Drinking the libertarian Kool-aid.

[Danzig]

Another thread got me thinking and that led to this thread.

Libertarians consistantly preach one thing. That is the need for a smaller less intrusive government. Often times that preaching tends to be rather shrill.

It becomes much more shrill, sometimes manic, when it comes close to election time.

I guess it may be a fault that we are such a passionate and emotional bunch but I think that is because we are trying to overcompensate for decades of being ignored.

We consistently state that the alternative to a libertarian presidency is bigger, more powerful, and more intrusive government. And time and time again we are proven right..and still most of you ignore us. And the government grows. And still you vote for big government candidates.

The government has become a bloated monster even compared to what it was back in 1971, the year the Libertarian Party was founded. And still you won't vote for the candidates who will do the most to reign in the power and growth of government.

If more people drank deeply of the libertarian Kool-aid then perhaps we wouldn't have atrocities like the Patriot Act and the Patriot Act 2 and a monstrous $9 TRILLION debt

 

[ssilicon]

Libertarians have one huge flaw, they don't think the U.S. borders should have any meaning. I part ways with them there.

 

[TwoXForr]

I think your symbolism is kinda off, "Drinking the kool-aid" refers to Jim Jones and his followers who blindly and without thinking took thier own lives because he said he was God incarnte.

Maybe something along the lines of "free your minds" or something.

 

[Vermont]

Ron Paul, who is probably the most popular candidate with libertarian inclinations right now, strongly supports securing our borders.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

 

[Arabia]

As TwoXforr stated drinking the cool aide is a metaphor for blindly following a ideaology useally to one determent. No thinking person should ever blindly follow any ideaology no matter how tempting, since no one political ideaology is ever the correct solution to the world problems.
A great quote from Ferris Buellers Day Off that sums up my beliefs.

Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself.

 

[BigG]

No thinking person should ever blindly follow any ideaology no matter how tempting, since no one political ideaology is ever the correct solution to the world problems.

Ideology refers to following a set idea rather than going with observations; i.e., Marxism vs laissez faire capitalism. Marxism is an ideology while laissez faire capitalism is letting things go along without intervention.

There is NO ideology which is practically workable when you insert people into the equation, that's why it is called an ideology (i.e, a schoolbook pipe-dream) and not a solution.

When a person is labeled an ideologue, it is not to flatter but to indicate they are out of touch with reality.

 

[Arabia]

Ideology refers to following a set idea rather than going with observations; i.e., Marxism vs laissez faire capitalism. Marxism is an ideology while laissez faire capitalism is letting things go along without intervention.

True but don't forget Capitialism is also an ideaology, in the same vein as Socialism, and Communism. As you know Capitialism is a belief in free markets, and the creation of capitial. Like the other economic ideaologies, it can be broken down into sub groups, in this case; classic liberalism, social democracy (Social capitialism), and neo liberalism. Capitialism unlike the other economic models tends to work best in a democratic nation.

 

[BigG]

don't forget Capitialism is also an ideaology, it is in the same vein as Socialism, and Communism.

Not exactly. Capitalism may be a schoolbook term and considered along with totally thought up ideologies like Marxism, but it is actually based on observed behavior, not what some ideologue thinks would be best for someone else to do. People are pursuing their own SELF INTEREST in capitalism, not "for the good of the state."

 

[Arabia]

Capitalism may be a schoolbook term and considered along with totally thought up ideologies like Marxism, but it is actually based on observed behavior, not what some ideologue thinks would be best for someone else to do.

Marxism is a blue print on how to go from capitialism to Communism. Marx thought communism would be a good foundation for a free utopian society. He believed the steps would be from Capitialism, to socialism them finally to communism. Marx did not create communism or even socialism. Those economic models have been around long before Marx. They might have not been know as actual economic models before Marx, but they where practiced in ancient societies. All he did adopted those economic ideaologies as part of his social and economic manual for a utopian society. Similar how Libertarian have used Capitialism as a base for a free society.

People are pursuing their own SELF INTEREST in capitalism, not "for the good of the state."

Only in classic liberal capitialism. On the flip side of free market capitialism is Social Capitialism. Social capitialism is where the state contols the market, and uses social programs to equal the playing for all people. In this model corporations are heavily restricted by the Government and taxed. It is not socialism since the government is not trying to do entirely away with capitialism to progress to communism. This is a mix between socialism and capitialism.

 

[BigG]

Marxism is a blue print on how to go from capitialism to Communism.

