Monday, August 22, 2011

RTC: "Why I am no longer a libertarian."

Feel free to share your own analysis, for I don't have the time.


Phelps said...

Meh. I left the LP when they went batshit against the liberation of Iraq. Apparently they think freedom is an American right, not a human one.

"Well, would you want another country invading America?" If we were as bad as Saddam's Iraq, hell yeah. Well before then, in fact. If a halfway decent army existed and was willing to come fight with us now, I'm not sure I would be against it. I sure as hell wouldn't if things got worse. Check that, when things get worse.

Anonymous said...

The guy's got some good points, some of which have been aired on here before. What's needed is an edgy descriptive title that people can stick with. The last thing that we want it a "Colored People -> Negroes -> Blacks -> African Americans" slide that shows either we can't make our minds up who we are or that we let other people make those decisions for us or both.

I kind of like Patriot.

Ashrak said...

There is a profound difference between libertarian and Liberaltarian.

I submit that, long ago, the progressives recognized that conservatives are not their biggest threat. They understood that libertarians, who often do not realize they are libertarians, are that threat.

The squishy middle, the independents, the indifferent, the moderates.....they are all libertarians to one degree or another. So the progressive response? Take over that Party and make it as leftist as it could be. Thus, driving away those who are actually libertarian. Corrupt it with the very things this piece hashes over and dilute the possibility of conservatives bailing on the RINOS and seeing a rise of a REAL libertarian movement.

Glenn Beck of FOX news? I guess the Author doesn't watch much FOX News, as Glenn has been gone for a good while now. OOoooops.

I will say this much. A libertarian minded person couldn't care less about the choices others make, so long as those choices bring no unjust harm to another. Honestly, I think the a real libertarian is actually to true conservative, but that is as deep a conversation as rights and privileges being the same damn thing.

Boortz showed true colors of his own idiocy. No true libertarian says that simple exercise of inalienable rights is "playing into" anyone's "hands".

The author talks about star players. Well, that is what George Washington was talking about when he cautioned against political factions in his farewell address.

Then go on to say the he won't vote? Now, that IS quitting! Why, that is the Boortz attitude he just before snapped on! Sheesh.

I myself have long had this battle over what to call myself. I always keep coming back to what someone once called me when I first entered the internet domain. It fit then and it fits now. Independent Free-Thinking Realist.

I don't disagree that the word libertarian has been abused. The same can be said about most words and the culprit is the same regarding most of the definition creep. Progressives.

Too late to save it? Couldn't then the same be said about Republican?

How about this? Keep the definition of the words proper, fight for that - rather than making them into a "PARTY".

J. Croft said...

The biggest problem with Libertarians are they listen to people who spin them about in useless circles or into proverbial brick walls. I was over at the Free State Project for exactly ONE post when I got maliciously blackballed for being ‘racist’-I was suggesting becoming politically effective but too many of them still have it in their heads that politics is a feel good thing. An exercise in political masturbation; do some protests, vote for candidates without lower tier candidates, no real life examples of what it’s like to live in a libertarian society… or even a town.

Guess we have to do this the hard way. They’ll have to live with having an opportunity and BLOWING it.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that you have an active and organized left who call themselves liberal, progressive, socialist who are actually Marxists and they subvert and attack their enemies (us) without consequence, at will.

Give that type of freedom (enjoyed by no one else) to those type of people and very bad thing are going to happen.

You see the media agree with the goals and methods of the left because they are the left. Which is why they get away with telling very big and unsubstantiated lies and if they're enemies are not vulnerable to attack, they make up several and attack anyway.

Give these people that kind of power, without consequence and they will end up ruling the world. They will do this by controlling the very thoughts and opinions of the people they seek to rule and never allowing an uncontrolled debate that will not assure a certain result.

Drew in SC said...

Thought I espouse many libertarian philosophies I would never call myself a Libertarian. Small-l libertarianism is, however, a most convenient philosphical bludgeon with which to hammer the thinking populace.

Anonymous said...

