Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Seriously, Libertarians…WTF?
Is it just me? Or is anyone else tired of the supposedly impartial, self-proclaimed independently thinking Libertarians? Seriously. I am so utterly fatigued by these guys and their ever-shifting hypothesis in defense of their self-righteousness.
Now, before you of the Libertarian persuasion start rolling your eyes—or more likely—getting all tickle-finger and grabbing for your precious guns, let me give you some background and then explain my total exasperation with folks in your party.
I have a lot of friends and know a lot of people who are Libertarians. And as people, I get along with them just fine; I’ve never had much issue with them, nor they with me. But ever since the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings at Sandy Hook, boy ol’ boy, have I seen a new side of Libertarians.
Libertarians, I used to think, were in fact a third-rail party, whose members didn’t care for either Republican or Democratic governance—in fact, they didn’t seem to care much for any kind of governance. And most of the Libertarians I knew were some of the most well-informed, often times more so than their Republican or Democratic counters. However, something’s happened recently…and I’m somewhat disconcerted that I’m beginning to see the true face of Libertarians.
What is this new face? Well, that despite their self-positioning on the political landscape and despite their claims of impartiality and independence, what they really are is a tool, a shill for the Republican Party, an accomplice for the extreme right wing Tea Party agenda. And to be honest, they’re presenting themselves more and more to be a bunch of inconsistent, illogical hypocrites.
As I said earlier, the picture started to change right after Sandy Hook. My Libertarian friends took to Facebook and started letting the entire FB universe know that their guns and their access to all kinds of guns (and tanks and helicopters and missile launchers and weapons of all kind) were not to be messed with, touched, even looked at in the slightest askew manner.
Now I can understand them wanting to defend what they believe is a personal liberty—the end all, be all concern for Libertarians. But these are the same people who mocked me for years about “being a wussy, do-nothing liberal” because, supposedly, all I ever did was post crap on FB. And now, here they are, doing the exact same thing. But somehow, because it’s them, they’re changing the world by posting on FB and asking others to “share.”
“Let’s keep sharing and passing this important idea on, people! We need to fight evil wherever it exists.”
Hmm…that’s interesting. When a liberal does it, it’s a waste of time; when they do it, they’re fighting evil wherever it exists…
So then the NRA comes out with their “common sense solution” to gun violence—more guns and definitely start posting armed guards on school campuses. Um, yeah. What did my Libertarian friends (and by extension, all of their Libertarian friends and acquaintances on FB) do? They praised the NRA for coming up with the God-send solution.
So I respond: “great idea—there’s too much gun violence in the country so the most logical solution is more guns. By the way, heart attack is the number one killer of Americans. Let’s induce more heart attacks as a way to solve the problem.”
Oh, the shit storm that I got… “troll,” “America hater,” “gun grabber,” “typical liberal scum,” “spineless communist,” etc.
One woman, let’s call her “Linda,” says that the only solution to school shootings is for parents to take up armed posts outside their children’s schools.
Seriously? How many parents can actually afford to quit their full-time jobs and go stand post outside their child’s school for eight hours a day? But, in my mind, that was a small hiccup in their overall indigestion of flip-flopping values. I prodded her on a different point: “if parents actually started standing guard outside schools with weapons, you’ll start screaming about this being some kind of crazy, hostile takeover.”
And sure enough, three days later, a father who was a Marine took up armed post outside his son’s school. To make the point that he was serious about the matter—and apparently that he’s a true patriot—he stood post in his uniform. This lady did exactly what I predicted—she started screaming bloody murder: “See! This is the beginning of government take over! Patriots, get ready to defend your freedoms against government encroachment!”
And speaking of patriots and the military, I noticed that Libertarians post a lot of pro-military memes to FB. When Navy SEAL and trained sniper Chris Kyle was killed on a shooting range, they all swarmed FB with posts about how he was a true hero. They derided liberals as communists and America haters for even daring to point out the simple irony. Apparently, in the Libertarian eye, saying something that is ironic, is ironic, amounts to being a traitor. But they can call President Obama a monkey and a “Halfrican,” and claim that they’re not racists.
