Within the general group of "libertarians," one must distinguish between members of the Libertarian Party and those who call themselves "libertarians" but are members of some other party or have no political affiliation. Within either of these groups, there are factions just as there are in any other political group. I think there's a strong pro-Second Amendment faction that really has a more conservative Republican outlook on life but is frustrated with the Republican Party. I think there's a strong pro-drug faction that just wants drugs to be legal and likes the intellectual cover that libertarianism provides. I've met Libertarians whose real agenda is that they hate God and hate anyone who is an active, practicing Christian but at the same time want low taxes. They can't be Democrats without supporting taxes and think that supporting the Republicans is to support Christian morality. I think another faction is made of business people who are frustrated with the Republican Party's failures but whose beliefs could just as easily fit within the party.
The point of this long introduction is that generalization about the "libertarians" is always going to have some inaccuracies just as generalization about any political movement.
I differ with libertarianism on its advocacy of open borders. If we throw our borders open to anyone and ask no questions, a foreign enemy can send entire divisions into our country with all of their equipment to seize anything they want whenever they want it. This may sound silly, but listen to the rhetoric of a hard-core libertarian and ask yourself where their position would allow us to act for our own defense. If 10,000 men came sailing over from Cuba with rifles, does any policy that the libertarians advocate allow us to ask them what they are doing? Do any of their policies allow us to stop them before they form into ranks and start shooting?
Another national security issue where I disagree with libertarianism is free trade. I don't believe that tariff policies should allow the unions to put the entire American economy in a stranglehold, but I believe that our policies should try to encourage domestic manufacture of many products. One cause of the War Between the States was the tariff. The South wanted free trade because there was little manufacturing in the South and most powerful Southerners preferred to receive goods from England or France without paying tariffs. The North wanted a tariff to protect Northern manufacturers. When the war was being planned, the South knew that it would need manufactured goods from Europe. The South assumed that the draw of free trade with the South would cause British and French ships to run the Union blockade in order to maintain trade with the South. What the South learned was that when the lead starts to fly, free trade is revealed as nice idea to debate particularly when one is a consumer of goods that might come in trade but not a principle for which people brave the battlefield. One reason that the South lost was that it simply couldn't manufacture needed goods. A lesson for us should be that the nation that can't make what it needs will eventually fall to the nation that can. If a modest tariff helps keep manufacturing at home, it is a good thing.
The final point is that too many libertarians assume that everyone will behave as they do. They assume that because they are motivated largely by economic concerns, others will be as well. They think that if someone has what they need, that person will trade with them so that they can obtain what they need. They don't understand that many people realize that there is more profit in refusing to sell and then conquering those who do not have when they become weak. On a national security level, this blindness is dangerous.
WFTR
Bill
I disagree about the "drug lovers" of the libertarians. It is true that most libertarians believe in drug legalization. I believe in this too. Why? Is it because I love getting high? Not at all! I could easily get high without any political leanings whatsoever. Do you think drugs are hard to get?
The reason that libertarians (and me) are for drug legalization is quite simple - drug use is a victimless crime. And in my book victimless crimes are not true crimes.
Drug use is a victimless crime because if I use drugs I may harm myself but no one else. Libertarians believe in self-ownership - meaning that whatever I do with my own body is solely my business as long as i don't violate the rights of others.
Now some say that a druggie does violate the rights of others. For example a father who spends the family income on drugs and lets his kids go hungry is violating the rights of his kids. Fine, I'd agree. Prosecute him for child abuse. But not for drug abuse.
The other argument against the WOD is consequentialist - it is a bloody failure. Around half the prisoners in the USA are there for drug offenses. Their incarceration deprives society of their productivity while costing taxpayers to keep them in prison.
The WOD is a mirror of Prohibition. It is a key driver I crime just as Prohibition was. Legalize drugs and you will see a big drop in the crime rate. /rant
Also about the anti-Christian libertarians. I think that this is another fantasy. Yes surely a fair percentage of libs are atheists but many are Christians also.
I started this thread as an attack on the libertarians. I still want to attack them. But let's attack them squarely on their beliefs. Rebut these beliefs. Don't use ad-hominem strawman attacks.
I have to agree with you on open borders and I have always felt this way. Open borders might make sense in some idael libertarian world but in our real world we should put troops on the borders. it is a scandal that we don't. And BTW the Republicans are scared to advocate this because they pander to the Hispanic vote.
My take as well.
As to open borders or restricted borders, a libertarian could advocate the latter as an extended defense against initiation of force from foreign armies or terrorists.