A Green-Libertarian Alliance
I consider myself a member of the "Old Right," meaning I believe that the federal government shouldn't interfere in the affairs of other countries, and should exercise only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. But I also consider myself part of the "Libertarian Left": "In opposing the war, in promoting local control (which many Greens do), in fighting state-sanctioned corporate privilege, and in fighting to protect our civil liberties, the Libertarian Left has far more in common with the Left than with the Right as it is presently identified."
The problem is building a coalition among like-minded people. Here, Kevin Carson provides a great service by proposing something along the lines of the "Contract With America" that many Greens, Libertarians, and Democratic Freedom Caucus members can sign on to in good conscience. Carson envisions, "The Green and Libertarian parties and the DFC would agree not to run a candidate in any state or local race against a candidate who had already signed onto the Contract." Read it here.
6 Comments:
The intentions behind it are good but it'll never fly. Some of the stuff is too "libertarian" for me to be honest. I agree with some of the Libertarian philosophy but not all. What I would like is a more "common sense" approach to government and encouraging the people to be involved rather than sit back and let the politicians do it all for them. Yeah I know we elect them to do it for us because we have jobs and lives and all that, but it's so out of control now. I wonder what would it take to reign it back in?
What I liked about the Green-Lib alliance was that at least people are THINKING about solutions to the problems. I mean I might not agree but I am THRILLED that at least some ideas are being thrown out there for consideration instead of the same old crap!
Some of the stuff is too "libertarian" for me to be honest.
It will take dialogue. It demands that we chuck anything that isn't acceptable on unanimous grounds. So, to the extent that such an alliance is possible, it will have to not be "too libertarian" for Greens and not be "too Green" for libertarians.
Is that possible? We'll never know if we don't try. The problem I see is a lack of imagination on the part of Green statists: insisting on doing things through gov't that COULD be done voluntarily or through the market. This kneejerk problem has to be overcome. I think the libertarian sector of this alliance would be more than willing to consider some kinds of proactive gov't policy if it was couched in an overall simplification of legal structure. But the Greens would have to be willing to demand that everything be regulated, committeed, and legislated into their ideal.
err, what I meant was the Green would have to cease demanding that everything be regulated, etc.
Sorry.
I think that the Lincolnian ideal of "government of the people, by the people and for the people" lends credence to the notion of regulation. The million dollar question is: to what extent?
Stepping back from the particulars and looking at the larger picture, it seems to me that a Green/Libertarian alliance would be very pragmatic for both sides even if they don't agree on the particulars.
Look, how else can either party break the deathgrip by the Big Two on elections? It seems to me that breaking thru and winning some elections will help condition the electorate to viewing minor parties as legitimate options that can actually win and govern. Once that dynamic has been altered there would no longer be a need to compromise on the particulars in order to even get elected. The Greens and Libertarians could then part ways or join forces as circumstances warrant.
Kevin that last comment was right on the mark...to what extent?
I take "of the people, by the people, and for the people" to mean that the people should have a part in deciding their fate. Now we do elect persons to represent our best interests because we have things like oh--jobs, families, school, etc. going in our lives, we cannot do it all. But when the elected official discontinues representing the best interest of the people, that is where it ends, in my opinion.
I draw the line at the "for the people" when ANY law "for the people" interferes with the peoples freedom and liberty. I don't know that any law that could be justified in usurping the peoples right to freedom and liberty. Does that make sense?
Yes it makes sense, Jessica. And I'd argue that most laws which interfere with the people's freedoms would be at odds with the "for the people" of Lincoln's statement.
That said... There are always going to be some laws which at least limit certain freedoms in certain situations. And that's always going to be the case because very frequently "rights" are in direct conflict with each other.
Your right to free speech is at odds with the right of folks in a crowded movie theater who don't wish to be trampled to death if you were to falsely announce that there was a fire which would cause panic. See what I mean?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home