Back to Chris Kyle—”Linda” tells me to stop laughing at the tragic death of a true American hero. I wasn’t aware I had been laughing…apparently Libertarians need more comprehension lessons.
So, Libertarians loves them some military. But then they post a bunch of utter crap about needing military grade weapons to fight off “that eventual military invasion.” I’m just curious how any of you praise the military in one breath and then in the next, spew all that ridiculous nonsense about the US government coming to impose Fascist America on you, by way of military cleansing.
Please, stop with your overactive imagination and your delusional paranoia. Don’t project your nutty, self-aggrandizing “Red Dawn” fantasy on the rest of us.
Let’s check the score: Marine standing guard outside his child’s school is “government coming to get us.” But you profess to love the military. But you want the same weapons they get because you know the military—which you love—is coming to get you.
Riiiight.
My other favorite of these Libertarians is the trite and clichéd attack on President Obama. They claim he’s a tyrant because he wants to regulate access to guns a little more in light of all the recent mass killings using guns. But then they go and post all these memes about the crappy state of our economy and how it’s all Obama’s fault because he’s simply not a good leader. He’s not effective; he’s can’t get anything done; he won’t compromise…hell, he’s not even a real American citizen.
And when Congress refuses to cooperate, especially the GOP-run House, and Obama uses an executive order or a signing statement, these Libertarians are all up in arms again about him being a megalomaniac.
“He’s a dictator, just like Hitler.”
“What a fucking despot.”
Hey, you guys forgot communist, socialist Muslim, Kenyan terrorist…without a birth certificate…
Let’s check the score again: Obama is a Fascist tyrant. But somehow, this almighty tyrant can’t get anything done through the duly-elected government, can’t even get the intransigent GOP to budge in the least. The government inaction is running this exceptional nation into the ground and Obama ought to do something to earn his pay. And when he does go around the mud-stuck, fossilized Congress, he’s a Hitler-esque despot…
You know what this reminds me of? Back during the Dark Ages, otherwise known as the Bush years, there were liberals who said Bush was a dumb ass AND yet attributed to him the amazing ability to pull off the biggest government conspiracy of all time—the inside job of 9/11. But you know what? We called these people what they were—nut jobs, conspiracy theorists, hypocrites, illogical…or just plain stupid.
And frankly, so did you. You guys called these Libbies the same thing.
So then why is it a crazy conspiracy when others project their hyperactive imaginations but when you do, it’s suddenly, “only a conspiracy until it comes true…and believe you me, it’s going to come true real soon.”
It’s been 250+ years. I’m still waiting for the US government to execute that all-out assault and enslave the American people.
You know what’s funny…and tragic at the same time? You guys claim you aren’t conspiracy theorists; you see yourselves rather as Paul Revere, sounding the bell in advance, cautioning your fellow patriots of the impending Obama coup. But then I see memes posted to your FB mocking the people who believed in the Mayan prediction for the end of the world.
Lastly, my Libertarian friends talk such a good game about individual liberties but said nothing when Bush rounded up American citizens and imprisoned them at Guantamo Bay. They’ll post memes about Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 (Japanese Interment) and how that was a vicious, tyrannous act, but remain absolutely mute about Bush’s dragnet. Worse yet, some of them cheerlead and applaud the dragnet as “defending the USA against evil-doing terrorists.” Yet Obama, who killed Osama bin Laden is a terrorist sympathizer, life-time member of the Muslim Brotherhood…
Speaking of which, why is Bush a national hero and a patriot for getting Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda, but Obama is still a subversive, perfidious terrorist lying in wait to execute…wait for it…”Obamanation 2016?”
And seriously, Libertarians, if individual freedom is so important to you, such a core belief of your party, then why are you guys not up in arms overzealously goading “REVOLUTION!” over the Supreme Court arguing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not relevant and not Constitutional? Worse yet, why aren’t any of you threatening civil war over the racist comment of Justice Antonin Scalia calling the restoration and protection of the right to vote to African Americans “a racial entitlement?” Isn’t the basic right to vote the absolute, quintessential, personal freedom that ensures individual liberty?
