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.
You want to know why “all the men of the town” in Sodom did what they did? When we don’t even see 5% “queers” in the general US population?
It’s probably because they expected each other to. BY LAW. They lent their “state” to it. The state takes the responsibility, the state gets the blame. Ironclad rule.
Basically you are down to the question of how to make your state pure, if the state bears the mantle of regulating marriage.
The supernatural (broadly put, church) is the only means. Statism is the worse evil because it’s easier to lobby a state than lobby a church. I can’t advise you past that. Rotsa ruck, I wish you God’s blessings but unless you can get your state to keep referring to God it won’t get blessed by God.
For those who still haven't noticed, that has been tried. Both the TEA partiers, Libertarians, and even more Conservative elements of the GOP are well acquainted with the underside of the proverbial bus if they have been around for a couple of election cycles.
When the TEA Party candidate wins the primary, the GOP pulls their punches if they give any support in the general. The GOPe will lose the seat rather than cede power to an upstart within the Party.
That's how we ended up with Heitkamp in ND, that's how Virginia got McAuliffe, and why the Senator from Nevada is still Reid.
That may seem jaded to you, but two of those races were squeakers, and half-hearted efforts and funding fell short.
Anyone who won't admit that there are elements of the GOP who are every bit as ruthless as the Dems in retaining power just hasn't been paying attention, and frankly, I am not sure the GOP can be fixed from within any more than I am sure the US Government can be.
An illustration of why libertarianism has a fatal error.
Reasonable people of most stripes share one concept: that civil society needs liberty but it must be ordered liberty. Childrearing, cohabitation, etc without any sort of order means societal chaos.
The government has an interest in assuring that children will be reared in a stable home environment. Historically this has meant married parents. Precisely to the degree that this meaning has degenerated, society has become less stable and less civil, and children are among the worst victims.
Libertarians have never come to terms with the clear unblinking reality that liberty must be ordered by an overseeing agent, i.e. representatives of the people invested with the authority necessary to fulfill that responsibility.
Maybe in the next 15 years you will have learned something, and say something different.
Not to speak of the state’s interest in the economic stability afforded by the nuclear family, to minimize the social costs of wild children.
The free lunch is the bottom line in populist politics.
It’s indeed a mess created by Leftists.
No libertarian should be advancing state sanctioned homosexuality. It’s an anathema to libertarianism to promote policies that force the citizens into supporting and servicing homosexual behavior. If the LP isn’t interested in establishing related law, than it’s simply voicing a liberal point of view which serves no direct policy purpose.
Got news for you Junior. Unless you had a gummint license, and your preacher signed it, you didn't legally marry anybody.
And in most states, if not all, if your preacher "married" you without signing a license, he broke the law.
Nice going.
Yep. Deja vu all over again, again. Same arguments, same blame game, a vote for c is a vote for a because it isn't a vote for b who really doesn't represent what you want, but is closer by a fraction than a is....etc.
Big steps, small steps, they all head toward tyranny.
Statis
|
II | I
|
liberalism ------+------- conservatism
|
III | IV
|
libertarianism
|
anarchism
Most of the critics of libertarianism here are in the first quad. Leftists are in the second. The fools belonging to the Libertarian Party are in the third. The cool, Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage, Child-Safety, Pro-Gun, Liberty-loving folks are in the 4th.
statism
|
II | I
|
liberalism ------+------- conservatism
|
III | IV
|
libertarianism
|
anarchism
They're out there, in droves.
Part of the problem with labels like "Libertarian" and "Conservative" is that they have become as meaningful as 'pizza' or 'chilli". Everyone who calls themselves by either label has a different idea of what that label means. For "Conservative" we have the range from Christie to the Bushes to the overlapping subset which includes John Stossel, and for Libertairians, the spectrum includes the "just leave me alone (to live a moral life)" crowd to the "anything goes" bunch.
So, when someone says they are "Conservative" that does not necessarily preclude their imposing, by force of law, their particular brand of Conservative on others, even to the point of complaining that your grass is too long. Hence, there are Conservative Statist Control Freaks, too (also for "our own good", just like their Liberal brethren).
What we need, fiscally, philosophically, economically (no, that isn't redundant), legally, physically, is less government.
Less in scope and power, less physical presence, less invasive, and by reducing that, we reduce the opportunities to use public money to feed corruption and theft from our pockets.
That government which governs best governs least.
Is it the 'far worse statists' who have put us in the position we are now in?
No. It is the almost conservative statists who have voted for the incremental usurpations of our Liberty who have brought us to this point.
The far worse statists would have overreached and evoked a public reaction which would have sent the pendulum hurtling in the other direction, instead the less worse statists have slowly turned up the heat under the veritable frog pot, slowly, over generations.
The lesser evil is still evil, and no matter whether the steps are great strides or small hobbles, they were all headed in the same direction.
The small steps toward tyranny are perhaps to be even more greatly feared than the great strides, because the electorate is more likely to suffer the indignities of those small increments, and then become accustomed to them before rising in protest. It is those little nibbles that reduce Liberty most efficiently.
Just the opposite, I want there to be NO LAW, save God’s law. It is NOT THE LEGITIMATE business of government, unless there is a civil contract involved. I am reasonably sure most of the Christian churches would be in agreement, excepting the “progressives,” no big surprise, so what would change?
Oh for Pete’s sake, all you had to do was listen to the positions of that Liberaltarian that ran as a Libertarian in VA to know that he was a Democrat in disguise.
The man was nothing but ringer for the Democrats and he didn’t even try to hide it.
The country would be better off if we just supplied the Libertarians with a whole lot of weed during elections and kept them away from the ballot box.
>> The man was nothing but ringer for the Democrats
And supported by.
>> but we never hear about the ‘Conservative’ Control Freak Statists.
>> They’re out there, in droves.
May I submit post #232, Quad I.
Bump!
Even Ron Paul supported the Republican candidate over the Libertarian.
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.