You are correct; my mistake, I meant Communism. Libertarianism is also an ideology, a totally thought up utopian blueprint for society - a society that unfortunately must exist without any ugly, smelly people in it, else it would die as surely as Communism and Marxism have died. Yet, Capitalism lives on.

Let's stick with what works.

 

[38splfan]

Okay then.

Okay, THIS is why libertarians get ignored. It's not the ideas or the kool-aid, it's that we always get tangled up in semantics and get off track.

 

[Musketeer]

Libertarians have one huge flaw, they don't think the U.S. borders should have any meaning. I part ways with them there.

Most of the ones I know do support securing our borders. Paul certainly does. Your argument is akin to saying Republicans have the flaw of saying men walked around with dinosaurs and the Earth is only 6,000 years old. One vocal segment of a group is NOT the group.

The problem is most people do want a bigger gov't. They won't admit it as such but as long as it is bigger and doing what they want they are fine, hence the sell out of Bush in vastly expanding the Fed Gov't. "It's fighting the War on Terror so it is different" is the excuse given. The biggest and oldest lie in gov't has always been "This time it is different."

 

[ssilicon]

Most of the ones I know do support securing our borders. Paul certainly does. Your argument is akin to saying Republicans have the flaw of saying men walked around with dinosaurs and the Earth is only 6,000 years old. One vocal segment of a group is NOT the group.

My argument isn't flawed not one little bit even. Ever heard of a PARTY PLATFORM? I said, Libertarians do not wish to secure the border. That is based off of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY philosophy. Besides, Ron Paul is running as a republican, not a Libertarian.

I happen to like much of the Libertarian philosophy, but cannot abide the immigration differences with them. It is a SHOW STOPPER for me. Anyway, it's why I like Ron Paul so much because he shares that notion. Anyway, none of that changes the fact that my original statement was, and remains, correct.

 

[Musketeer]

I happen to like much of the Libertarian philosophy, but cannot abide the immigration differences with them.

and what is the Republican platform on the matter? Last I checked Bush wanted to let them all with no real questions asked. Only the huge outcry from the population forced the Congress to oppose this.

 

[BoringAccountant]

The problem is most people do want a bigger gov't.

I agree 100%.

I was in a discussion the other day with a coworker of mine and we were discussing politics. We started to think about how our nation is going, whats next, and then why its happening. Part of the conclusion we came to was the laziness of the citizens. People will sometimes admit it, but they want the government handling certain things for them, it makes their day easier or their worries less. That is part of the problem with the socialized healthcare issue. Most average Americans will tell you that they dont mind, because "it will end up being easier than this f*cked up healthcare system we have now". They miss the way this government was set-up, they miss the fact that its our nation and we drive our own future.

From SteelCore...

I swear, I'm beginning to think Americans deserve to lose their rights.

I think you are on to something there SteelCore.

 

[Pat H]

Libertarians have one huge flaw, they don't think the U.S. borders should have any meaning. I part ways with them there.

Which of the two larger parties advocate strong national borders? I'm afraid I'm at a loss to identify which one.

That flaw in the Libertarian Party, and it is a flaw in my opinion, is based solely on economics, the free flow of labor and capital to where it is needed, unimpeded by government. It, unfortunately, has never taken into account culture, than we Americans have a culture that is worthwhile, unique, and in manyy ways superior to that of other cultures. It also doesn't take into account politics, particularly that the politics of most foreign nations has no history of freedom of any kind, and when people of those cultures arrive here, they don't shed their culture and vote for liberty. Alberto Gonzalez is a case in point. Coming from a background of totalitarianism, that he advocated torture and the unitary executive should surprise no one. There are tens of thousands of examples like Gonzalez or worse.

The Libertarian Party isn't perfect, no party is, but electing most libertarian (small L ) candidates would improve the federal, state, and local governments when they're compared to most candidates of the two larger parties.

 

[Buzzcook]

Libertarianism contains some fatal flaws that makes it unpalatable.
Ron Paul exhibited a big one this Sunday when he said he would have voted against the the Civil Rights Act of 64. His reasoning mirrored Goldwater's, that
the Civil Rights Act interfered with personal property rights.
In this case by personal property rights he meant the ability of a landloerd to excluded whoever they want, a business owner to exclude any customer or employee, with out cause.

This is one of the core principles of Libertarianism, that property rights trumps other rights. Most modern laws sees the individual's right to participate and compete in the market place as more fundamental than property rights in this instance.

Now for the off topic quibbles

Laissez faire, literally "leave it alone" was and is an ideology that in practice meant that government was to interfere in the market in favor of business and against the consumer and worker. It also meant to interfere in the market in favor of established business against small or emerging business.
It might have been more accurately called crony capitalism.
Many of the justification's for laissez faire have been recycled to justify many current excesses.