One Libertarian on one of these FB strands even had the nerve to tell me, “Voting is not a Libertarian issue; we are concerned with freedom and liberty, not voting. Voting as a right is a liberal myth perpetuated by progressives.” Uh, say what?
And please, trying to sound smart and intelligent by telling me to go back and read the originals, the greats, such as Rousseau, Locke, Paine or the Federalist Papers is completely useless and inane. Firstly, you all call liberals “the liberal elite” because somehow, we like to live in an educated, fact-based world. So if you don’t like our usage of our education, why would you condescend and tell us to go seek out “your education?” If our education makes us elite in some kind of pejorative sense, why doesn’t yours?
And let’s face facts…you guys don’t own Rousseau, Locke, Paine or any of the Federalists. I can just as easily flip open their works and find numerous quotes and ideas that support the liberal perspective.
I’m not sure what’s happened to the Libertarians as of late. They seem to have gone from seemingly smart and informed to reactionary and all over the map, adopting whatever rationale is suitable to argue whatever their fancy—or fantasy—may be at that particular juncture in time, so long as it upholds their closeted defense of, and allegiance to, the right wing Tea Party agenda.
If you are Libertarian, and just want to give me crap as backlash, by all means. Do so. I’m ready for it.
However, if you are a Libertarian, and can explain this recent conversion to me in a way that is consistent in principle, and actually makes sense, please do so. I’d love to hear from you.
Related Posts :
Bill Maher called out Paul Ryan and Rand Paul along with other Libertarians for being selfish pricks who ...
In every country in the world, there are certain infrastructure projects that need government’s infusion ...
It's America's first ever "Gun Appreciation Day" brought to you by the gun lobby, so all you parents out the ...
You might have missed this. The infamous pink handcuff aficionado from Arizona is solving the nation's p ...
People like to criticize Hollywood stars as intellectual lightweights. They might wish to reconsider whe ...
40 Responses to Seriously, Libertarians…WTF?
Public Service Advertisements
Reynardine
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 8:51 am
Basically, they’ve been…peoplejacked
txb23
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 9:05 am
“…most of the Libertarians I knew were some of the most well-informed…”
You’ve known well-informed Libertarians? Virtually all of the Libertarians I know would be at a loss to tell you what “libertarian” means. They’re the kind of people who don’t really know anything about politics, but they know they don’t want to be Republicans or Democrats, so they picked the only other party they’d heard of, just to seem cool. They’re morons, bereft of the ability to conceive or convey logical arguments, and their typical means of communication is only a notch or two above grunting. Many of the so-called Libertarians I’ve known were excited by the arrival of the Tea Party, and joined their ranks at the first opportunity (yet they still call themselves “libertarians” — though not necessarily with a capital L).
PSzymeczek
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Thom Hartmann once defined Libertarians as “conservatives who want the freedom to smoke pot and patronize prostitutes without getting arrested.”
Moongal6
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
I was just going to say practically the same thing. It’s been my experience that “Libertarians” are just Republicans with a bong.
Logan4Evers
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 5:35 pm
LOL! Good one! I must remember to use that at some point!
mjh
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
Thom Hartmann once defined Libertarians as “conservatives who want the freedom to smoke pot and patronize prostitutes without getting arrested.”
I usually simplify that to “a libertarian is a rightwingnut who likes his drugs.”
.
Curt Doolittle
Mar. 8th, 2013 at 7:59 am
INFORMED OR NOT?
Actually, every piece of data that we have confirms that libertarians are both the best informed and the most economically knowledgeable. (And almost entirely male.)
Economic conservatives who state they are libertarian are not incorrect, since libertarianism is simply a commercial offshoot of conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism.)
