Just one correction. Freedom Party does welcome you and does want your vote.
For all of the reasons you cite, voting FP is the best choice for anyone who wants the sorts of changes we are proposing (see here: http://www.freedomparty.on.ca/... ). As always, everyone who supports Freedom Party's planks is welcomed by FP. Our candidates, supporters, members, and voters include a wide variety of people, having a wide variety of different beliefs or philosophies. Whether you live your life according to one philosophy or another is of no importance to me, or to Freedom Party. If you support Freedom Party's planks, you are a Freedom Party person, and that support is all that matters.
There are many people who genuinely want more individual freedom. One convenient/common handle often used by such a person is "libertarian". However, the reality is that a great number of people who label themselves "libertarian" are not advocates of "libertarianISM". Libertarianism is a word that refers to a failed, irrational, and morally subjective anti-government electoral strategy and movement. Libertarianism is, in fact, the strategy of the Libertarian party.
For those interested in why I condemn libertarianism (not those who merely, out of convenience, refer to themselves as "libertarian"), and for all who want to understand - properly - what "libertarianism" truly means and entails - I would encourage the National Post's readers to read/watch the following:
From my personal blog: "If you want freedom…" Q&A: Libertarianism - http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/pa...
Video: "Damned to Repeat It" - http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/20...
Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario
All of this makes me think that Mr. McKeever has missed my point.
This is what I wrote yesterday:
I won’t bother going into the difference between objectivism and libertarianism because one is a moral philosophy and the other is a political philosophy. By insisting the Freedom Party is objectivist, rather than libertarian, Mr. McKeever is basically saying that you have to not just agree with his policies, but also agree with the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Plenty of people’s political philosophy is rooted in their personal moral philosophy. I would wager that this is true of most people. But from different origins political movements come together around specific political principles and goals. It doesn’t matter why two people agree that the political principle is good, as long as they can work together. I don’t care that Mr. McKeever is an objectivist, because I agree with his political goals.
And so his explanation of libertarianism is beside the point. Why not encourage moral subjectivists to be members of your party? Why condemn them when you can work with them towards a mutual political goal?
I should say that I do not wish the Freedom Party or Mr. McKeever ill. I would have voted for them if I didn’t have the Libertarian Party as an option. My one and only issue with the Freedom Party is that they allow a narrow and largely irrelevant ideological distinction to get in the way of building a more united and stronger non-statist movement.