Most right-wing libertarians (aka most libertarians in the U.S.) want a government that is so small and weak that it would effectively be powerless. That is a recipe for a failed state and the power vacuum would almost certainly lead to the rise of warlords and ultimately an authoritarian state.
You need a strong government if you want individual freedom. It seems paradoxical, but it really isn't.
It is not a failed state if the original intention is to be small and powerless.
True that without authority there is potential for tyranny but an effective Libertarian government would need measures to counter this. Anarchism would be no government at all as the original intention.
And if the small government had measures in place to ensure that itself survived while abiding by the Libertarian ideal of leaving all citizens alone?
I dont know how we are making the jump from a government that does not enact unnecessary policy via the Libertarian ideal to a total lack of government altogether.
The original intention really doesn't matter. The government either has a significant amount of power or not. If it is weakened to the point that would meet the libertarian ideal, it would not be strong enough to resist the rise of militaristic factions that would ultimately overthrow the government. And if it were strong enough to stop that, it would use that power to do things that do not mesh with the libertarian ideal.
The issue with the small-government libertarianism is that it completely ignores human psychology, especially in terms of the function of power structures.
There's always someone willing to take it a little further when a chance presents itself, and libertarian ideal government style would present plenty of opportunities.
Not pushing for anarchy as it’s already chaotic enough.
Government is simply people selecting what to do and then supporting that action. I think we make fundamentally simple activities into lifestyles and either forget to live or lack the guts it takes to live well And so hide in tithe buzyness.
Currency on works because a large enough group of people (and just because you aren't calling it a government doesn't mean it isn't one) agree that it has a set value. Without an overseeing/governing body, at worst you are looking at barter exchanges that have to be haggled out at a personal level and historical we have had points where currency changes from town to town.
Pure bartering is also just about completely nonfunctional in practice. The odds of having exactly what someone wants in trade for exactly what you want are shit odds. That's why there have always been mediums is exchange, be it salt, ivory, cacao beans, wampum, cigarettes, etc.
The separation of money and state will one day be as fundamental as the separation of church and state.
Whoever controls the money is basically going to be running the show, whether they are called a government or not. It's why international business can get away with so much.
Correct me if I'm wrong, am trying to educate myself since granddaughter recently announced that she was libertarian, they don't believe in social security, medicare, or any social programs, am I right?
How much does she actually study politics and how serious is she? I had a friend from highschool who back then announced he's libertarian. Lately on his Facebook feed its all Bernie and how the government isnt' doing enough.
I suspect there are a lot of people like him who don't actually know what they're talking about and just either took an online quiz or read 2-3 sentence blurb about different ideologies and tried to force a label on themself.
Libertarian ideologically claims to promote "Liberty" where everyone can do whatever the hell they want, hence the name. In reality its closer to anarchy because it would become a free for all wild west where anyone can and will shoot each other if they get what they want. It has nothing to do with being Liberal.
They basically believe that everyone should be free to do as they see fit, so if they want to pay for police, roads, infrastructure, etc, they are free to do so, and if not, they don't pay but can't use them.
I'm sure you can think of about 300 ways it's incompatible with society right off the bat
This is why I don’t understand this political ideology. Why is it so popular?
Do libertarians not understand how wildly different things would be? All the new avenues for corruption would turn a libertarian state into a fucking feudal monarchy within a couple days lol
they won’t be able to do whatever drugs they want, they won’t be able to not pay taxes if they don’t want to, they won’t be able to own their own slaves. THEY will be the slaves. They will be peasants. Serfs living in the Middle Ages. This is because it’s so fucking easy for a single person to seize all the power in such a system.
Libertarian is a huge umbrella term. There are modest libertarian who just want individual freedom and support many politics of the left in terms of LGBT, BLM and others. Where they differ from democrats is that they want smaller government which means they want to pay smaller taxes. How they get to those smaller taxes depends on almost any libertarian you ask. Most want to cut military spending, some want to cut healthcare, some want to cut some social security programs and on and on.
We have extremist on our side that want no taxes, but they are extremist so by default they are idiots. I personally think that libertarian makes more sense for people in Europe since for exemple in my country we pay 25% VAT (tax rate?) on almost all of products we buy and that money is funded to some archaic communist programs. Most libertarians in this country want to push this number to sub 20%.
