I read this piece with a strong dose of skepticism, taking the position that there are a few libertarian principles that, if given full rein, would be detrimental to society. But this piece really brings up some important points about how those ideas from libertarianism have the potential of enabling and further enslaving society if allowed to be realized.
You need to read the entire piece before rushing to the defense of our friends who oppose the collectivist impulses of the left that may, in their approach to society, actually be enabling them to achieve their goal of forced perfection. Here
Libertarians are one step above the Sovereign Citizen idiots you see on you tube.
Yes, if you create a strawman libertarian then everything in that article is true. If you look a the polices and beliefs of real libertarians, then little in that article is true.
Now, I’m not talking about politicians who run as libertarians on the national ticket. They tend to be pieces of crap that do resemble the strawman that Ring built for his article. I’m talking about average, everyday persons, like myself, that believe in the core libertarian principle that you should be free to do whatever you want as long as you’re not harming others.
The official Libertarian Party is usually not very libertarian at all.
Those aren’t libertarians, they just like to think they are.
Proper government provides two things: defense and a legal structure. There is no assistance there, that should come from private charity and enterprise. Many modern libertarians want the freedoms, but they often abdicate the responsibility aspect of it for others – and a free market requires that everyone be responsible and to accept the consequences of their actions.
Great example – a new cannabis bar opened in West Hollywood this week. I am totally fine with that, and it sounded as if they had taken steps to ensure safety. They have taken steps to ensure that users won’t drive home stoned, and they expect that the local police will enforce that as well. That’s the way it should be. Will the reality hold true? Don’t know. But while I have no interest in getting stoned myself I don’t care if other people wish to – but if they endanger others then there must be consequences as well.
I consider myself a libertarian – but not ‘that kind’.
Seems there are 2 different kinds. The ones I know are Conservative libertarians. You know, the behave yourselves, leave me out of it, and don’t spend my damn money on bullshit ones.
The libertarians I ran into at some conference in Las Vegas were more interested in bashing religion and rednecks. A chubby girl with heavy makeup and manic panic hair dye said, and I quote, “We can do this (gay marriage and abortion on demand) if we can just get the bible-thumping rednecks to go along.” And then the 2 guys with her started to giggle. Their attitudes were just like the elitist republicans in a conference I walked in on to listen to for a short while. All that slick hair and suits. pfft. Long story short, they all sounded like Democrats to me.
I went to the redneck section (tea party) and discovered I was the redneck they were talking about. lol.
And that group contained some of the outcast libertarian and elite republicans. You know, the Conservative Libertarians mingling with the regular Conservatives, I suppose.
I like small, local government and leaving people alone in the pursuit of their own happiness part of what I hear from libertarians.
Often it seems libertarians end up arguing among themselves which of them is more libertarian and end up pushing each other closer to anarchy, which the left thrives upon.
I have two questions for libertarians, at what point does a person abusing drugs cross that line and hurts others and what is your proposal how to deal with that drug abuser?
I’m hoping that a workable solution, that balances respect for liberty with the needs to protect society from those who abuse that freedom might just come from libertarian thought. Perhaps we could move on to homelessness from there.
The approaches from the left and the right seem equally unworkable in our society today.
“at what point does a person abusing drugs cross that line and hurts others”
When they operate a vehicle on a public thoroughfare (or even walk on one while stoned), or create a public nuisance, or when they are stoned while caring for children, would be 3 examples I can think of right off the bat.
“and what is your proposal how to deal with that drug abuser?”
Lock them up.
The core tenant of libertarianism is “Do not initiate force or fraud upon others”. Government’s purpose is to uphold laws that should be corollaries of this basic rule. You can get most people to agree on this, even liberals (until you tell them the consequences, then they show their true Maoist colors). The problem with many libertarians (and most people) is that they do not think in hierarchical concepts. For example, legalizing drugs without first getting rid of welfare is stupid because it will only increase welfare and in turn increase the force by the government in the form of higher taxes to pay for the consequence. Same goes for illegal (and most legal) immigration. As a conservative small-L libertarian I agree with some regulation. I don’t care if someone is gay as long as they don’t get special treatment and doesn’t use tax dollars to force an agenda. As far as marriage issues, the state shouldn’t even be involved. And using the military for foreign (bankers) wars? – – totally out of the question. There are just too many issues and complexities to cover here. However if people just go by the basic axiom (do not initiate force or fraud) then everything would be better.
Practicing Libertarians are somewhat like Jeffersonians: all government stinks. So, in their perfect world, they refrain from involvement with it. And as a political force, they’re beyond weak.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are like John Adams. We have to have some government to control our commonalities. Our common laws are an expression of our morality and common heritage as free human beings. And we MUST be involved with it or it won’t exist – and culture itself won’t exist.
Republicans (nowadays) were originally conservatives who bought into Marxism little by little by appeasing Democrats over the years as they were corrupted by European socialists. They’re out of touch with both the growing Socialist AND Libertarian movements in this country.
Democrats are now true Marxists selling Communism at every turn.
And President Trump is the one who clears the political fog and gets us back to true American CONSERVATISM and its responsibilities to ourselves, our families, our neighbors, our communities, counties, states…
…and COUNTRY…
…which is the SUM of all of the above with no philosophical conflicts. True American Conservatism is not a political party. It’s a way of thinking about ourselves in our own society.
We used of have ‘conservative Democrats.’ Now, that seems ironic.
“Seems there are 2 different kinds.”
Or more. A brother of one of my friends literally hates me because I support President Trump. The last time I was at my friends house his brother showed up and the first thing he said to me was essentially “F*** you and the truck you drove in on” (I drive a full size Tundra on the weekends and this guy is a devout member of the church of catastrophic anthropogenic global climate change). Not his exact words, but it’s essentially what he said. Yet he calls himself a Libertarian. He also thinks Obama was a great President. I mean WTF? How can a Libertarian think a Marxist totalitarian is a great President? I guess it’s a big tent.
Frankly I don’t want leftists in my tent just because they call themselves libertarians. Bill Weld and Gary Johnson definitely fit in that category.
@pbunyan 1:32 – exactly.
We currently have two controlling political parties in this country, both of which seem to be better at seizing power and spending money than they are at governing honestly and effectively. Yet every time anyone attempts to mount a challenge to their cozy little scheme, both parties jump on them, accusing them of siphoning off votes and playing into the hands of the opposition. Because of our tendency to swallow this argument, these two parties maintain a solid lock on the government of our Republic, occasionally switching back and forth from time to time to make sure each one gets an equal shot at the public treasury.
So my question is this: How are we ever going to change this situation unless we allow people a chance to form new parties and vote the way their conscience dictates?
I mean, isn’t that the way the system is supposed to work?
Big-L libertarians may be misguided, but they ought to be allies. Articles badmouthing them don’t seem particularly helpful. Try convincing them not that their beloved principles are wrong, but that they’d be better served if they didn’t throw away their votes on befuddled stoners.
Funny, I would have thought that most of the spinsters shushing everybody at the book depository would have been die-hard liberals.
All the Libertarians I know are the, “I’m a Church going Libertarian,” yet they want abortion on demand, gay marriage including in Church, believe in if it feels good do it and there should be zero laws and love pot and drugs. The only thing they are conservative about is taxes and guns.