I feel that the Ontario Libertarian Party’s election results were very promising for the future and I think there are signs out there that we can continue to attract support for the pro-liberty cause.   The more candidates we have, the fuller the slate of candidates – we only had 25 this time – the more exposure we will get.

I’m thinking of the federal election now (a minority government means the date is uncertain) and I hope that the Libertarian Party of Canada can benefit from the momentum gained during this provincial campaign to
build up our candidates and volunteer network.   The ultimate goal is a full slate of 308 candidates.

When talking to people, there are good signs that some people are very surprised by the libertarian idea and I hear from people who are disappointed we’re not in their district.  I know from experience that many Ontarians have not heard this word “libertarian” yet at all.  As we grow –  ”we” meaning the base we have plus the new people we need – we can do more to get the freedom message out.  I see a libertarian political party as an instrument for libertarians to join and have an impact on Canadian society.

The results can be found here.

I think our vote counts were objectively better overall when compared to the past.

I came in last in my riding after the Family Coalition Party candidate (581 votes).  I had 492 votes which is 1.4%.  The reason I’m happy about that is because the 2005 by-election result for Scarborough–Rouge River was 0.6% and the 2006 federal election result was 0.52%.   It’s a 230% improvement for me.  And it’s similar for many of the other candidates like Phil Bender in Simcoe–Grey.

By the way, the people who stayed home from voting who are interested in personal sovereignty and respecting the autonomy of others have an alternative in supporting the Libertarian Party.

The order of the results in my riding reflected the Liberal Party’s landslide in the province:

SCARBOROUGH–ROUGE RIVER
Liberal:   22,362 65.2%
Progressive Conservative:  4,962 14.5%
NDP:  4,646 13.5%
Green:   1,275 3.7%
Family Coalition:  581 1.7%
Libertarian:  492 1.4%

Small numbers because we’re not there yet.  We don’t have the volunteer base yet to compete with the other candidates.   I think it is just a matter of effort – shared effort – spreading out the effort among many new motivated people – not letting too much work fall on one person’s shoulders – and not overdoing it.   People in our society are not inclined to volunteer because they are so busy with other things, but they also should realize that it is their responsibility to stand up for what is right, for freedom, property rights, justice, peace.  Political action means asserting their will, their individual rights during elections or at other times, through expressing their views however they want to do that.  People are thinking about politics during elections, so it’s an ideal time.

Another point to make is that the LP always needs to keep decentralized.  While pledging to keep the same principles, it needs to keep letting people adopt their own individual platform based around those principles, and encourage debate and thereby education among fellow libertarians as much as people want to do that.   If the stakes aren’t so high, maybe the debate could be friendlier.

When running as a candidate, it is always a learning process.  You have your message but you also are competing with the level of knowledge that the media has, that specialists in the public have when they question you.  It’s a way to directly engage in the political system way beyond voting.    You never know enough.  You’re learning about libertarianism, about how the society is governed and you’re also educating those who listen to you.

But to encourage people to find their own way and express themselves is to let them strengthen their own understanding of libertarian ideas.  When there are local associations, the members can pick the candidate whose ideas they prefer, whose ideas are closer to the principles they share.  Suggesting, debating, arguing is very healthy, but I think that any effort to impose views or direction would just automatically reduce the enthusiasm of candidates and efforts at diluting the libertarian message just reduces the likelihood of new activists joining the LP and will stop the growth.  It’s a dead end strategy.

People who care to get involved want liberty and consistency and principle.   This mistake of diluting the message has been already done to death and I don’t see any call for repeating it again and again.   You can not control what other people believe – whether they think they are “moderate” or “radical”.    You can just talk and argue.   I think these concepts of “moderate” and “radical” are just based on misunderstandings anyway – misunderstandings about libertarian philosophy and about what the public believes, and about the rationality of the public.   For one thing, libertarians have
different philosophical beliefs and lifestyles, so they’re going to have different emphases and prejudices.   And another point – you may be rational, or informed, but many other people are not.  They won’t even be interested in what you’re
saying.   A Libertarian should be realistic about the job ahead and believe in what he’s struggling to attain – AND to expect changes in his lifetime!    If I look at “moderate” in a positive way and not contrary to “radical”, then what I would mean by moderate is to focus on priorities and essential issues that other human beings can relate to:  war, civil liberties, personal freedoms, surveillance society, taxes, property rights, social engineering, global warming propaganda, educational choice, health care choice, justice system reforms, self-defence rights, freedom of speech.   Wait, is that list moderate or radical?

If Canadian libertarians take action, which is necessary to stop things from getting worse, I think it’s possible there will huge overnight leaps in awareness and understanding in our society.  But even if that happens, things won’t end up the way we want or expect them – but they might end up more like we want if we just do the job of getting the message out.    And you should use all the arguments that you believe in – emotional, ethical, rational.   Put these arguments out there.  You’re looking for people who care enough to listen.

The LP of Canada strategy for the future should be radicalism plus action.   Radicalism means consistency, integrity, principle – these qualities withstand scrutiny.   But I could add a point about focusing on the most relevant issues first, the highest priorities, the worst injustices (in the context of
the campaign and level of government).   Federal campaigns in Canada include both national and international issues and federal responsibilities such as the criminal code.  So there is a lot of scope.

And the way to ensure radicalism and growth is to let people be who they are and believe and argue their positions without trying to impose one view on everything.   The discussion of ideas and a diversity of candidates’ platforms will get the liberty message out there.  People will see what we have in common.

Individuals are motivated by their own strongly held beliefs and not by imposed beliefs or formulas.   Libertarians are truth-seekers.  The public doesn’t need another top-down party with an arbitrary platform.  It needs to hear the truth from
individuals willing to explain it as best they can.  Libertarian ideas leads to a stream of implications and questions that will never end and what we should want is to see as many people as possible in Canada start to ask these questions about why human
beings don’t need to continue to live in subservience to each other.

October 13th, 2007