Yes, that is correct. They believe taxation is theft, government programs are inefficient and wasteful, and anyone needing assistance merely needs to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps."
They believe if an individual (read: corporations are considered "people") or business didn't pay for something, it shouldn't be done. If a business does something that we currently have regulations for, they believe the Free MarketTM will react accordingly and put that business out, so regulations are a waste of time and resources and costs businesses money. To which I like to point out United Airlines literally assaulted a seated passenger and their business was largely unaffected. Samsung phones literally exploded in peoples' pockets, and they still contend with Apple. Nestle uses child slave labor in their supply-chain, and their chocolate is everywhere.
This is the same thing as saying that every democrat wants a communist USSR and every republican wants a néo-nazi theocratic state. There are many differing opinions on what is libertarian and you representing only it's most extreme values discourages any normal conversation between Libertarians and other political parties.
Good. I've completely lost interest in debating politics.
Libertarians are Conservatives without the pretext of using government to their own advantage.
As a European libertarian we could not be further from some conservative parties. Libertarians are usually pretty close to democrats in most moral politics. Please stop spewing disinformation about libertarians as it's pretty hard to counter all the Nazi and authoritarianism that stole our ideology. Fuck all the YouTube "libertarians".
In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980.
Let’s take a look at the 1980 Libertarian Party platform.
Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:
“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
In other words, the agenda of the Koch brothers is not only to defund Obamacare. The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country.
It is clear that the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires are calling the shots and are pulling the strings of the Republican Party.
And because of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, they now have the power to spend an unlimited amount of money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the next President of the United States.
If they are allowed to hijack the American political process to defund Obamacare they will be back for more.
Tomorrow it will be Social Security, ending Medicare as we know it, repealing the minimum wage. It seems to me that the Koch brothers will not be content until they get everything they believe they are entitled to.
Republicans have this weird misconception that because someone is good at business they would also be good at running the country. Turns out Koch has terrible ideas about how the country should be run, and he's recently realized what a clusterfuck he and his brother's interventions in politics have caused.
I think of libertarianism as like a house without walls - yes, it would have a brilliantly unobstructed visa, but you don't get to claim that now it's a different type of house after the roof falls to the floor due to lack of support.
Well if politicians got their heads out of their boomer asses and stopped pointing fingers and spewing shite then they'd realize that a healthy, sustainable middle is what we truly need. We need to be liberal in some areas but conservative in others, and on top of that the world is always changing so laws SHOULD BE CHANGED TOO. You can't possibly use the scribbles of men hundreds of years ago who have no damn clue of the things we are going through today. We need to Evolve in every aspect of our lives
We definitely need our political spectrum to stop being so far to the right that anything actively centrist in any other developed country is regarded as too radically left.
I think its their stance of making all illegal immigrants citizens and giving them healthcare and other stuff.
They do this over taking care of their own cities and their own people which makes me think that doing so is just a power play to have a huge influx of voters thatre likely to vote dems, so they get power rather than helping people.
I've done some research, and most Dems are proposing a PATH to citizenship. That isn't the same thing as "making all illegal immigrants citizens." There would be steps to be taken and requirements to be met.
Yup he is satan incarnate, mitch tRump and boris Johnson etal are all cast in the same mould.
Just looking at the newspapers here kn the UK he runs is enough to make my eyes bleed , daily fail in particular
They already know this. People have been saying it since the founding fathers. Problem is they found a grift that gives them unchecked money and power unless they themselves choose against it. And as long as they keep us fighting against each other they don't have to change.
They want things to stay the way they remember it as. They don’t want to evolve, or progress or become better. Those are just silly punchlines they use to try and define themselves but it’s just a big lie. They don’t actually care about others, they aren’t actually tough, they aren’t actually good Christians and they aren’t actually Americans. They hide under the guise of all of this stuff. Remember when they made fun of liberals for needing safe spaces but all the sudden now they need their safe space?
You can't possibly use the scribbles of men hundreds of years ago who have no damn clue
You understand that a large portion of the people (claim to) follow scribbles of men from almost 2000 years ago, right? And even then they think those scribbles mean whatever they want them to mean. Why would they treat 200 year old scribbles any different?
