Michael, Paddy Ashdown cannot be described as a classical liberal. His successor as MP for Yeovil, David Laws, certainly is! The Liberal Democrats, in general, are supporters of the nanny state. Most of the party's MPs supported the fox hunting ban, smoking bans, green taxes etc. The activists are even more statist.

The Liberal parties in other European countries are more libertarian than their British counterparts. Germany's Free Democrats and Ireland's Progressive Democrats are examples that spring to mind. The Baltic states, especially Estonia, are the best examples of countries where libertarian ideas have taken root.

Drop me a line through the SOLO email system if you wish to continue the discussion offline.

I joined the US LP at a time when it was just entering its decline which you now see has come to its near complete fruition. I'm disheartened to see that libertarianism is at best a disjointed affair in the UK as I was beginning to hold out hope that the LiberariaNZ (whom I have always had more admiration for than my 'own' party here in the US) and libertarians elsewhere would be more uncompromising (and objectivist, ultimately). Based on your evaluation, I'd say that the UK is still in a little bit better shape than our watered down, near-useless LP here.

I caught a gentleman about a decade ago on British TV named Paddy Ashdown (I believe that's the spelling) from the Liberal Democrats who sounded VERY classical liberal and even used the phrase 'nanny state' as something he and the Liberal Democrats 'don't want and will always oppose' - interesting speech he gave, to say the least.

I'll have to ask you some other curious questions concerning libertarian and objectivism in the UK some time 'off line' - I really am once again paying attention to the places in the world where these ideas have taken at least some kind of root.

Michael, I forgot to address your UK question. There are many similarities between the US and the UK.

The main libertarian organisation in the UK is the Libertarian Alliance. That was run by the late Chris Tame, an anarcho-Objectivist. There was a damaging split many years ago and there is another Libertarian Alliance, run by David Ramsay-Steele (a Rothbardian) that claims to be the "real LA". The reasons for the split are very complex. I left after the "split".

There used to be a large libertarian faction in the Conservative Party (mainly students and Young Conservatives) in the 1970s and 1980s. The Federation of Conservative Students was closed down because it was regarded as too libertarian by the Party grandees. The Libertarian Alliance attracted many ex-FCS activists such as myself.

Libertarianism has been under attack in the Conservative Party for several years. Leading Conservatives such as William Hague and David Willetts have attacked libertarianism, especially on the platforms of the Conservative Christian Fellowship. The CCF's founder, Tim Montgomerie runs the influential Conservative Home website and has led the attack on libertarianism. David Cameron, the new Conservative Party leader, has declared his opposition to "selfish individualism" on several occasions in articles, interviews and speeches.

The Liberal Democrats have a classical liberal heritage but most of their activists and Parliamentarians are socialists on economic issues. There is a group of classical liberal thinkers, including several MPs, known as the "Orange Bookers". One, Nick Clegg, could become Leader if Menzies Campbell is forced out after last week's disastrous local election results. Another, David Laws, could become Clegg's Treasury spokesman. For now, the Dim Lebs are not an option.

Many libertarians, e.g. Perry de Havilland who runs the Samizdata forum, support the UK Independence Party. UKIP's new leader, Nigel Farage, describes himself as a libertarian. David Campbell Bannerman, his Deputy, is a close personal friend. His attempts to rebrand UKIP as the Independence Party (from government in general) is being thwarted by the regulatory authorities. In addition, there is little evidence of support for hardcore libertarian policies amongst UKIP's activists. They appear to have an average age of around 70 and tend to be nationalistic Old Tories.

There is no institutional or intellectual for a UK Libertarian Party. The British libertarian movement is, IMO, slowly dying. The leading thinkers, especially in the think tanks, are getting old and several have retired or died. There is little new blood and you tend to see the same old faces at events.

Libertarians have two options in pursuing electoral office or power - Cameron's Conservatives or the rebranded Independence Party. My Conservative electoral ambitions died when I was kicked off the Approved Candidates List for no reason (they would not give me one).

I have decided to work with close friends in taking The Freedom Association (TFA) back to its libertarian roots. It was taken over by social authoritarians in the 1990s. Previous attempts have failed but positive organisational changes have taken place in the last few weeks.

These changes will also help influence the Conservative Party and UKIP. TFA has a substantial number of Parliamentary members in both parties. Its "Better Off Out" (of the EU) campaign has attracted substantial media coverage.

For me, this is only way I can be true to my principles whilst trying to influence the political debate.

Libertarianz is certainly more principled than the LP now. I am appalled by the national LP's website. It makes the LP seem like a local state party, e.g. celebrating LP candidates being elected to educational boards etc.

It would be interesting to see how Libertarianz develops if it can win Parliamentary seats. If so, it is likely to attract "defectors" from the mainstream parties, i.e. those who are unelectable or whose careers have hit the rocks. It could also be at risk to being taken over by a faction of mainstream party, e.g. ACT.

I can understand your frustration in the US. The LP, its problems and the strategic issues have been discussed at length in the pages of "Liberty" magazine in recent years.

My personal experience of "mainstream" parties, especially in the last two years, has not been good to put it mildly. The Republican Liberty Caucus is not as strong as it used to be, not surprising given Bush's statist record. It's Congressional ratings, however, make interesting reading. Principled libertarianism/Objectivism and mainstream parties are not compatible in practice.

My preference, shared by fellow contributors to "Liberty" is that a national Libertarian educational and campaign group should be developed with the support of libertarian publications (such as "Liberty" and "Reason") and think tanks (such as Cato, FEE, IHS, Independent Institute and the Mises Institute).