Social conservatives do not generally state that they are libertarian, because they place higher emphasis on norms, and are, most of teh time, representing the middle, lower middle, and upper proletarian classes. Upper middle class conservatives tend to self identify either as classical liberal libertarians. And that pure ‘geeks’ as libertarians entirely. This difference has to do with the perceived value of the opinions of others, and roughly maps to 15points of periodicity in the IQ curve, and therefore to social class. This is because ‘others’ are an advantage to more average people because they provide information and ideas, and less of an informed source to more intellectually and financially independent people. There is no mystery to this. It isn’t the 19th century. We have a lot of polling data that goes back to the second world war now. And we have fair economic data back into the 1700′s.
Political preferences generally are a) genetic in origin and b) reflect our different reproductive strategies – at least in the aggregate. That is why people’s preferences don’t change, other than that they tend to become more conservative as they age, and gain a deeper understanding of human nature.
This is just how it is. Political argument is specious because no one is ever convinced of anything. They just reinforce their existing opinions because their existing opinions are necessary for their reproductive strategy. Liberals for example (less than 20% of the population) are not breeding. Conservatives are breeding. And immigrants are outbreeding them both. The only material shift in the polity has come from the increases in single mothers, who would have swung conservative but as single mothers swing left to gain support from the state that they cannot get from a husband and family. And the constant shift of white nuclear family voters to the republican party, which is, at present, becoming the ‘white’ party, at least numerically.
Parties are arbitrary devices. They don’t mean much other than that the party structure in different countries causes more or less diversity of interest, while power still consists of coalitions built ether in the populace directly as here in the states, or in the government’s multi-party system as in much of Europe.
This, in turn, is caused by the use of majority rule as a deciding factor in political action. Versus the multiple-winners and losers in markets.
Cheers
Reynardine
Mar. 8th, 2013 at 10:35 am
Mr. Doolittle, thank you for that entertaining dish of intellectual spaghetti putanesca. There is, however, little nourishment in it.
Intelligence, nervousness, even a degree of dominance, submissiveness, or independence can be inherited as tendencies, which can be developed, repressed, or modified by upbringing. Political affiliations are not. I hate to distress you, but I, who have no biological children, have induced liberalism in the children of reactionaries. You think about that
CynthiaR
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 9:09 am
What a rollicking good read! Couldn’t agree more and wish I’d written it myself!
Logan4Evers
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 5:35 pm
Thank you!
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 9:30 am
living within the libertarian world must be awfully confusing as to what you’re supposed to be for this week. If I listen to Ron Paul who was supposedly libertarian, you have all the rights and the world however you hardly have any rights at all. He talked about your rights but three times he tried to pass a personhood bill to get rid of birth control. He was no different than a Republican
In a libertarian world a Corp. has the right to pollute, and you have the right to sue. As if you could sue a major Corp.
I totally agree they are nothing more than Republicans. The tea party are Republicans, Libertarians are Republicans. And true to the Republicans theme song they are as dishonest as the day is long
Sandra
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 11:53 pm
I don’t understand their moniker when they run under the R’thuglican Party banner. If they are different and have different policies/ideologies, shouldn’t they run as third party candidates? I though Ron Paul was the biggest hypocrite, calling himself a Libertarian yet spent decades in DC voting as a R’thuglican. Libertarian, Teabaggers, R’thuglican are one and the same. They are only fooling themselves and the eegits who vote for them.
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 8th, 2013 at 12:35 am
Paul voted for corporations every time. He did little for peoples rights except talk about them. He also tried to pass personhood bills 3 times, which is a conservative xtian fundie routine.
Reynardine
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 9:55 am
There used to be intelligent Libertarians, twenty or thirty years ago. As I said, they’ve been peoplejacked by Dombots and Kochbots, and believe “liberty” means their own liberty to use any means, including censorship and armed violence, to force everyone else to live, think, vote, and worship according to what they mistakenly believe to be their own ideas.
robyn ryan
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 10:51 am
America could have been brave and free. Instead, we chose to be paranoid armed bullies.
Mike Rogers
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 10:53 am
A case-in-point to the th.eme of this article was something that I saw last night on a Facebook Libertarian page. They were lauding Rand Paul as a hero because of his filibuster. Since when is filibustering heroic?
Doc
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 12:40 pm
Thanks for pointing out so many Libertarian hypocrisies.