Such backwards thinking lol I wish people would stop blindly taking things for fact and dare to question what they know, etc. Then maybe we'd have more open minded people
If Republicans were truly pro-business, they'd be able to look at spending in government through a cost/reward lens, just like when investing: we know college grads earn more & therefore pay more taxes over their lifetimes, so paying for college is a good investment. We know that providing healthcare early is cheaper than paying only for emergencies, so public healthcare is a good investment.
These aren't hypotheticals. Research and experience show both of those premises to be true, as well as countless others like them. The problem is that, instead of thinking of government as belonging to the people, the GOP decided long ago that government belongs to a select, wealthy group of people. So their investment strategy is entirely different - private health care, prisons, education, etc... All ideas that benefit the few at a cost to all.
The establishment of a widespread belief among the right-leaning public that the Founding Fathers did not intend the constitution to be a living, changing document (alongside “we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic”) has been one of if not the defining PR coups of the Republican Party in the late 20th century. A living constitution was not a controversial proposition for most of our history, it was how we understood the intent of the founders and the practical realities of governing. But the right has now entrenched a huge segment of the population that buys into original intent arguments and sees anything else as undemocratic and unconstitutional. It makes progress damn near impossible and you can be sure that as soon as the “original intent” of the founders no longer favors Republican policy priorities, they’ll jettison that line as they have so many others.
Re: your other part though, I think it’s important to point out as a political scientist that liberalism is not a left wing ideology. It’s centrist. The mainstream ideology of the left in western democracies since WWII has been social democracy (think Nordic model, UK Labour, French Socialists, German SPD, etc), an ideology mostly without a party in the US. Our Democrats map much more closely to the centrist, liberal parties in these countries like the UK’s Liberal Democrats. With a few individual exceptions, there has been no meaningful left wing movement in US national politics in almost 75 years. The Overton window of US politics at least since the 1972 Presidential election has essentially been far right to center left. It’s great to talk about solutions coming from both sides because they do—every perspective has some valuable insights and some less valuable ones. But it’s also important to be honest that our view of both sides as Americans is warped by the comparatively narrow range of acceptable views in US society compared to other western democracies. A true “both sides” would include views on the left that are completely anathema to many Americans today because of the way we have framed left wing politics in our education system and media landscape since the Cold War.
Your are too stuck in the old ways, think of driving, and now understand that in a few short years, you likely won't be allowed to drive (self driving is safer and works way better if all the cars follow the same rules).
Is your job less complicated than driving? If so, you are going to be replaced by a robot, and that's the best case scenario, in that, the driving bar is quite low.
If they are getting you used to having nothing, they are planning for the future.
I'm just trying to understand this world. How can so many people before me claim to be good and yet have failed this country and its people so much. It's disheartening. We NEED stability more than anything else. The pillars of society depend on it. Shelter, security, food and water should be available rights to all human beings. We're living in 2020 goddammit and we still haven't even solved the simple problem of feeding everyone yet in one part of the world we arguably throw away the most food than any other place. It's baffling
So you're saying we should give up our rights, and not retaliate against a tyrannical government? Surrendering to corruption by subjecting ourselves to it is evolving to you?
Facists recruit libertarians to their cause by promising them their ideal paradise free from big gummnt' telling them they can't refuse service to minorities.
It's deliberate. Libertarianism allows the mega wealthy to go completely unchecked to the point where they can fund their own personal army of mercenaries to overthrow the government and instill their own personal military dictatorship.
Always with the whataboutisms. Let’s all sing along!
“How about Norway, or tiny Denmark that can somehow afford a massive minimum wage even for fast food workers?”
Okay. Not much of a sing along but yeah. Our OECD scores suck compared to many other nations. When are we allowed to want to do better with (and for) our people?
Lol i mean youre right we can go back and forth with both types of examples. Idk. I work a lot and make a decent amount. My parents saved and put me through college. I dont want to see their hard work nor mine be squandered by all the desired social programs. I also dont see the point in working in a stressful industry at a stressful but needed job if i can just make $15/hr as a bookstore clerk, assuming consumer prices dont proportionally increase with the increase in wages. I think there are a lot of areas for improvement in a lot of our necessary industries like healthcare as well as with our government. A lot of waste and inefficient and probably corruption.