"DownsizeDC was set up (by the leaders of the Harry Browne Presidential campaigns) to lobby Congress. It is a good idea but poorly executed. Supporters are pestered by fundraising email sob stories - just like the Browne campaign. It lacks movement credibility.

"Advocates for Self Government is an excellent organisation but it does not seek to influence the mainstream parties or lobby Congress. It too has Browne campaign connections but not as bad as "Downsize DC". With an email list of tens of thousands, it has an excellent basis for future development, even into other countries. Add the opt-in email and subscription lists of the above, and other, libertarian organisations and the potential is enormous.

I tend to agree with the notion of broadcasting libertarian/objectivist principles, WITHOUT BECOMING PART OF THE PROBLEM, as you point out. Your analysis of proportional representation's effect on a Libertarian Party rings true as well, though I can't help but wonder if an 'uncompromising' Libertarian Party such as the LibertariaNZ (and unlike what the LP in the United Police States has evolved into) could find a way to deliberately remain a pariah in a PR system like the Kiwis have.

For all the reasons you mention (and a few others of a more personal nature) I have all but removed myself from the Libertarian Party here in the States, pursuing instead the presentation of libertarian ideas in the McElroy vein - with the Libertarian Party as an avenue for presentation. Even better, I get to slip Rand's objectivism liberally into these kinds of discussions.

Again due to the recent changes for the far worse in the US LP that you mentioned, I cannot actually support the LP, and find it much easier to support the uncompromising LibertariaNZ. It's a small matter that I don't actually LIVE in New Zealand...

I take it from your postings in other topics that the UK is a LONG way off from a Libertarian/Objectivist party, especially one cut from the same stone as the LibertariaNZ.

Michael, Rand's beef with libertarians is more complex and deserving of a thread in its own right.

The Libertarian Party was set up to promote libertarianism rather than acquire office. There has been a schism in the libertarian movement over whether to support the LP or promote abstentionism (advocated by voluntaryists like George H Smith and Wendy McElroy).

The scandal surrounding Harry Browne's Presidential campaigns weakened the credibility of the LP. The credibility has been weakened further by the national convention abolishing most of the LP's platform because it was too radical.

The appointment of former Congressman Barr (and hardline drug warrior) as an LP officer is a worrying sign that the LP's strategy is to attract "small government" conservatives, appalled by Bush's statism, in pursuit of power.

My experience is that "mainstream" party politics requires a libertarian/Objectivist to compromise or abandon his or her principles. The alternative is to join an explicitly libertarian party sucj as the LP or Libertarianz.

Proportional representation is more likely to deliver elected libertarians than "first past the post". Libertarians could be in a powerful position of deciding which coalition wins power. PR is likely to lead to libertarians compromising their principles in pursuit of power.

My preference would be to support a libertarian party with no chance of office. It can stick to promoting its principles and ideals.

I lent my copy of "Philisophy, Who Needs It" but did not get it back. Time to order another!

Kenny, I don't know (and don't care personally, since I was posting this for general discussion, not to get hung up on specifics of her time.) Reference? "What Can One Do?" was printed was written in 1972, printed in Philosophy: Who Needs It, page 72 of my edition, which is the Centennial Edition, the one with the orange Greek column on the cover (Corinthian, if I'm not mistaken,) Signet paperback, a division of Penguin, International Standard Book Number 0451138937, available at all fine bookstores everywhere.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Joe, which Conservative Party was Rand referring to - UK or New York? I would also appreciate a reference for "What We Can Do". From recent personal experience, I would agree wholeheartedly with the second paragraph that you quote.

Robert: "If you can't join them, beat them."

YES! (In the limited sense you indicate, of doing it better. Though there are times the literal meaning IS tempting .

But I don't think that's the point of what Rand is saying here. (And I have to wonder if it wasn't her personal reaction to her own experience with NBI...).

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Jesus!

The answer is obvious: if you can't join them, beat them.

Create a political movement that DOESN'T reverse the philosophical hierachy. Ignore all the nay-sayers who suggest that it can't be done or that it's too early or that it's never been done tat way before and do it anyway.

And if you need an example to inspire you, look to Rand herself. She single-handedly invented objectivism from nothing other than a few Aristotelean crumbs. And what was her response to those critics who said that philosophy wasn't supposed to do and say what her's did?

Good opener for a discussion, Joe!

While I appreciate Rand's perspective on this topic, and ultimately I agree more with her sentiment in this area than I ever have before, I must admit to identifying with the libertarian philosophy (no doubt an oxymoron in Rand's eyes) as well as the objectivist philosophy. While I may be less of a ('big L' as it was sometimes called - meaning the actual political party here in the United Police States) Libertarian than I've ever been, I still find the libertarian concepts easier to open dialog with than the more complex aspects of Rand's objectivsm.

While I agree as Rand says that ad hoc single-issue groups make sense to at least guardedly join, and I agree that any support of a political party within an already clearly corrupt political system will prove fruitless, I have never completely agreed with Rand's description of libertarians as 'subordinating reason to whims' (the 'substituting anarchism for capitalism' I do see enough of among libertarians/Libertarians to agree with at least the latter part of her observation).

I often wonder if systems of government which allow for proportional representation (such as the one the LibertariaNZ participate in) add some credibility to the idea of a "Libertarian Party" even under Rand's strict comments you've posted here.

Mike Vardoulis