Feelings on Libertarianism

[Cheezin]

Libertarianism I feel is the future of the conservative party. It is limited government both in domestic and foreign policy. It is a fiscally conservative group that also believes in individual freedom. It combines both social freedom with limited government. I am in my early 20's and many people in my age group identify with the group. I am curious in why you all think it has not taken off.

[ShotgunBlast]

One reason is that getting liberty-minded people together is as difficult as herding cats.

Another reason is because while many people identify with libertarianism and would support a Libertarian candidate, THIS ELECTION IS TOO IMPORTANT FOR THE OTHER PERSON TO WIN so they automatically end up voting D or R to stifle the opposition.

[OakRidgeStars]

+1 on the cat herding dilemma.

All the more reason to come together on politics, not parties.

[Cheezin]

Understandable, I did not want to vote Romney but did for that reason. However, to me the Republican party is making a vital error in endorsing the Tea Party which has many radicals or people off the grid when it comes to social issues. This in turn causes many younger voters, and different demographic voters to go Democrat.

[FiremanBob]

You have an interesting perspective. From what I see of the Tea Party they are the closest to libertarians, as opposed to the big-government loving "moderates" of the establishment. It was Tea Party support that got Rand Paul and Ted Cruz elected.

You will find that liberty, both economic and personal, is a much more important theme in the Tea Party than any of the social issues. You will also find that in order to live successfully in a libertarian society one has to adopt many of the "social issues" such as marital fidelity, avoiding having children one can not support, and abstinence from drug abuse.

The error that many "moderate" Republicans make is their desire to have government mandate their position on the social issues, which is as bad as the "Progressives" who want it to meddle in favor of their preferences. An error that most people make is believing that many more Republicans are of this type than there actually are.

[ShotgunBlast]

You have an interesting perspective. From what I see of the Tea Party they are the closest to libertarians, as opposed to the big-government loving "moderates" of the establishment. It was Tea Party support that got Rand Paul and Ted Cruz elected.

You will find that liberty, both economic and personal, is a much more important theme in the Tea Party than any of the social issues. You will also find that in order to live successfully in a libertarian society one has to adopt many of the "social issues" such as marital fidelity, avoiding having children one can not support, and abstinence from drug abuse.

The error that many "moderate" Republicans make is their desire to have government mandate their position on the social issues, which is as bad as the "Progressives" who want it to meddle in favor of their preferences. An error that most people make is believing that many more Republicans are of this type than there actually are.

I agree with a lot of what the Tea Party says, but of course they seem to get pigeon-holed into being a bunch of extreme social conservatives. Personal responsibility definitely is required to have freedom in a libertarian society, which is probably why we don't have that now. Entire generations are being brought up on the "don't worry, someone else will take care of it" mentality.

I do think there are fewer social conservatives in the Republican party than most people think, but I also think there are more "Democrat-lites" in the Republican party than most Republicans will admit to. Republicans have figured out that they can participate in big government too (as long as they want to spend money on the programs they like) and I don't think there's anything in the Republican party that will change that.

[SHMIV]

Libertarians ought to register in the Republican party, then participate in it.

That's how the Communist party took over the Democrat party. Well, partly, anyway.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WBlacklidge]

I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries and then voted Gary Johnson for the elections and I am proud of it.

Two things I always remind myself: Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil and to always vote for my Utopia and nothing less.

SHMIV why should the Libertarians 'infiltrate' the Republicans? Libertarians are the Republicans of old, the true freedom loving Republican party. It was the Republicans that changed and became big government.

Firemanbob and shotgunblast I think those are really good points.

[DryBones]

I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries and then voted Gary Johnson for the elections and I am proud of it.

Two things I always remind myself: Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil and to always vote for my Utopia and nothing less.

x2

[FiremanBob]

I agree with Shotgun that far too many Republicans are actually RINOs. But not all the Republicans have become big-government supporters. I have written on this extensively in other threads. The battle for the soul of the GOP has been going on for a long time.

Why should libertarians join the GOP and help us transform it? The answer is simple: The opponent, the Democrat Party, is monolithically united by vested interests who use it to get power over you and your money. To split the conservative/libertarian vote is unilateral disarmament, similar to voluntarily giving your guns to the government, and guarantees Democrat/extreme Left dominance of our government.

[SHMIV]

@Blackridge: because it is far easier to take over an existing party. Also, the Republican party already claims to stand for most of what Libertarians stand for, even if they don't act like it. And, of course, the automatic "R" voters will then have real "R"s to vote for.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[DryBones]

IMHO, the problem with combining Libertarians and the current Republican and/or Tea Party groups is the far right need to push their religious objectives. You will never win an election without the moderate vote in the middle class and given the lesser of 2 evils they are currently voting Dem or abstaining from voting.