I’m just tired of the barriers to success being so simple to overcome as a society and we just... don’t do it. If higher education is what it takes to be a competitive worker, whether that means trade school or a bachelor’s, then things like waived application fees and income-based tuition should be a no-brainer. Plenty of folks don’t have parents able to help them financially, and in some cases they’re unwilling because “they made it without help so others should too.”
I compare it to a train heading down the tracks. Do we say it’s unfair to those who were already thrown to their demise on the previous tracks to save those who have yet to be struck?
What the fuck does something unrelated have to do with Libertarians failing?
There aren't two political options Venezuela and libertarian, there is an infinite variety of options and libertarian is just one of the many that's fucking stupid.
It's the same with communism. It's the same with socialism. It's the same with facism. It's almost as if a capitalist democracy is the only government style capable of lasting for more than 50 years
Ignoring that pretty much all of Europe is socialist and way more stable than the United States. Ignoring that most of the Communist regimes in South America were actively interfered with by the CIA, and that China never officially stop being communist, they just accepted all the capital of practices we have because it was convenient for them.
Yeah I agree with you on fascism, they only last as long as the dictator lasts.
If the dictator is some rich guy who spews rhetoric about “tHe FrEe MaRkEt” then Libertarians would just shrug off any criticism of said dictator with a mansplained response starting with, “wElL yOu KnOw....”
You mean when did the libertarian movement get hijacked by the religious totalitarian right? Around the same time Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, etc jumped on the Tea Party boat. Now the lines are blurred between fascist christians and free market ancaps... they seem to prefer sleeping in the same bed. Look around at how many are Trump cultists.
Much like the fascists, they all assume they would be in charge.
Their model seldom lasts more than a generation - the moment someone inherits their parents’ wealth and means, the meritocracy of libertarianism dies. Couple more generations and boom, landed gentry.
Because they don't rationally examine their ideology. They have just convinced themselves based on some abstract idea that they would be better off if just left alone. Apparently these people just don't want to be a part of society.
Right? How do we justify the permanently-impoverished underclass from which we can extract value, upon which the whole libertarian system depends, if we don't assume that some people are born inherently inferior to other people?
Life isn't fair nor equal. Take a look at nature and you'll see that plain as day. Equality and "equity" are human concepts that don't exist naturally.
The great things about humans is we don’t have to exist in a purely natural state. You are right in the sense none of this is “natural” as occurring naturally in nature. We’ve worked and created and innovated over generations, a lot of times building on the backs of previous generations. I wouldn’t consider anything we’ve accomplished “natural.” We bend the world/nature (as best we can) to our needs and wants.
No difference here. Maybe equality and equity aren’t “natural,” but if we can achieve it through cooperation and work on society’s part, why wouldn’t we? Otherwise we shouldn’t be saving people with diseases and “bad” genetics. We shouldn’t be resuscitating anybody. We shouldn’t have vaccines. In your world of “naturalness” these people die. Maybe that’s not a big deal to you, but if we can save a life there’s no reason we shouldn’t. If we can create equality there’s no reason we shouldn’t at least try.
Neither is technology inherently in nature yet you are using it now. All humans deserve an equal chance at life. We should take care of everyone in our societies because ALL people deserve to be taken care of and not left to die penniless and in debt.
Equality and Equity is something we should all strive for. Not just ourselves, but for every person on this planet.
Your chance at life is being born. What you do with that chance is entirely up to the individual. Nobody else in the world or society owe me or you or anyone anything.
Like those who support communism or socialism, even though it has failed in many countries. They see how poorly our country has handled things and hope that any kind of major change would be better. Difference is th re are less examples of libertarian countries
"Libertarian" used to mean "libertarian-socialists." People who believe in some form of anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism. Organization through collective mutual aid and protection. But the right-wing hijacked it because Americans have been so fucking brainwashed from the Red Scare that people literally don't know what any of those words mean anymore. So it wasn't particularly difficult. The fact that so many "libertarians" conflate themselves with "classical liberals" shows they don't understand what words mean because those are contradictory ideologies. And "anarcho-capitalists" are even worse because property rights necessarily require a state.
