Six Myths About Libertarianism

lewrockwell.com ^ | Jan. 15, 2002 | by Murray N. Rothbard

[freeeee]

I would also say in my experience that most Libertarians are hostile towards religious people.

I politely disagree. I haven't a problem with religious people. Many are my friends and family. The only problem occurs when some of them attempt to impose their will upon others through coercion.

Of course, I get equally upset at anyone who tries to do that, no matter what their motive.

[Grut]

What is true or not true about libertarianism is not material since the Libertarian Party is wholly ineffectual. It doesn't matter what you would do when you can do nothing.

[Joe Bonforte]

"So...... how long until posters show up and make snide comments without reading this?"

Too late. See #18.

[Liberal Classic]

I liked this article even though it came from LewRockwell.com, because it predates Lew by about twenty years. I am a Libertarian and a libertarian. The strongest criticism of the LP comes from within. I vote for Republicans and for Libertarians, depending on the circumstances.

For people who wonder what small-L or big-L means, it's a way of identifying yourself as having that political leaning, without buying it hook line and sinker. How many Republicans or Democrats agree with every platform plank down to the letter? Some things go too far, other things don't go far enough. Everyone has their pet issues and divergance from party orthodoxy. The problems with the Libertarian Party is that there is intolerance for moderates.

This is why the Libertarian Party is self defeating. I consider myself a moderate by Libertarian standards. I don't agree with all of the platform planks of the LP platform, though I agree with good portions of it. For my heresy, I am told that I am not a "real" libertarian. Poppycock. Blaming the LP's failure on election law and media inclusion only goes so far. Ultimately you have to take responsibility for your success and failures. My point goes like this: If we are all individuals, aren't we all going to be different? Why have a litmus test to make us conform. It's hypocritical and self-defeating. It's hypocritical because the political philosophy demands tolerance, but many in the party are intolerant of people who aren't "pure." It's self-defeating because the party is not going to grow if people aren't encouraged to join, and people aren't encouraged to join if you tell them they aren't "pure" enough to be a "real" libertarian.

Now, not everybody is like this, but enough people are this way to be a turn off. I am taking a long, hard look at the Republican Liberty Caucus, and might even drive to La Grange to see what they're about.

[FreeTally]

Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles

This is what too many "conservatives" can not get past. They believe the government should enforce a way of life, which actually makes them nowhere close to a "conservative".

What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.

Same thing here. Both dems and repubs want to rule everyone's life, just in different ways. Neither can get over their childish desire to have people only do what they want them to.

[Joe Bonforte]

Libertarianism would work, if you could just have a world without democRATS, who would love to tax drugs and prostitution. Great idea...expand the government, subsidize the industries of prostitution and drug manufacturing and farming, misuse the revenues received from the taxation, create dependency programs and free-drug welfare assistance for the 'needy' addict and their family...and finally have the defense attorney lobby sue because of the fallout from the legalization of these industries.

Libertarianism is sort of like Marxism

I don't see any logic or reason in this post at all. You are somehow melding the divergent positions held by libertarians and liberals, and then assigning the blame for those positions to libertarians. That's silly.

Libertarians don't want any expansion of government, and want it dramatically reduced in many areas. That is completely consistent with the idea of ending drug prohibition, where government involvement does some of the worst damage, causing the cure to be worse than the disease, and destroying civil rights along the way.

Surely when drug policies are changed, the coalition of libertarians and conservatives will prevent the result being a dramatic expansion of the welfare state. There's absolutely no tangible reason to believe that liberatarian efforts will further the positions of the Democratic liberals.

[Aurelius]

BUMP

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Bump List

[scottiewottie]

It has been my experience that my being Libertarian and religious is often attacked by religious Conservatives as being "luke warm".

[Liberal Classic]

Ping!

[freeeee]

What you have pointed out is the failure of Marxism, not libertarianism. You show libertarianism as failing, but without first practicing it.