Capitalism is not a philosophy or an ideology. It is a broad description of an economic condition. Even more broadly it means that property owners control the means of production while Socialism very broadly means that workers control the means of production.
The amount of government control can vary in each. Anarcho-Socialism is just as anti-government as Libertarianism if not more so.


Communism was intended as a transition from Capitalism to Socialism. Marx considered himself a Socialist rather than a Communist.
While Marx and Engels saw a worker's revolution as inevitable, they also thought the workers were too stupid to adopt Socialism on their own.

 

[DDude]

There are only two types of voter... one who wants small government with limited power, or one who wants big government with all the power. And of course there are those who don't bother to vote as they don't have the time to be bothered.

As far as I'm concerned, too many Republicans want the same thing that the Democrats want at the expense of the Constitution... bigger government.

This nation has seen it's best days and they are long gone. Now it's a simple, gradual slide towards destruction. It was a great experiment in Freedom and Liberty. It failed. Today, we are less free than our fathers and grandfathers. When we no longer can keep what we earn, when we have to be careful of what we say, when our leaders view the Constitution as toilet paper... there can be no claim that we're better today than we were fifty years ago.

Freedom is dying and it stinks. And we did it to ourselves as a nation. As much as I disagree with the way illegal aliens come to this nation, they at least show for the most part the same desire to make it on their own as our forefathers without any help from government. Too bad a lot of Americans can't take the same initiative.

 

[SteelCore]

It would be great if Americans would drink some libertarian Kool-Aid for a change. Unlike the fascist neocon Kool-Aid of the mainstream GOP and the cultural Marxist Kool-Aid of the Democrats, libertarian Kool-Aid isn't poison -- it's the antidote.

Unfortunately, the libertarian position is almost never heard in the mainstream media. Americans have been conditioned to believe that any point of view that's not endorsed by the mainstream of either major party is somehow illegitimate or "kooky." This is a reflection of the herd instinct that governs how the vast majority of people behave. Few people are willing to point out that the Emperor wears no clothes.

The sad fact of the matter is that most Americans don't really want freedom. In fact, they don't even know what real freedom is anymore. The so-called "conservatives" would cheer if the burning of their beloved flag were outlawed in violation of the First Amendment. The "liberals" would cheer if "hate speech" were outlawed. Yet if you were to ask any of these people if they believed in freedom, they'd say, "Of course!"

Similarly, I have no doubt that over 95% of Americans see no irony whatsoever in the naming of the Freedom Tower in NYC -- even though NYC is essentially a prison camp. Paramilitary police (wardens) parade around with M4s and keep a watchful eye on citizens (inmates) who aren't even allowed to have puny handguns. High-tech electronic surveillance is ubiquitous. (Never mind that none of those so-called "security measures" would have stopped the WTC attacks. They wouldn't even stop a truck bomb tomorrow.) Oh, but you can vote for which Mayor you want to rule over you, watch whatever you want to on cable TV, and even shop at the stores of your choice; therefore, you must be "free."

Let's face it, folks: most Americans are cowards and sheep who value the illusion of safety more than freedom. No right is too cheap to toss out if it increases our chances of living forever. That's why libertarianism isn't more popular: Joe Sixpack and Sally Soccermom are just fine with having a police state if it means that their odds of being blown up by a terrorist are lowered from one in 40 million to one in 50 million.

We can't have a "land of the free" unless it's also the "home of the brave" -- and we sure as hell don't have the latter. DDude is right: freedom in America is doomed.

**************

One more thing: You can be a libertarian (small "L") and still want the borders sealed. Genuine libertarians are definitely monolithic on some issues (e.g., gun rights, free speech, the Bill of Rights in general) but differ on abortion, border control, and some other topics.

Remember, you don't need to join the "official" Libertarian Party to be a libertarian. (I never did.) You just have to support genuine liberty and the smallest government consistent with a functioning, moral society.

 

[Arabia]

Communism was intended as a transition from Capitalism to Socialism. Marx considered himself a Socialist rather than a Communist.
While Marx and Engels saw a worker's revolution as inevitable, they also thought the workers were too stupid to adopt Socialism on their own.

You have that backwards. Any first year freshman in college would know that Socialism was a transition phase on the march to communism. Not the other way around. Please do a search on internet about Marx, or better yet read his works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Capitialism is a ideaology, as is Socialism and Communism. They are economic ideaologies.