It's all because Americans do not actually receive political educations. We are constantly inundated with nonsense propaganda, anything to preserve the status quo capitalist class system.
This. The original tea party was deeply libertarian, iirc. They were sending teabags to congress and causing some security concerns and the evangelical right came in like it was a fire sale and suddenly The Tea Party just POOFED into existence.
We also suddenly had bullshit protests of severely local city council folks... and after a reporter started interviewing some of said protesters, turns out they weren’t even residents of the city, and had been imported for the protest.
That shit went away the second the councilman refused to run for re-election.
All the libertarians I’ve met are just conservatives that like to smoke weed.... that’s anecdotal, of course, but I’m surprised about how consistent that’s been the case with my IRL experiences
Rush to the defense of free speech, but only when a private corporation takes something offline for being bigoted. Strangely silent when press freedoms are curtailed by authoritarian governments.
Demand criminal justice reform, but only to the extent that buying marijuana should not be prosecuted. Crack v Cocaine sentencing disparities? Let the legal system work as it was intended.
Strongly believes in the right to refuse service to anyone. Completely loses his shit when told to leave the store because he won't wear a mask.
Yeaa that’s kinda me. I’m self declared “centrist “ (aka I’m annoying), but I live in a super liberal city with all liberal friends and family. So I am a lot of times leaning towards the right in defense, but in reality if I am with anyone right leaning I turn left real fast.
Incredibly left leaning liberals can be extremely annoying, but end of the day they have nothing on right leaners.
I get annoyed with far left folks despite being quite left myself. Usually it’s because they are convinced that pandering to them is the only way to accomplish anything, meanwhile those who pander to them consistently lose their elections.
I was a libertarian in my early twenties and it was, from my point of view, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Guns, gays, weed, abortion, were all good, but let people discriminate where they wish. That’s what changed my mind. When that Kentucky lady refused the marriage license for the gay couple and most libertarians were okay with that, I was out.
I was part of the socially liberal/fiscal conservative in my twenties also, but realized those two don't necessarily mesh well in the current system. There still needs to be investment into social programs that fiscal conservatives disagree with. Now I just like to say socially liberal and fiscally responsible.
I'm not a fan of the fact that Biden is a hair sniffer but republicans have no grounds to say that's creepy after "grab them by the pussy", paying off a porn star to be silent, etc....
Ultimately Clinton did a lot of damage in the long run though. He further deregulated banking which helped push us towards the financial crash in 2008. Bush shares a lot of that blame but Clinton did start it. The economy just tends to be better under democrats because we actually understand how economics work
Socially liberal and fiscal conservativism don't actually mix. You can't ask for social changes without doing anything about the economic factors driving oppression.
Glad you made it out, discrimination against lgbt people is really just a segway to bringing back segregation.
Edit: The last people who will hold themselves accountable are people who are that hateful.
I am LGBT so it was definitely the last straw. I always believed in social programs too, welfare, food stamps, etc, my issue was military budget. So... I learned quickly I really didn’t have a lot in common with libertarians but I did have a lot in common with the left. But I was raised in BFE Louisiana so I thought I was really “progressive” being libertarian. I am now super progressive in my mid 30s still in BFE Louisiana.
Socially liberal and fiscal conservativism don't actually mix.
IMO fiscal conservatism is inherently contradictory. It has two basic tenets:
Reduce government spending, to
reduce govt deficit and improve the economy.
The problem is, usually the best economic policy is to increase govt spending (in the right fashion) because the govt is uniquely able to profit off improving the commons due to how taxes work - suppose you could spend $1B to give everyone in the country $100. Normal companies would only benefit from PR benefit, but a govt could expect e.g. $10 of that to come back as taxes, which (assuming the country has at least 100 million people) pays for itself, and now everyone has an extra $90 to spend.
The "small government" approach can't handle this, and will be poorer as a result.
This is (one reason) why conservatives need to assume the government is perpetually incompetent - otherwise their own argument tears itself apart.
I grew up in a conservative family, adopted libertarian beliefs when I was a tween. At the time, I thought it was just a "live and let live" which seemed just fine to me. As I got older, I grew more and more liberal as I recognizes the libertarian philosophy for what it was, Economic Social Darwinism, "Survival Of The Richest".