The currently popular teabagger version of Libertarianism is “carpetbagger Libertarianism,” at best. A hyper-wealthy elite (think Koch brothers) pump out the accepted memes through their wholly-owned consortium of “advocacy groups” (Americans for Prosperity, its clones, knock-offs, spinoffs and imitators). A bunch of lizard brains get activated, swallow the talking points whole, internalize and repeat them. The result is that a mass of self-righteous people actually think they have valid rationales for undermining what’s in their best interests: a strong middle class and a compassionate society that doesn’t let people fail catastrophically due to bad luck or other issues beyond immediate control.
The puppets read something, so they purport to be well-informed and sometimes even seem to be. But follow their sources, their self-generated and self-justifying facts, and the whole thing falls apart.
Just because “liberal elites” paid attention during class and learned the difference between credible sources and crap, between being told what to think and thinking for themselves, does not mean they are wrong. As it turns out, the facts do actually have a liberal bias when vetted using time-honored scholarly standards. Anyone claiming to argue from the facts who does not understand this is simply deluded. And a little demented, oftentimes.
Eric
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 1:29 pm
There are a lot of conservatives calling themselves “libertarians” because they are too ashamed to call themselves “Republicans”.
They aren’t Libertarians. They’re trolls.
knight4444
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 2:20 pm
Libertains typically are a JOKE!!! they usually side with republicans which completely devalues their point!! Their hands off do whatever the FU*K you want political philosophy right there should make them run away from republicans!! Lets look at core libertarian ideas, less government, anyone with any basic understanding of reality knows republicans are ALL about government!! remember the Terri Schivo case???? republicans religious nuts wanted the government to get between her and her husband!!! Now how could ANY self respecting libertarian not find that offensive!!!!!!?? Thom Hartmann is absolutely correct!! those idiot want zero government getting in the way of their partying lifestyle!! HEY! Ron Paul!! let me hit that!! Puff Puff pass B*TCH!!!
Curt Doolittle
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 3:20 pm
INTERESTING POST AND COMMENTS
There is a reason that the term ‘libertarian’ cannot be explained, the same way social democrats cannot explain marxist theory (which is extremely elaborate. Like leftism, Libertarianism can refer to a sentiment (the preference for liberty above all other moral ambitions). It can refer to a moral conviction that liberty produces ‘goods’. It can refer to a political preference – which is the minimization or elimination of bureaucracy because all bureaucracy becomes self serving. It can refer to an economic model that suggests liberty will provide the most competitive and wealthiest economy for all. It can refer to a political model, such as Classical Liberalism, Private government or Anarcho Capitalism. It can refer to a specific and rigid philosophical doctrine that states that all exchanges must be voluntary and devoid of fraud theft or violence. And in the classical liberal model, additionally, that transactions may not cause externalities (external involuntary transfers), and that norms and the commons are forms of property we must pay for through forgone opportunities for self gratification. But whether anarchic or classical liberal, or anything in between, the guiding principle is that all rights can be reduced to property rights, and the only ‘rights’ we can possess are those that are reducible to property rights. Libertarianism is, aside from marxism, the most analytically rigorous political theory that exists.
So a person who refers to himself as a libertarian, may be correct in that he prefers less government and more personal liberty, for anything from a sentimental desire, to a fully and rationally articulated philosophical, economic and political model.
So if someone doesn’t know how to explain what ‘libertarianism is” that’s because you’re talking to people with sentimental attraction rather than something more rationally chosen.
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Why would democrats try to explain “marxist theory”?
Curt Doolittle
Mar. 8th, 2013 at 8:20 am
QUOTE: The currently popular teabagger version of Libertarianism is “carpetbagger Libertarianism,” at best. A hyper-wealthy elite (think Koch brothers) pump out the accepted memes through their wholly-owned consortium of “advocacy groups”
ANSWER: Actually, conservatives made an intentional decision to abandon the popular press as a vehicle, because the combination of left bias in the media, and in the school system required an alternative means of advocacy.
This led to a focus on think tanks, magazines, inexpensive AM radio, and governorships.
These think tanks have produced a series of strategies and ideologies.