[ShotgunBlast]

I agree with Shotgun that far too many Republicans are actually RINOs. But not all the Republicans have become big-government supporters. I have written on this extensively in other threads. The battle for the soul of the GOP has been going on for a long time.

Why should libertarians join the GOP and help us transform it? The answer is simple: The opponent, the Democrat Party, is monolithically united by vested interests who use it to get power over you and your money. To split the conservative/libertarian vote is unilateral disarmament, similar to voluntarily giving your guns to the government, and guarantees Democrat/extreme Left dominance of our government.

No doubt that the Dems have a lot easier time when the R/L vote is split. Ron Paul stayed as a Republican as his attempt to inject liberty into the GOP and that just got him ignored by the media and mocked by his own party. Now you have new people like Justin Amash, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee picking up the liberty mantle and they continue to get mocked by their own party. With that kind of treatment, no wonder the Libertarians aren't chompin at the bit to join the GOP.

@Blackridge: because it is far easier to take over an existing party. Also, the Republican party already claims to stand for most of what Libertarians stand for, even if they don't act like it. And, of course, the automatic "R" voters will then have real "R"s to vote for.

Why would anyone want to join a group of people that talks the talk, but don't walk the walk? Once again, it comes down to the GOP not wanting Libertarians in the party. In 2012 GOP primaries you had both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, a freakin Libertarian one two punch. Ron Paul came in 2nd in the Iowa straw poll that Michelle Bachmann won, yet the media (including Fox News) only talked about Bachmann winning and some guys that got half the number of votes that Paul got. He then went on for his delegates to get dumped on at the national convention. Gary Johnson was only invited to two of the GOP debates before they cut him out because they said he wasn't "polling high enough". Of course it would help if they actually put him on the polls to be able to poll high enough to get in the debate. But hey, he was only a person that started from a one-person handyman service to a multi-million dollar corporation who became a two-term Republican governor in a state that votes 2-1 Democrat and left the state with a nice surplus. Who needs that guy?

IMHO, the problem with combining Libertarians and the current Republican and/or Tea Party groups is the far right need to push their religious objectives. You will never win an election without the moderate vote in the middle class and given the lesser of 2 evils they are currently voting Dem or abstaining from voting.

This is a good point because for everyone that says Libertarians should join in with the GOP and try to change it from within you can easily make the case that they can join the Democrats and change them so that they become more fiscally responsible. Either way you look at it you say "fat chance on that happening".

[SHMIV]

The reason that the Communist infiltration of the Democrat party was and is successful is because the Democrats already leaned that direction, anyway.

The Libertarians, likewise, have a great deal in common with the Republican constituancy.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

Lots of reasons...


No particular order

1. Each election is too important to vote your conscience, so choose whomever the main parties throw up no matter how bad they are because at least it's not the other guy. It's basically emotional voting...people fear the other candidate/party so much that they are willing to overlook the nearly identical abuses of power from their own candidate/party. Winning an election today is about good propaganda because fear will win out every time.

2. Our form of governmental structure only has a "stable" solution with two parties. Any third party must go from essentially nothing to replacing a major party, they can not gradually build on success in a winner take all system. More than two parties really requires a proportional representative structure. If you get some political power for winning 7% of the vote, it's possible to build on that. This builds on answer #1.

3. Power corrupts and generally attracts the very people you don't want to give any power too. Most politicians really only care about winning and enhancing their control. It's very rare to find a real statesman and when you do, every other politician hates him/her because they won't play along with the corruption. Perhaps the best thing that could be said about any politicians, and likely is a good indicator of a true statesman, is that most of BOTH parties don't like him/her. Politicians who are following the Constitution don't have free stuff to hand out or special favors to perform...that makes them an outsider.

4. The media influences elections through their most insidious power, which is to ignore you. If you doubt this, just consider how effective the media has been at hiding and covering for the Obama administration. If they don't cover a scandal, it doesn't exist. If a politician isn't in someones pocket, they will get no air time, they won't be allowed to debate, etc. There are good candidates who run in the primaries that no one even knows their name because of the medias control gate! As a side note this is why traditional media hates the Internet and the government wants to control it.

5. In general, human beings like controlling things. That's not bad per se, but it is when you want to control the wrong things. An engineer helps create tools to control things...good when used properly. A parent disciplines their child (aka controls)...good when done properly. Etc. Then you have bad controls which are anti-liberty. e.g. some people hate firearms and seek to use the government to control (limit, reduce, ban) you access to them. They don't like the fact that some people like firearms...smoke weed...use prostitutes...set the temp of their house too high/low...drive cars...smoke cigs/cigars...ad nauseum. Most people, particularly politicians, want to control other people. In general this is why it's a terrible ideal to give them power, yet exactly why they want it.

