Discussion for article #226835
Libertarians don’t understand what their supposed ideology entails and/or they’re full of shit? Well slap my ass and call me Sally.
All the libertarians I know just want certain things legal that are currently illegal. None of them wants the Government out of my life, just theirs.
spank There ya go, Sally.
I’ve often wondered if a lot of people who consider themselves libertarian do so because of one leg of the platform (i.e. legalization of pot) or even a few, without any understanding of what the entire platform actually is. This poll seems to confirm that.
I get tired of arguing with self-described libertarians who claim I dislike it because I don’t know what it is. Well, I have a pretty good idea. And I could do quite well in a truly libertarian country. But I still think it’s crap.
Of course it doesn’t exist. I’ve been saying this for years now. Libertarians are simply Republicans who are embarrassed to associate themselves with the GOP. So they opt for the libertarian label. Plus they think it makes them sound much smarter and more serious.
Ask anyone of your friends who claim to be “libertarian” who they voted for in the last 5 presidential elections and 80% will say GOP.
If you vote Republican, you’re Republican. Easy, breezy.
I invite self-described Libertarians to see the the government-free paradise that is Lagos, Nigeria.
It’s spectacularly lawless and structureless.
Today’s Libertarians, in the ronpaul and randpaul model, are yesterday’s John Birchers.
Another point worth mentioning, Randy Paul is not a libertarian. Not even close. Equating him to the movement is pointless.
This article mentions his filibuster of U.S. drone policy. But his stance on using drones is exactly the same stance President Obama has. Dare we call Obama’s policy libertarian? Never.
Likewise, Paul’s op-ed the other day about Ferguson (which I applaud) is almost identical to the president’s stance as well. But put Obama’s name at the end of that letter and it becomes liberal, tree hugging, hippie, America-hating trash from an illegitimate president that just wants the Black Panthers to issue Sharia Law in America.
I’m guessing the Birchers and Klansmen are “Libertarian”.
All the libertarians I know are either/and potheads, gun nuts, or embarrassed former enthusiastic Bush supporters.
Edit: Oh, and Randish teens.
Great minds and all that.
I think this is the year that libertarianism really breaks through.
Also, this is the year that American Jews start voting for the Republicans to reward them for being more hawkish on Israel.
Yup, 2002 is really shaping up to be a turning point.
Let’s all ask the successful Libertarian governments if it really exists.
I’ve tried to get my arms and head around the libertarian “philosophy” more than once, but with little success.
It wasn’t until I heard someone point out that no country – none, at least in the western world – uses libertarian principles to shape its economy or its laws.
Here, we use it to rationalize corporate depredations.
That is as ye need to know about that “philosophy”.
Hahaha, just as we suspected.
There is no such thing as libertarianism. They’re just Republicans*.
*with a “I’m better than you because I’m ‘independent’” complex.
dave,
And don’t forget Somalia.
A friend once described American libertarianism as “the political expression of borderline autism.”
Most of the time, if you press people who call themselves Libertarians to define their views, it boils down to “All those things that I don’t like? I’m against that.”
So they are all over the place and contradict themselves. How about calling them muddle heads.
When you look up “Libertarian” in wikipedia there is an amazingly confusing array of different types. I wasn’t really surprised.
For Republicans enamored with it, Libertarianism is just another variation on “screw you, I’ve got mine” conservatism, for a smaller group of mostly young males it’s just a current version of the anti-establishment, “do your own thing” ethos of the 60s. There may be a few thousand Reason readers who can define it more completely, but they would be a minority within a minority.