One of them was that we ally with the capitalists (big money) to compete with the state, that was dependent upon these companies for revenue to support their left leaning programs.
Another strategy was to try to drive the government into bankruptcy before it could bankrupt and corporatize the private sector, and therefore illustrate the failure of the Keynesian debt model and inter-temporal redistribution that the social democratic state’s ponzi-financing was built upon. And then return to a savings and interest state that was less fragile. This strategy is what you see being played out in washington today. Forcing the government into insolvency in order to undermine the state’s legitimacy.
THe problem was, that while conservatives were able to understand that the left would use immigration and the destruction of the nuclear family to win a majority, they believed that they could morally appeal to the majority of the american public that leans conservative. And it worked. They changed the debate.
What they did not count on was the rapidity of immigration from the third world, the drop in reproductive rates, and the loss of american economic advantage once the rest of the world adopted capitalism. The general conservative thinking was that we could outlast the communist movement worldwide, and protect our empire inherited from the British empire. They did not count on the attempt of the muslim world to organize and undermine the world system of oil production that the USA used to finance it’s military operations by selling petrodollars, then inflating them away. THis is how we pay for the 1/3 of our budget that we cannot pay for out of tax production. It is also how Europe affords its services: they don’t pay for the stabilization of oil prices either with policy or military expenditure like we do.
I know this history because I was there. I was a bit player. But I have been involved in this thinking since high school. What changed my mind is the realization that the constitution failed to protect our individual rights. And that by introducing women into the voting pool, we forever changed the classical liberal and aristocratic models, because women have a genetic interest that is the polar opposite of that of men.
So some of us are trying to figure out what we do next.
Cheers.
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 8th, 2013 at 8:41 am
The left trying to destroy the nuclear family? Ponzi financing? The Muslim world undermining undermining society?
“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” –M. L. King “
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 8th, 2013 at 9:19 am
A rant of epic proportions that went no wheres at light speed
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 8th, 2013 at 8:51 am
Really? I guess thats why the conservatives on tv shows and the media outstripped the democratic candidates 3-1
Curt Doolittle
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Explaining the libertarian perspective.
I.
Libertarians are not idealists about human nature.
1) they believe that weapons should be in their hands in case the government overreaches. The cost of government abuse is higher in the aggregate than even war. There is no higher ‘good’ that preserving liberty.
2) They believe that the data shows that disarming people increases crime.
3) They believe that the only way to protect children is to either arm teachers or put armed guards, armed parents, or armed policemen in the schools.
II.
1) The woman who complained was a conservative not a libertarian.
III.
1) The west developed the high trust society out of indo european aristocratic egalitarianism. (evolving to aristocratic manorialism). I won’t bore you with the full set of historical details. Conservatives are the remnants of this manorial system and the reason that we have the high trust society that the rest of the world can only marvel at. Necessary components of the high trust society are forced outbreeding (forbidding cousin-marriage) and property rights. This breaks normal familial and tribal bonds and fools humans into acting as if all people in a society are family members. (Something that only westerners think.)
Libertarians in the founding fathers sense, are a product of the rise of anglo commercial society during the enlightenment. They are STILL ARISTOCRATIC, in that they are both meritocratic, and fully embrace universalism. HOwever they havec dropped the militarism since it’s unprofitable under trade, even though it was highly profitable under manorialism, and the only source of profit under indo european pastoralism.
In more practical terms, just as liberals are the thought leadership for social democrats, libertarians are the thought leadership for the conservatives. Conservatives speak in metaphorical and allegorical and historical language. Classical Liberal Libertarians speak in philosophical language, and Anarchic Libertarians and Private Government libertarians speak in economic language and use analytical philosophy.
Cheers
PS: I found this post through google alerts that I have set up for any blog that posts about libertarianism.
Logan4Evers
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 5:19 pm
You know, I won’t even pretend to understand or have the slightest understanding of some of the terms (and the historical context/theory behind them) you threw out, but I am familiar with a lot of other theories through literature and philosophy that touch on some of these.
