Isn’t that the point of the thread?
During his Ironman 21-hour speech, Sen. Ted Cruz read excerpts from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, name-dropped “libertarians” at least six times, and yielded to Sen. Rand Paul, who invoked Frederic Bastiat’s “What is Seen and Unseen,” a favorite among libertarians.
http://www.cato.org/blog/ted-cruz-speech-nods-increasing-libertarian-views-within-republican-party
As mentioned above, classical liberalism–liberalism as understood in Europe–is close. Reading the editorials, or “leaders,” in the Economist is a fair exposure to this strain of thought. Major differences, at least as you’ll see them expressed in the Economist: there is no overlap with the God squad, as there is with Cruz and the Pauls; in favor of some level of coordinated international action, ie not isolationist; and although very much in favor of less regulation and less restrictive laws, accepts that laws and regulations are often necessary, for example in the case of global climate change.
There are many parties in Europe that espouse similar philosophies, perhaps most prominently the Free Democrats in Germany–very much a third party but more influential than the Libertarian party in the US. Unsurprisingly the FD are favorites of the Economist.
Which is why I think he qualifies as a canadian libertarian. Small L, small C.
Wiki lists quite a few political parties in other countries which identify as “Libertarian” in at least some sense:
Although, they note:
Note also that some of them are members of the “Interlibertarians” international association:
http://www.interlibertarians.org/
Switzerland is sometimes advanced as a nation with a strong streak of Libertarianism, mostly on the basis of attitudes towards personal liberties, “economic freedom”, a very decentralized governmental structure and a very neutral stance in most international affairs. Overlooking compulsory military service and some well-developed social welfare programs.
More to the point, Libertarians want to get the Federal government out of the business of ensuring civil rights are upheld unless the violation can fit into one of two categories: Force or Fraud, which comes down to “murder, battery, or breach of commercial laws”. Didn’t get hired because you’re black? Not the Federal government’s problem, probably not something a state or local government cares about, either.
Also, their “economic liberty” platform means “no safety nets”, which means people who are tied to a job for basic sustenance are utterly unfree to improve their living conditions in most respects. This puts them so far outside the political discussion in Europe, for example, that you’ll never find a viable Libertarian party over there.
The German FDP (4.8 % of votes in the 2013 federal elections) is OK with a substantial social safety net, German fashion, though. The really libertarian party is the Partei der Vernunft, with 0.056 % of votes in 2013 (about as much as the Marxist Leninist Party of Germany which is considered fringe by mainstream Communists).
That just means they are federalists. Federalism isn’t necessarily a part of Libertarianism. Point being, though, they would make both illegal at the state level if they held state office.
I used to be a LP member. At the time (late '90s/early '00s), the party newsletter and other libertarian organizations would often highlight libertarian parties and candidates in other countries. I think the message was part '“liberty is spreading” and part “even though the LP isn’t doing much in the U.S., we have hope in other places and maybe that will help here.”
There will never be a viable libertarian political PARTY in the U.S. system. Regardless of the popularity and validity of any ideas, the system only allows 2 mostly-centrist parties. If anything, I would think libertarian parties would be more likely to emerge in a system that allows ANY minor parties to hold seats. if not “more likely,” at least possible.
In the U.S., libertarianism is pretty diverse and most “libertarians” are not members of the LP and probably not involved in politics at all. I haven’t really kept up with political party stuff, but I’d imagine most libertarians in the world probably aren’t part of any political movement. It amuses me (well, not really) when people/media highlight supposed libertarians who hold beliefs much different than many/most libertarians and even display obvious anti-libertarian behavior and sentiment.
(Tried to) ETA: Since there’s debate over what qualifies as libertarian (and Libertarians love to debate their own purity amongst themselves, which I guess does something to fill the time that can’t be spent actually doing politics)- There are libertarians even here in the U.S. that support things like "safety nets’ far beyond what even far-left Democrats would support, depending on how they are structured/run. Again, much of this probably depends on the extent that they want to be taken seriously politically (though certainly many govt solutions are not politically viable), as scholars, authors, etc. Parties that actually do politics are going to have to have take some position on things that go against libertarian purity and take into account political reality.
Well said.
It seems to me that large-L Libertarianism is particularly prone to “No true Scotsman” debate (read as “tendentious quibbling”) over what, if anything, any two adherents actually believe in common.
There is a Norwegian party where the members will invariably answer “Atlas Shrugged” if the newspaper column question “What’s on your nightstand?” is asked them. (Political jab redacted.) Their original name was “Anders Lange’s party for a drastic cut in taxes and fees”.
Their actual politics have a lot more to do with populism though.
The one Libertarian I knew fifty years ago recognized only two legitimate functions of government: military and police. He was an enthusiastic Goldwater supporter and was in favor of nuking Vietnam, so the fact that the VC hadn’t attacked the US, nor was threatening to, had any effect on him. He would have privatized all the streets so that I own the south side of the street in front of my house and charged a toll to all who went through. Presumably, he would have allowed the neighbors and me to set up some kind of private toll-collecting mechanism to collect these rather than have a toll booth every 50 feet. Post office and public schools were utterly beyond what he would have permitted.
I recently googled him and he is still active in Libertarian circles, although the above views might have softened somewhat. After getting a PhD in mathematics (when I knew him), he went to law school and seems to have spent his career as a DA in LA. I guess that is consistent with his belief in the police.
I must say I have never heard of any Libertarian party in Canada. Justin Bourque kept going on and on about the “right to bear arms”, even though there is no such right here. Thank the (non-existent) gods.
Ayn Rand was not a supporter of libertarianism, she in fact despised them:
Thus the saying “Scratch a libertarian and you’ll find an authoritarian.”
I will keep my answer in the spirit of GQ. The fact that she despised them is not in an indication that there are not close similarities between the two. In fact, could she not have said that out of jealousy and a desire to control her “brand”?