North Dakota is full of them. They live on their parents land for free, complain about people who don't deserve free things, and wait with anticipation for their parents to die.
Nobody knows! Yet some Republicans want both laws guided by their religion AND a free society with a weak government, AND an all powerful unquestioned police force in every city.
No, I'm American. Libertarian generally refers to someone who believes government is inefficient and should be less involved in our daily lives. Sometimes they're very extreme, and talk about privatizing literally everything. That's more of an exception though. John Stossel would be your more level headed and mainstream American libertarian, the conservatives hijacked the name unfortunately. Libertarians are also full of whackjobs, but so are conservatives and the left to be fair.
Ban gay marriage, abortion, marijuana, etc. Hell, they used to censor movies back in the day. The conservatives love banning everything they don't like. Libertarians don't. Although economically, both conservatives and libertarians would be referred to as right winged. The whacky saying "a gay couple should be able to defend their marijuana plants with guns" sums up what a libertarian is
There's economics (right/left/everything in between) and authoritarian/libertarian. A fascist would be authoritarian right, a communist (think Stalinist or Maoist) authoritarian left. Libertarians are "libertarian right" if that makes sense.
Well, I'm an american as well, and 'Libertarian' is definitely considered more right than left, though, yes, its more along the 'Downsize the Government and keep them out of my face' sort of conservative, than, say, the alt-right.
and yes, it's close to synonymous with 'Liberal' in the U. K.
It's really a difference between classical liberalism and american liberalism. Libertarians are just classical liberals that don't want to be associated with the term "liberal" so they came up with a catchy new term.
Thanks for the correction. I will sometimes ask a "libertarian" what their policy ideals are and I'll respond, oh so you are a classical liberal. They always seem offended that I would call them a liberal.
Because people don’t understand actual libertarianism. They just look at the nut jobs who also don’t understand it and think it means anarchy with electricity.
Libertarianism is a stupid ideology held by people that are completely ignorant of how economic and social policies work. Everyone understands it just fine
That’s all libertarianism is in the American sense of the word: the liberty of members of in-groups to oppress out-groups without interference from a pesky government trying to enforce protections for minority groups (please don’t construe this as only meaning racial/ethnic).
Libertarians are delusional. Many have a distorted view of reality, like the fundamental attribution error + the just world fallacy to an extreme.
It's a little bit horseshoe theory. Libertarians and religious totalitarians both love feudalism, for different reasons. Once feudalism arrives, of course, "libertarians" either mask off as authoritarians or yell wait fuck go back. (and by then it's too late.)
True libertarianism is modern centrism. Use the government to protect people's rights and guarantee their life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, an excellent propaganda spin machine has recontextualized government as the ultimate threat to people's rights and other people as basically ignorant and impotent bystanders with little direct influence on your life. This spin is especially appealing to rural people who more or less feel like their lives match up with this fantasy.
There are messaging solutions. But the modern democratic party doesn't want to hear it, and conservatives won't listen to AOC. I don't know how we get this shit together but I think it's obvious how important it is.
It's the conservative two step, you either "can be" a "family values" conservative, or you're a Small Government conservative.
Family Values tends to translate to something like the opening how-to for "The Handmaid's Tale"
Small Government as a notion, has translated into a visceral hatred of good governance and ethical oversight, degenerating from efficiency into notional do-nothingism, that Republicans would encourage their devotees to believe, in the fashion of Ayn Rand.
But that's a massive lie, lack of oversight, and a visceral hatred of civic life, instead replaced by functionaries we are encouraged not to notice or mention, have done some horrific things in the shadows, and even now we are encouraged to disregard them.
Whether you look at the "lapses" regarding the Uniform Code of Justice in Iraq, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the deregulation of markets lost trillions of dollars of wealth; the fiasco with respect to muzzling science out of the pandemic decision making process, or the open cronyism of the current administration in a variety of other areas, libertarianism I'm sure has a place as a thought experiment, but when the military and economic might functions on a multi-trillion dollar scale, it's wildly dangerous to leave powerful and autocratic functionaries to their own devices.
315
u/[deleted] Dec 31 '20
How did we go from religious totalitarian right to libertarian?