I like what you’ve said here. Some of it makes sense, even if it’s hard to accept, like the idea that liberty comes above all other morals… but what I like and appreciate most here, is the manner in which you explain things. Besides the civil tone (which I think too many people get too hung up on), it is ultra intellectual and steeped in theory. Having come from a literature/philosophy background, I appreciate that.
You mentioned you saw this through some google notification. I’m curious: are you Libertarian or are you doing research/study on Libertarianism?
Reynardine
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Uh, Logan, though Curt’s civility is indeed admirable, as someone who had to devote an unusual amount of study to the feudal system, I warn you that this guy is gobbledegooking us
Curt Doolittle
Mar. 8th, 2013 at 8:01 am
Happy to defend a criticism if you posit one. On the other hand. Name calling is not a form of argument. :) It’s a form of surrender. :) -
See. THAT is trolling. There is a difference. ;)
Now, I’m just playing. Dont get bent out of shape. :)
Cheers.
Reynardine
Mar. 8th, 2013 at 10:42 am
Who called you a name? I merely characterized your discourse.
mjh
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
You mentioned you saw this through some google notification. I’m curious: are you Libertarian or are you doing research/study on Libertarianism?
Neither. Just trolling
.
Sherlock
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 5:54 pm
I love Rand Paul – what a guy– you could say his name backwards and it sounds even better. Too bad he is so obsessed by the the Nazi Party of early 1920′s.
I think his uncle was Jewish and his cousin Herr Werner was a brown shirt . Oy vey
The holidays were a bitch! I think his brother in law owned a wheelbarrow company.
Every speech he makes he talks about wheelbarrows full of money
I don’t think Rand likes the United Nations much. Poor guy. Think about it,.
Everyone in your family is wacko about the Nazis and the UN. Boring. Better off if they drank a lot or something.
Steve
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 7:11 pm
Libertarian is a buzz word. Anarcho-capitalist on the other hand…now there’s a person who holds actual libertarian principles. You could say the same for anarcho-communists. I laughed when I read this, because these people you “researched” on facebook are obviously conservatives/republicrats who have chosen to use the word libertarian in exchange for the dirty word that “Republican” has become these days. It’s a fashion statement, not an ideology…and certainly not a philosophy.
I am a libertarian, but this only means one thing: I adhere to the principle of non-agression, meaning I completely reject the INITIATION of force (violence, coercion) against another human being – in ANY situation. That’s all it means. From that fundamental principle, there are differing economic strands (hence anarcho-communism and -capitalism), but those who actually understand the philosophy will conclude that the only way to establish a moral society in on the basis of voluntarism. There is disagreement within the overarching libertarian “big tent” – particularly between anarchists and so-called minarchists. Minarchists would be those who subscribe to objectivism (i.e. Ayn Rand) and conceive the state’s sole purpose is to defend individual rights in the form of an army (outside aggressors), police (inside aggressors) and the courts (private disputes).
Oh, and by the way…anyone who tells you to go and read Rousseau for libertarian guidance is either confused, a complete fool, or deliberately misleading you. I would suggest reading Bastiat’s essay “The Law” in order to determine why Rousseau fails the litmus test, but suffice it to say he was one of the great proponents of the “social contract” (i.e. the state’s authority over the individual). Anyone who considers the non-aggression principle (the fundamental requirement for identifying as any type of actual libertarian) will almost always at some point consider consider the state to be functionally immoral, thus making every decision within a statist society an amoral one.
David
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 7:26 pm
I don’t know what libertarians you know, but they don’t resemble me or the other libertarians I know, I found your article a bit of screed, nonetheless, as you’ve managed to conflate your narrow–in terms of the overall libertarian universe–experience with libertarians with the general political movement and theory of libertarianism.
I hope you meet some other libertarians, particularly those of us on the anarchist end of the spectrum.
Cheers,
-d-
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 9:32 pm
Anarchy? No thanks. The gun freaks come out on top int hat situation. Maybe you could go to yemem or something
Logan4Evers
Mar. 7th, 2013 at 10:44 pm
David,
Please expand. I’m curious to hear what you have to say.
