Politics not as usual – second look

A recent article, Politics not as usual, cheered on Iowa Libertarian Party candidate for governor Eric Cooper who candidly admitted that his goal wasn't to win but to get enough votes so the major parties would "poach our issues in order to steal our voters.”

His rationale? "The Populists in the 1890s and the Socialists in the 1910s won almost no elections, and yet most of the major planks of their platforms were eventually implemented."

There is one small off-putting problem however. When big party partisans poach our issues they also poach our name and then toast its meaning.

Liberals did exactly that when they took the venerable "liberal" name, which essentially meant what libertarianism means today, and redefined it into its opposite – statism.

Real liberals were reduced to calling themselves "classical liberals," much as the Fletcher Brothers, who apparently never trademarked "corny dog," were reduced by imitators to calling their creation "The Original State Fare Corny Dog."

Now comes another piece of burnt toast – The Progressive Libertarian Manifesto.

Colonel George W, the manifesto's maestro, lays out his three simple rules:

1. The power of the free markets most efficiently distribute in a resource-constrained world
2. The power of the individual choice in making the best decisions collectively for society
3. The need for government in insuring success of the first two points.

Apparently he doesn't get that point three obliterates points one and two. Government is coercion. Period. The free market he extols is not free if point three is "insuring" it. Individual choice is not choice if point three is "insuring" the success of every individual's choice.

If libertarian means "maximizing freedom and minimizing government" there can be no hyphen-libertarian or adjective libertarian. There is only libertarian.

Even a "minarchist," a libertarian who believes in minimal government, must still listen to an anarchist if the "maximizing freedom" part can someday be pushed to total freedom and the "minimizing government" part can be pushed to zero government.

The Colonel is naive, at best, when he asks, "What is a Progressive Libertarian?" and answers, "A free market supporter that understands the need for programs that provide a small degree of regulation in order to ensure that the market is ran [sic] in a fair and honest manner."

And who provides the "small degree of regulation?" Government, of course. Politicians. Bureaucrats. Civil servants. Functionaries. Appointees. Manipulators. Powerbrokers. Lobbyists. Czars.

Progressive Libertarians, the Colonel explains, "want a free market with constraints to keep big business honest" (How? By threatening coercion?) "mostly through tax incentives" (coerced from everyone?) "to encourage business and people to make better decisions for the sake of society." (How encouraged? By threat of force? Whose definition of "better decisions?" The politician's? The bureaucrat's? Progressive Czars? Why "for the sake of society?" Who decides?)

No one can legitimately claim the name "libertarian" without first cleansing themselves of the initiation of force disease. Colonel George W is just another progressive who can't kick his addiction to coercion. His Progressive Libertarian Manifesto, at best, is simply Progressive Lite.

Progressive libertarian, like voluntary coercion, is an oxymoron.

So be careful out there Candidate for Governor Eric Cooper. Once the Big Boys get their hands on the libertarian egg they won't poach it, they'll crack it to make their own statist omelet.