[Always Right]

I politely disagree. I haven't a problem with religious people. Many are my friends and family. The only problem occurs when some of them attempt to impose their will upon others through coercion.

I am not sure what you mean by coercion. Many Libertarians seem to think that freedom to express religious views is coercion. Sure I am against the use of government force to impose religion, but government, with the blessing of Libertarians, use the government to surpress individual religious views. Free speech is only free if it is non-religious.

[Joe Bonforte]

You have nailed many of my own positions quite well. I still support the LP because most Republicans seem unwilling to get serious about reducing the size and scope of government other than in small, cosmetic ways (such as Bush's tax cut). But the party is lost on many organizational issues, and their foreign policy positions are tainted by anti-Vietnam isolationism. (Many of the founders of the party came from the anti-Vietnam War movement).

I just wish we had better choices. I would gladly support Republicans like Phil Gramm, if there were any around my area to support. Instead we have a "Republican" governor, elected on a no-income-tax pledge, that is on a three-year jihad to impose a state income tax on us. At least Democrats are usually honest that they want the government and taxes to be bigger.

[WindMinstrel]

but government, with the blessing of Libertarians, use the government to surpress individual religious views. Free speech is only free if it is non-religious.

No libertarian would use the government to supress any views. Hell, most Libertarians wouldn't use the government for anything!

I've not taken any crap from any of my Libertarian bretheren for my Christian worldview. In fact, I've found them an excellent group to discuss such views with.

[Texaggie79]

I agree with most of the theory behind libertarianism. It is just that I disagree with how the LP has defined certain activities. Doing, or selling hard drugs ANYWHERE is a violation of you neighbors rights. Selling your body is a violation of your neighbor's rights. Abortion is a violation of the child's rights. The sale fictitious child porn literature is a violation of your neighbors rights.

I do not hold the position that these things should be outlawed because I want to force people to be moral as most Libertarians falsely accuse us of. It is a protection of citizens rights.

[Liberal Classic]

Many Libertarians seem to think that freedom to express religious views is coercion.

I respectfully disagree with this. This describes many left-wingers generally, because they're uncomfortable with religious messages. Libertarians you have freedom of speech and of worship. We do not believe you have the right to not be offended or the right to be free from the uncomfortable opinions of others. Don't like it, don't listen. The clause in the constitution that says "no establishment of religion" is a prohibition of state mandated religion. It does not mean the government should divorce all religion from government activity.

[Liberal Classic]

Many Libertarians seem to think that freedom to express religious views is coercion.

I respectfully disagree with this. This describes many left-wingers generally, because they're uncomfortable with religious messages. Libertarians you have freedom of speech and of worship. We do not believe you have the right to not be offended or the right to be free from the uncomfortable opinions of others. Don't like it, don't listen. The clause in the constitution that says "no establishment of religion" is a prohibition of state mandated religion. It does not mean the government should divorce all religion from government activity.

[Liberal Classic]

That's what I get for not paying attention. A double post with lots of typos. :P

[FreeTally]

Many Libertarians seem to think that freedom to express religious views is coercion

No they don't. Its only coercion(and a true libertarian could only see it to be) if public money is bein used to "support" the views.

Now, you do not have the right to trespass on private property to "witness". If there are "public laws" about where you can loiter or whatever, that may preclude you from, lets say, standing on a street corner, or on a College campus "sharing your views".

True libertarians don't care what you believe, and they only ask that you recirprocate that. Now, that does not mean I believe you do not have the right to approach me on the street, and present your views to me. You certainly have that right. I, just as well, have the right to ignore you, if I choose to.

Its only coercion when money is taken involuntarily from me, and given, well, to anyone for any reason.

[scottiewottie]

I agree, the Libertarian Party is an oxymoron. Libertarian thought needs to influence government and the two party system by presenting principles of governmental policy. This can be done by think tanks like the Cato Institute, and by lobbyists like the Republican Liberty Caucus.