Posted on 11/11/2013 10:35:15 AM PST by Kaslin
Yesterday, Derek Hunter declared that libertarianism has entirely lost its meaning, that the party has devolved into a catch-all for people who want to criticize the government without doing anything about it. He also assumed that any Republican candidate would be better than a Democrat for classical liberals.
Hunter could not be more wrong. The Libertarian Party is still the face of “individual responsibility, small government, and free markets,” but how the LP arranges those priorities is changing. The Party needs to represent its constituency, appeal to young voters who largely have experience with Ron Paul, and has to emphasize its social liberalism to appeal to the broader American public. In doing so, the Libertarian Party is sharpening its policy prescriptions while becoming more inclusive, but that doesn’t mean the philosophy is meaningless or is standing at the sidelines.
Let’s have a look at some numbers of the people who call themselves “libertarian.” A few weeks ago, a think tank called the Public Religion Research Institute released a big data report on those who describe themselves as “libertarian.” There are some big consistencies; for example, 96 percent oppose Obamacare. But what is most striking is that a majority (39 percent) consider themselves “moderates”—not conservatives or liberals.
To be sure, this report notes that most libertarians are registered Republicans (45 percent). However, more libertarians are independent (35 percent), third party (15 percent), or Democrats (five percent) when combined. It is a misinterpretation of libertarian values to assume that all would vastly prefer Republican candidates. If we were just looking at party affiliation, Republican libertarians do not represent even half of the libertarian demographic.
So when Hunter exclaims that McCain would have been better than Obama, or Cuccinelli better than Sarvis or McAuliffe, he is speaking for himself, not for all libertarians. To ask libertarians to vote Republican reinforces only one purity test: Hunters’ own. Hunter seems to think that free markets is all libertarianism is about, and he’s happy to snuggle into bed with conservatism. Libertarians are the wrong audience for his kind of policy prescriptions.
The Libertarian Party needs to build its base with young people as well. These folks are the people who have the time and energy to canvass. Above anything else, they are at the core of what will guarantee a future for the Libertarian Party of tomorrow.
Know what libertarian young people like? The young guns of the Tea Party, and even Ron Paul. No one can expect them to get behind the elders who insult their heroes as “wacko birds.” The Libertarian Party is smart to try to include Millennials as much as possible, even if celebrities popular with Millennials ignorantly give themselves the “libertarian” title, like Bill Maher (who really considers him a libertarian anyway?). In fact, I think one of the most important people teaching Millennials to question government is a self-identified liberal: Jon Stewart. We can’t give and take away the libertarian title, so we should take the positive publicity and use it to our advantage.
Millennials are, as a whole, especially socially liberal, but the rest of America is following. A majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana. More than half of the country supports gay marriage. An additional bulk want there to be a way for illegal immigrants to stay in this country. Like it or not, social issues are the best way to attract new people to the Libertarian Party, especially if they’re young. Sure, prostitution and raw milk might not be the top of everyone’s agenda, but these ideas reach far more people than free-market fundamentalism. What is best for the Libertarian Party is to advertise how mainstream it could be. If the Libertarian Party seems more blue, that’s because it’s a reaction to what Americans prioritize.
So what’s happening here? Libertarianism is rebranding itself to be more inclusive. Now more than ever, it is accepting of LGBT people, encourages women to have a voice, and has different social media groups targeted to different minorities. Inclusivity is the best way for libertarianism to grow. Hunter’s exclusivity will only be the death of libertarianism in America.
But what of all of our think tanks and libertarian blogs and magazines? Changing hearts and minds does not happen overnight, but there are still successes everywhere. The Competitive Enterprise Institute was fundamental in blocking food labeling measures in Washington. Nick Gillespie seems to have a new editorial in a major newspaper every day. The Institute for Justice and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education fight for fiscal and civil liberties and have regular wins. Libertarians are far from doing nothing.
If anyone should be compromising on their ideals, it should be people like Hunter. He does not have the authority to determine what is and isn’t best for liberty. Libertarians are happy to leave that to individuals to decide for themselves.
False moral equivalence -- beware of that one. When Ronald Reagan was running the Executive Branch, nobody laid awake at night worrying about another Elian raid, another Waco raid, another Ruby Ridge, or Communists in the White House.
Aside from libertarians supporting gay marriage, and we conservatives opposing it, your very argument is that you want gay churches to be able to perform gay marriage.
Your bizarre crazy argument is that you want to force all Americans to join a church or Mosque to be married, and I suppose force them to follow that religion's laws forever, even if they divorce after having left that religion, and at the same time, let any church, Mosque, or gay religion, marry whoever or whatever they want.
You are not really sane, or coherent.