I was a delegate to the 2000 Libertarian Party convention. I was also an Elections Committee Chairman for the Alaska Libertarian Party. I generally line up with the libertarian position on guns, drugs and money. I have poured blood (literally!) and treasure into the Libertarian cause for most of my adult life.

That said, I am presently registered to vote Republican. I will promote Rick Perry's candidacy if he is selected as his party's standard-bearer.

Why is that?

Governor Perry is on record as favoring repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution. This would go a long way toward pushing Leviathan back into the cage it occupied before being released from it by Progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Libertarians are incapable of effecting these necessary changes. Thay may have managed to put together a fine debating society but they have proved to be useless at getting organized politically.

The tea party provides a much better vehicle for the realization of my most important political goal--restoration of the Founder's Republic.

I have wasted enough time and effort on the Libertarian plantation. "I ain't gonna whistle Dixie no more."


bitter clinging Texan said...

I consider myself a libertarian rather than a liberal or a conservative because IMO both have a tendency to wanna use the government to save you from yourself, albiet in different ways. I cant be a liberal because I like guns, believe in a secure border, and distrust the fedgov. I dont quite fit into the traditional repub/conservative camp either, at least not culturally. Im not religious, toke up on mexican agriculture, have hair down to my ass, dont have a problem with gays, etc et al.

Anonymous said...

True libertarians won't miss him at all.

Good riddance.

Sounds like he has a bad attitude since his invitees didn't show up at his party. What a miserable lout.

Rejecting Ron Paul because he is "predictable"?

And, assuming that a jackass like Bob Barr WAS libertarian. Wow.

silly boy, libertarians are better off without him.

daniel said...

Anon, when did I ever say I was rejecting Paul? Oh, I said his foreign policy positions were boringly predictable, of course.

I don't know for sure if I'll vote again or not, but if I did, actually like Paul over the rest of the GOP field.

Scott J said...

b, c, Texan. The vast majority of the libertarians I run across tend to be open border type.

They're also pro-abortist (Boortz in particular) claiming that protecting the rights of the unborn is giving .gov too much dominion over a woman's body.

Personally, I have considered myself to be politically homeless since about 2004. If I were to pick a label it would be Constitutionalist.

Phelps said...

Not all libertarians. I'm the closed border but open imigration (no quotas but keep criminals out) type. And closing the border has to come first.

As for abortion, to me it is completely a question of when the fetus becomes a person. After that it is murder. I'm for harsh restrictions except in cases of incest or rape (since that would be self defense -- anything else is a consequence of the woman's actions.). I could be argued both directions on the question of timing (all the way to conception with good evidence).

My point isn't to start a big debate on these issues. My point is that on individual issues, libertarians can be reasoned different ways, and can often get to what you would consider an acceptable compromise. Part of the problem is the people coming at the issues from a religious standpoint tend to only argue them on those grounds, and you are going to lose the libertarian on those to the (allegedly) rational liberal. That's a real shame because you can often make good rational arguments thar are in line with the spiritual argument.

Anonymous said...

Re libertarians being pro-abortion, I look at it this way: I'd rather have the mother kill junior herself before he's born rather than me having to kill his unloved, maladjusted punk-ass in 20 years when he pulls a gun and tries to rob me.

From a moral perspective, murder is mala in se and this could fall under that heading. On the other hand, many people would support terminating a pregnancy from rape, etc., an act not too distinct from reacting to an "accident".

The real question is, how much power should society have to impose upon an individual citizen? And consequently, what are a person's options if they don't want to subject themselves to that society's arbitrary rule?


Anonymous said...

Boy. It seems I have come to this table much later than most. I've long considered myself very sympathetic to libertarian principles, but only lately have I begun speaking to folks active in the Libetarian Party. All I can say is that they don't sound like they espouse libertarianism, but an only slightly modified version of liberalism. They are off the reservation in my book and I will never again vote for anyone in the LP. The tea party is the closest "party" that promotes anything close to what I believe.