Both parties want to control others for various reasons, but the American people have forgotten that the power to control others was suppose to be limited to their unethical actions (because they are actually causing harm, not merely because they could cause harm). e.g. control the thief, the murderer, etc. Not control every aspect of our lives. Our society treats people like children, our society doesn't raise adults and we're shocked when they behave like children. Yes, some people can't/won't handle freedom...punish them like children when they misbehave, but leave the rest of us alone. We now punish people because we simply don't like what they are doing or could do rather than because they are harming others.

Deep down most people, even a lot of self-proclaimed libertarians, really like controlling others for <insert random justification here>. They're all for liberty until liberty means they don't get their way. What I'm trying to say is that most people like the concept of liberty, but can't stand actually implementing it. Heck, it seems like half the Republican party claims to be a pseudo-libertarian, but when push comes to shove, they're right there pushing for statist solutions of government control over anything they themselves aren't impacted by.

Actions speak louder than words.

[Cheezin]

A lot of good replies here. I am surprised it took off. I guess my biggest beef with a lot of Republican candidates is that they claim to be conservative and limited government. Yet many on the hard right on social issues want government legislation on issues such as marriage and religion. Same with the Neo-conservatives that claim to be limited government yet feel the United States has an obligation to be an interventionist or leader in world affairs.

[DiscipleofJMB]

It's tough being a libertarian sometimes. Many bleeding-heart liberals I talk to get the impression that I "don't care" about the poor or whatever, when in fact I do, it's just the principles behind liberty don't support a welfare system like the one we have today.

On Memorial Day I was excited to show off my new DONT TREAD ON ME tags, and the first thing my mom said was "while it's cool, and I like the concept, I hate the tea party." She thinks they are all a bunch of wealthy racists who are out for themselves... which doesn't surprise me as she supports the occupy movement and things like that.

Liberty is a tough pill to swallow for people living today. Practically everyone alive today has lived with Social Security, federal income tax, welfare, Medicaid, etc. People refuse to believe that our country could thrive or even exist without such programs, which is sad. I'm a few years shy of 30 myself... but I really believe that I know what's best for me in how I earn a living, protect my life and property, spend my free time, save for the future, and generally live my life the way I want to without having what little fruits of my labor plundered by an overbearing bureaucracy to "help" the poor.

I don't like any politician, Democrat, Republican or other who seeks to get pork projects for their districts and all of that. What we have is a problem of a corrupt power base that wants more and more control over the citizenry. THAT is the problem. Until people understand, embrace and DESIRE liberty, we'll be stuck in the status quo. I have been a registered Democrat, a Republican, and a Libertarian in MD but it didn't do a lick of good.

Simply put I think people are either too stupid, lazy or BOTH to understand what the government's role in our lives should be. It's really sad... and I fear we are past the tipping point, from which we will continually lose our rights eventually leading to a true totalitarian regime. It will probably take a while... and maybe there's still hope to turn this ship around but it must come from within the hearts and minds of people who desire to have true liberty.

But while we struggle to influence our friends and family, the DNC, GOP, mainstream media and other forces will be pumping billions of dollars into their misinformation, disinformation and brainwashing campaigns until they win. It's David vs. Goliath... but we have to try!



Si vis pacem para bellum

follow me @DiscipleofJMB - GO PENS!

[Kreutz]

I've noticed the GOP does have a lot of really solid liberty-minded types at the local and state level (VA included)...but once they go national, man, they lose their minds and go all in for big government and big spending.

As for why the Libertarians haven't taken off, in addition to the reasons mentioned there does seem to be more uh, "psychologically vibrant" people in the Libertarian party.

Theres also the money issue, both major parties are established and entrenched and have it. And in politics money is king.

[FiremanBob]

Shotgun, I would propose a small modification your point above. The Tea Party Republicans (Cruz, Paul, et al) are not mocked by the party. They are mocked by the RINO faction of the party, but supported by the conservative/libertarian faction. It's just that the mass media (and we know whom they work for) publicize only the RINO side of the story, to make it seem like the whole party is against them.

[WBlacklidge]

It's tough being a libertarian sometimes. Many bleeding-heart liberals I talk to get the impression that I "don't care" about the poor or whatever, when in fact I do, it's just the principles behind liberty don't support a welfare system like the one we have today.

This drives me CRAZY about liberals. They are soooo compassionate and Libertarians have none. In my mind government pointing a gun to your head and telling you to buy into their social programs which come with all the overhead and waste isn't compassion. Paying your taxes is not compassion. Going out and selecting a charity or organization that assists your fellow man and dedicating either your time or money to that is compassion. It all goes back to this generation wanting everything done for them.

I imagine liberals sitting around ultra smug talking about how compassionate they are for voting in soda bans and saving all the common folk from getting fat. Obviously not a fair representation but you know they exist. Furthermore, if I am going to get labeled as apathetic and lacking in compassion for my fellow humans then they can have the stereotype of being smug idiots.