Libertarian National Convention, there is likely to be a change. Otherwise, it will remain as it is. It is my opinion, though, that the party should consider the impact of wording in an effort to clarify its intention to voters considering changing from a “little L” to a “big L” Libertarian. It is my opinion that the exact same thing can be said with an equally powerful impact in a way that is less likely to result in misrepresentation of the party’s intentions.

I would like to devote a series of posts to commentary about the Libertarian Party Platform. It was in reading through this two years ago that I found a political home and hope for electing individuals to public service whose views were more aligned to my own.

I start with the Preamble, which reads:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

The founders of the US government stated clearly that we hold the following truths to be “self-evident,” or “blatantly obvious” for those more obliged to use such a description, meaning that they need no proof:
* All men (people) all created equal
* All men (people) are endowed by “their Creator” with certain unalienable rights, meaning rights that are theirs alone and cannot be stripped from them
* Among these unalienable rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

The Pledge of Allegiance recited in reverence to the flag of the United States of America states that we also pledge allegiance to a republic that observes “liberty and justice for all.”

It is curious that as a nation that we have become so caught up in the “justice” portion of our pledge that the original concept of “liberty” has become horribly sacrificed. We currently have a government that seems to think that its citizens cannot take care of themselves. Government entities take money and property from its citizens and redistribute them with the justification of keeping people protected, educated, healthy, and steered on the right moral track. In these ways, the nation is moving toward socialism, in direct contradiction to the original goals of the republican democracy.

How much of an individual’s life is the government’s responsibility? Are people no longer expected to be responsible for themselves, free to pursue their own brand of happiness, and trusted to respect others’ rights to the same if they wish to continue their freedom?

Libertarians seek to preserve the value of “liberty” as it was often expressed by the nation’s founders. Libertarians believe that it is in the nation’s interest to trust individuals to make decisions for themselves, and to simply ensure that those decisions do not interfere the rights of others. We can truly have a free and democratic society when when government and authoritarian entities reserve their powers and do not extend their scope to removing the rights of individuals.

Individual rights “is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world,” as stated in the Preamble. Therefore, on a world-wide scale, Libertarians also believe in respecting the rights of other nations to make decisions for themselves without US government interference.

The Preamble ends with a reminder that though the platform states what Libertarians believe, it does not necessarily resemble the goals of the party or its elected public servants. Instead, the party goal is simply “a world set free in our lifetime,” and the platform is a statement of how the party believes such a goal might be accomplished in today’s United States of America.

Does the party intend to make drastic changes on a large scale in a short time through elected officials? No. There are very few in the party who would immediately and drastically restructure their government at any level. The people of the US need to be weaned from government dependency and lead back toward to self-government. Many Libertarians believe that because individuals can govern their own lives, many changes can start at a local level with communities willing to take the necessary steps toward more freedom. Libertarians elected for national-level positions would ensure that the federal government interferes less with those who make decisions for what is right for themselves as individuals, for their communities, and for their states.

In my next post, I’ll explore the Statement of Principles, perhaps in two parts.

For the Liberty of this great nation,
Stephanie Watson

GoLiberty.net was launched as an independent site to promote liberty.

The site incorporates the GoLiberty Blog at LiveJournal.com, which is currently maintained by site administrator Stef and includes her own original contributions in addition to reference to other Libertarians’ writings.

Feedback, recommended resources, and writing contributions are welcome and encouraged; email “stef” at goliberty.net.