>> False moral equivalence — beware of that one
Spare me the “logic”. I didn’t make nor imply a moral equivalence. I’m speaking to the dangers of out-of-control government.
Huh? Libertarians are the ones fighting for the gay agenda, conservatives oppose it.
Nice try... But, as usual, you miss the point deliberately to try and score some weird kind of internet point. Klowne Posse used to do that too...
I’m far from supporting gay marriage. But you know that.
You just don’t care to be honest. In yet another thread...
Those are the sort of unintended consequences that many people don’t think about until they happen-now, there is a bitter battle since anyone with a seriously deranged philosophy claims marriage “rights” they will never have in the Catholic, Jewish (most of the) Protestant, Buddhist, or most other religions-so they force it on the rest if us via government, because the door was open.
I can’t see any way to put the genie back into the bottle-maybe we’d best just call a civil license for cohabitation/partnership just that-and leave the sacrament of marriage where sacraments belong-in religious ceremonies.
I’ve wondered if there is not a way to put the homosexuals-gay is a polite euphemism-back into their respective closets, and lock the door, so they would leave the rest of us the hell alone...
If you would stop always avoiding other’s posts, you might open your eyes.
Which church do you want to decide marriage for America? Which religion?
Any and all churches? Any and all religions?
Yet open borders is the position of libertarianism.
Libertarians are political warriors for the gay power movement.
Here is the libertarian position on "personal relationships". """Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws."""
I know it. That’s why I know libertarians are consistently suicidal, but want credit for being consistent.
Yeah, you did. Thanks for playing.
Then point it out, genius. And don’t thank me for something I’m not doing.
Liberals have been lying to libertarians, telling them that homo-everythingism is a "libertarian" position.
Without mentioning in passing that there is sometimes a legitimate and compelling interest in laws against, ee.g., homosexual sodomy, pederastic rape, sexualizing underage minors ( /off pleonasm ), and spreading diseases that otherwise would not be spreading much or at all.
Society has a compelling interest in suppressing vendetta, manslaughter, and homosexual sodomy.
Some states are already letting homosexuals “marry”-the genie is out of the bottle, and we who object don’t even get a say-look how many times California’s sensible people said “F***, no”. I hope those people are good at shunning, Amish style.
I trust in God and my chosen Church to not bow to a government in church matters-at least that is still in the constitution, and if history is any teacher, when government attempts to abolish or dictate to religion, wars can happen.
I’m not Pollyanna-if you are leaving someone alone, you only trust them as far as the shotgun under your bed will shoot-or as far as the missles are aimed, in the case of another 9-11-only a fool gets caught unarmed, or trusts a potential enemy.
[Me] Yeah, you did. Thanks for playing. [You] Then point it out, genius. And don’t thank me for something I’m not doing.
Okay, then. Here we go.
To: lentulusgracchus
>> Quit worrying about the Right.
The issue concerns the overbearing control of govt. The bureaucratic machine is large and dangerous regardless of who’s driving it.
A small, conservative government is what we want.
With "regardless of who's driving it", you set up a moral equation between large, bureaucratic governments run by a) conservatives or b) liberals. But conservatives have a much different approach to government and won't grow it, whereas liberals will grow it at every opportunity, to deepen the dependency of voters on politicians -- or as the liberal pols would put it, "making government relevant".
There is no moral equivalence there, and yet you pronounced |big government run by bad liberals| = |big government run by conservatives|.
Satisfied?
There is NOTHING in Libertarian Principles that logically implies support for abortion. Libertarian support for abortion is founded on the same basis as Progressive/Communist support for abortion: the desire to kill a certain class of people because they are inconvenient.
As long as the majority of Libertarians are pro-abortion, the sound principles of Libertarianism will not get a hearing.
That is not my position, and I don’t belong to a party for a reason-dogma is not my thing-the personal does not belong in the public square-it is an invitation for insanity of the worst kind, as we see every day. I don’t even know anyone, libertarian, martian, conservative, or whatever that espouses any of that crap as part of any government-it is not government’s business.
I want the fed to follow the constitution as written, and that includes government being small and limited, and people being responsible for themselves-no more PC or free rides. Let the damn free market out of the cage so we can have work and make money again.
No, liberals haven’t been lying to libertarians, Libertarians hold their political positions because they believe in them.
This is ordinary, run of the mill, everyday, libertarianism, it is among the things that separates them from traditional America and conservatism, and God.
“Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.”
Of course you do, libertarians.
And how do you say it isn't a concern for government, did you read it? Immigration, divorce law, military service, how do you say the government doesn't have to make rules and laws on how it will deal with homosexual issues?
>> With “regardless of who’s driving it”, you set up a moral equation between large, bureaucratic governments run
I explicitly exclude the political attribute, but you insist I’m making a false moral assertion based on party policy. Give it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.