Curt Doolittle
Mar. 8th, 2013 at 5:49 am
Thank you for the kind words. I try very hard. The truth is that in the past, I intentionally tried the antagonistic approach for a year (because it draws a lot of attention) and realized that it was’t helping me understand anyone, or any one understand me, and it was drawing negative attention. So I changed my approach, and have tried to be objectively informative. The work by Jonathan Haidt helped me understand the progressive and liberal perspective and supplied enough quantitative data to support all perspectives, that I ceased attributing negative intent to most political argument regardless of spectrum.
As for my work in Libertarian and conservative theory, I’m one of the only active post-analytic libertarian philosophers. My original intent was to assist conservatives in speaking in rational language rather than metaphorical language. My thoughts on that have changed over the past few years. Now my work is an attempt to find a solution to post-democratic government, and the problem of conflict in large polities under majority rule.
Rorty has put forth that the metaphysical program has been a failure and that ‘truth’ is effectively consent. “whatever people agree upon”. This is what separates analytic from post analytic philosophy: that we abandon the program of justifying philosophy as a science, and that we fully incorporate science, and attempt to interpret, understand and incorporate it.
Rothbard reduced all rights to property rights and voluntary exchange – effectively making the same argument as Rorty. (Although that’s a difficult statement for some to swallow.)
Rothbard attempted to create an anarchic system, but like most reformists he failed because his ethical program was insufficiently complete to satisfy the moral and reproductive requirements of other than a narrow minority.
Hoppe, following Rothbard, extended propertarian reasoning and solved the problem of a monopolistic bureaucracy with competing insurance companies. Which is largely (at least in terms of budgetary activity) what the US Government and most western governments do today. Very little is spent on what we supposedly justify government with : infrastructure. This solution satisfies the needs for small homogenous polities. Partly because small homogenous polities are highly redistributive because they function as an extended family. And in turn, this is because increasing diversity does incrase status signal rewards for people at the bottom of society for a time, but it has the consequence of eroding trust and exchange.
The problem is, that small homogenous polities a) have less ability to insure, b) have less ability to negotiate import export terms. And so large polities are more economically competitive, but have much higher internal friction and resistance to redistribution. I am trying to solve this problem. I think I have. But time will tell.
Cheers.
Reynardine
Mar. 8th, 2013 at 10:45 am
The gobbledegook battalion is out in force, I see
Cognition
Mar. 12th, 2013 at 7:38 pm
So the take home that I got from this was as follows:
1. A crisis occurs (what could be thought of as the 9/11 of school shootings) and many lawmakers attempt to exploit it to pass new laws that restrict what the author of this post should know well Libertarians are in support of.
2. The Libertarian friends – whoever they are – object to this. Much in the same way they would object to any other non-Libertarian policies (interventionist wars for instance).
3. You then conclude that they must be republicans in disguise because (GOD FORBID!) they take a the Libertarian position on this SPECIFIC issue.
I mean, it’s fine if you’re offended by the fact that we react to calls for a “national conversation” in the same way we react to calls for a “war on terror” or whatnot, but how does that support the conclusion you pass off as true in your post?
I guess what offends liberals about Libertarians (and I really do refer to the big “L” ones and not the wannabes who like the label) is the fact that all those criticisms about being some kind of bigoted homophobic privacy-hating over-moralizing warmongering neocons just doesn’t apply to us.
Maybe the difficulty in addressing the arguments means that not having the convenience of the usual dismissals you have for those on the right makes dealing with us a lot harder.
Logan4Evers
Mar. 14th, 2013 at 3:24 am
Cognition,
I think you oversimplified the content of my column and used a convenient dismissal in your own response. I don’t have a problem with my Libertarian friends objecting to this. It’s the way they have objected. Their objections are completely illogical as they often contradict a previous, as well as, a subsequent claim.
Does that make them Republican? Not necessarily. But their defensive claims all sound pretty cut-and-dry Republican. Please feel free to read back through the post and reexamine the defensive claims I’ve quoted from my libertarian friends (and their associates). What in there doesn’t sound like a GOP talking point?