Sad news from Costa Rica about the parliamentary libertarians there, who have apparently gone native. Former activist Jorge Codina reports that the Moviemento Libertario (ML) is no longer a movement, nor any longer libertarian -- corrupted it seems by association with power and pragmatism. "The pragmatists are in control," says a tired, drained and clearly burnt out Jorge.
He puts the blame for the corruption of a fomerly principled parliamentary libertarian party firmly at the door of the 'classical liberal' Friedrich Naumann Foundation, an organisation whose lietmotif is compromise -- "you have to dump the ideology to get elected" said the unelected FNF to the already elected MLers, a message picked up by the pragmatists seduced by their proximity to power who have become politicians instead of libertarians, praising "good government" instead of freedom, and "efficiencies" over rights. Sound familiar?
As compromise replaces principle, the very reason for the existence of the Moviemento Libertario disapears, as the party is also now predicted to do. If politics has replaced principles, then how does ML fundamentally differ from any other bunch of power-lusters? Sad news indeed, and not without parallels here in NZ.
As Lord Acton once presciently pointed out, power corrupts ...
9 comments:
What is the point here PC? People shouldn't vote for the Libertarianz, because once in power, they become corrupt?
No Berend, the message is closer to home -- to your home. Voters know that ACT stand for nothing but compromise. They've peddled that line for ten years, achieved nothing, and soon they'll die of it.
The sad thing is that until the compromisers of the Naumann Foundation arrived, the Costa Rican libertarians were working well. Beware the spin doctors.
Your take on ACT is very out of date PC.True there is still work to do but they are far futher along the track than even 5 years ago...What good does it do liberty for ACT to vanish leaving the real bastards in Govt unopposed? Is this a case of nose..spite...face..?
No, the point is that Libertarianz get compromised as soon as they get in touch with others. Your claim is that when a Libertarian speaks to an ACT person, they leave their principles? Nice principles...
"Your claim is that when a Libertarian speaks to an ACT person, they leave their principles?"
Que?
Well, that's what happened here isn't it? A libertarian got elected. They speak to a classical liberal and next they're not libertarian anymore. That's the summary of this story.
"They speak to a classical liberal..."
Ah, I see what you're saying, Berend, but that's not exactly a fair summary. The problem is not ~speaking~ to compromisers, the problem is ~agreeing~ with them. That would be a summary of my point.
As Ayn Rand points out in 'The Anatomy of Compromise,' whenever compromise is effected, it's the most unprincipled that win by it.
~That's~ my point.
But my point is that libertarianz seem to do that agreeing. Of course, first after getting elected and next listening to "the other side".
Here we have an example of a libertarian party that is elected, and next gets compromised. You can complain like a leftie that "it's not my fault", but these libertarianz have to take responsibility for THEIR actions. Or not?
They get elected. They compromised.
Is that the future we will get when we get a libertarian here in parliament as well? That was my question as this seemed to be the point of the story: don't elect a libertarian, because they get corrupted by power.
I think this makes the point that it doesn't matter who the hell you elect, if you don't put checks & balances in place, and if the population as a whole - the very culture - isn't freedom-oriented, you're stuffed.
Post a Comment