The Libertarian Party of Ontario VS The Freedom Party of Ontario; A Matter of Philosophy and misunderstandings

Currently Ontario, Canada is in the middle of a local election cycle for their area and there is two competing parties that share politically more or less my views. Those two parties are The Libertarian Party of Ontario and The Freedom Party of Ontario. However, despite their similarities the members of The Freedom Party denounce the Libertarian Party and even claim they are not for liberty at all. So, how come there is this split and hatred when both parties are for limited government?

The answer lies in philosophy and the fact that Libertarians are not signed into agreeing constitutionally to Objectivism or at least Objectivish philosophy. The Party itself is basically an Objectivism party, but, they have some people whom are members that agree with the Objectivism based constitution while not considering themselves Objectivists. I recently listened to Paul McKeever the leader of the party speaking on Diana Brickell's old Podcast Philosophy in Action.

The long and short of it is that it comes down to the Objectivism argument against the lack of reasonable rigger underlying libertarian politics. Due to this they think that the Libertarian Party of Ontario is too open and big tent. That they will accept too many people of too many backgrounds as long as they support less government in their lives. However, Paul McKeever seems to have turned this difference in philosophy into something personal. Which reminds me of how the Ayn Rand Institute treats David Kelley and his Atlas Society organization as if they are of the Devil.

First off let me say once again I am not philosophically libertarian with a small l. I am Objectivist as well myself philosophically. I am not a libertarian with a small l and would never say I was one. However, I do support the Capital L Libertarian Party of Ontario in the running for the election. Part of the reason for my supporting the party is due to a cardinal Objectivist virtue of integrity. An acquaintance of mine is in a leading position in the Ontario Libertarians. In addition, I have in the passed volunteered with the Libertarian Party of Ontario to assist said leader with maintaining their Facebook presence while they were away.

For this reason I cannot in good conscious just turn my back on them and be not in favor of them in the running in the Province. In addition, I am finding Paul is the one that is fanning the flames of discontent constantly going on radio programs and dissing the local Libertarians as being not truly for liberty. Despite knowing full well that the leader of the Libertarians is himself an Objectivist in Ontario and they both share the exact same worldview. For this reason I would vote for the Ontario Libertarians if I was in that province. If the Libertarians were not running and/or was not principled I would have voted for Paul and his Freedom Party though.

I think there is a misunderstanding in this whole situation as if Paul does not realize the similarities between his party and the local Libertarians. The platforms of both parties are going in the very same direction and incredibly similar. There is next to no policy differences between the two and the Libertarian leader Allen admits there is very little difference. It is the Freedom Party of Ontario and their people that keeps this turf war up between the two parties. As well as continuing to not be able to differentiate between the libertarian movement broader and the local Libertarians.

The Local party is not anarchism supporting and is not a nihilistic stew. Truth be told one in fact has two local Objectivism parties in spirit as Allen is himself an Objectivist. The two parties should if anything be in alliance with one another. However, Paul keeps fanning the flames and continuing the turf war on every broadcast and Bob Metz does the same on Just Right Radio. I do not blame Bob for bashing the broader libertarian movement with its lack of premises and underlying philosophy, but, he should be making a by the way mention that not all Libertarians are understanding small l libertarians.

He should be taking more of an individualistic view as I do and acknowledging that not all Libertarians are without premises. Not all Libertarians are small l libertarians in the sense of being subjectivistic in nature. There are quite a few principled Libertarians out there that do not fall into the trap of being small l libertarians and believing in subjective, anarchistic nonsense. In fact, there are quite a few Objectivists in Libertarian Parties that would not really be philosophically libertarian at all.