The Party of Principle

Okay, now you're just being silly. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, if that's what you want to do. What is it you hippies used to say? Something about bags as in, "That's my bag." or "That's not my bag." I'm not sure of the origin of the bag metaphor, but I suppose it came from the drug culture. Didn't they used to sell pot in bags? I seem to remember hearing about "nickel bags and dime bags". Nowadays you'd probably pay a nickel or a dime just for the empty bag, if you wanted drugs in it, that would be extra, but I digress.

I'm not going to try to defend the Libertarians because I've been away from them since 2004, and they might have changed by now. Even when I was a card carrying member, I never went to any meetings or met any of those guys personally. I just sent them money and they sent me literature. I used to get this newspaper once a month and people would write in to it and discuss the issues. Sometimes people would offer suggestions about how the party could attract more votes if they just changed their message a little. Then somebody else would write and remind them that "We are the party of principle.", and that being right was more important than winning. I don't know if either faction ever convinced the majority or if they're still arguing about it. Wiki currently classifies the Libertarians as "fiscal conservatives and social liberals", and also says that they somewhat resemble the "classical liberals" of the 18th Century. Make of that what you will.

I might have been a little presumptuous asserting that the Libertarian message appeals to intelligent people, because there are intelligent people in all parties, and they each have their share of loose cannons as well. What I meant to say was that the Libertarian ideology is based on the old "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution, that the federal government should only do what the Constitution expressly tells it to do and leave the rest to the states and to the people. The Tenth Amendment says pretty much the same thing, but people have been arguing about it since shortly after the ink dried. Some Libertarian used to reject the "states' rights" position, arguing that states have the potential of being just as tyrannical as the federal government. It's fair to say that the Libertarians advocate less government in general, but they are not quite anarchists. They believe in law and order and that, if the law doesn't promote order, then  it should be changed. They hold that one of the few legitimate functions, indeed the most important function, of government is to protect people and property from violence, theft, and fraud. If it takes a certain amount of force to accomplish this, then so be it, but violence is only justified when it's used to stop other violence. When I joined, I was required to sign "The Pledge", which went something like this: "I do not advocate the initiation of force or violence to achieve political or social goals." I had no problem with it but, before I left, there was a debate raging about changing the wording or abandoning "The Pledge" altogether. I don't know how that one came out, or if they're still arguing about it.

I left the Libertarians over philosophical differences. Now I am faced with the choice of somebody who wants to take away my guns and somebody who is a loose cannon himself. I think I'd rather put up with the philosophical differences.