Posted on 11/08/2007 9:27:47 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
It seems that calling yourself a libertarian is the chic thing to do in college these days. If students are frustrated with both parties, they often say, "Oh, I'm a libertarian."
On the surface, modern libertarianism does seem enticing -- it's either "the stay out of my bedroom and don't pass laws against what I want to smoke" or the whole "capitalism is god" thing that seems to grab students' attention.
It's understandable. What's more enticing than sexual freedom, reefer madness and lots of money? Hey, throw in unlimited nap time and I'm on board.
I'm not trying to marginalize libertarians, though. They did that to themselves a while ago. But those pesky, politically inept creatures seem to be making a comeback.
Take, for example, the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Paul is an outright libertarian, having run on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988.
He has generated a bit of buzz on the Internet and managed to pull in $4.2 million in fundraising Monday with his "This November 5th" campaign. It was the largest fundraising record of all the Republicans in the race for one day.
Don't let that fool you, though. Paul is lagging far behind in the polls, and his record speaks more about the poor field of candidates than anything. Paul even had some supporters holding signs Monday out on the corner of Valley Mills and Waco drives. That still doesn't change the fact that Paul is a nutcase, however.
For starters, Paul has gone on record as advocating an end to the federal income tax. Sounds great on paper, but stop and think about all the basic government services you would lose.
No worries for Paul, though, because he is also for abolishing the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and the Interstate Commerce Commission. Basically, if you hate the government, then Paul is your man.
Paul also opposes the Federal Reserve and advocates a return to hard money (gold standard) or authorizing gold and silver as legal tender to compete with our current fiat currency. He also advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and NATO and for workers to opt out of Social Security.
He votes against most spending bills and pretty much anything else not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. This attitude is unproductive at best and downright destructive at worst.
The point is, libertarians are unrealistic people.
They come in all shapes and sizes. Technically, they can lean right or left, but the true libertarian falls within no specific party at all.
But really they are unreasonable people and are usually just lazy closet liberals or conservatives. But I'm just talking about the diehards here -- they can be really annoying.
After all, if you believe in democracy, you have a little libertarian inside of you, too -- we all do.
Modern libertarians are descended from classical liberalism. In the classical definition of the word, most of us are "liberals" -- we believe in limited government, free markets and individual rights among other things.
Both parties today simply put more of an emphasis on either the individual or the economic side of things. But libertarians try to have it both ways, and it doesn't always work. They are just extremist pessimists and should be considered a menace.
You might think I'm picking on Paul. That's because I am.
People like him have no concept of community. They say the "invisible hand" can solve everything, but deep down inside, I think they're just selfish.
If you consider yourself a libertarian or know a libertarian, you should seek immediate professional help.
I know. If this article was supposed to be disparaging it didn't do a very good job.
Most of the people on this board including myself are Republicans with what I would call a "libertarian bent."
Not that I am against the war. I just think we should have fought it to win rather than using the Mr.Rogers/Care Bears rules of engagement.
(well, there is the troubling little fact that the national party seems to keep finding the most extreme advocates of the philosophy, but if one realizes that the party is NOT well-represented by those folks, one can stop making improper over-generalizations about the party.)
There is a difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian.
I'm guess I'm a stock-standard 'conservative with libertarian leanings' but this passage from the article is naivete writ large and indicative of the ignorance prevalent (and fostered) on campus.
As usual the Constitution is an inconvenience and a relic to the libbies until they need to 'find' something in it such as abortion or anchor-baby status.
Here Here, I think the situation has turned an important corner in Iraq with Al Quida being on the run and Alliances are being formed with Sunni’s in al Anbar.
WE may go bankrupt in 30 yrs, but if we leave Iraq and the PetroDollar collapses we will be in for some incredibly hard times faster then I can type Stagflation to save the dollar.
Nothing wrong with that.
No worries for Paul, though, because he is also for abolishing the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and the Interstate Commerce Commission. Basically, if you hate the government, then Paul is your man.
Paul also opposes the Federal Reserve and advocates a return to hard money (gold standard) or authorizing gold and silver as legal tender to compete with our current fiat currency. He also advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and NATO and for workers to opt out of Social Security.
He votes against most spending bills and pretty much anything else not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. This attitude is unproductive at best and downright destructive at worst.
The point is, libertarians are unrealistic people.
So...Ron Paul is pretty much the only candidate who actually supports a return to the government which our Founding Fathers implemented? Works for me!
Ya know, I was kinda waffling about who to vote for this primary. This article has clinched it - RP it is!
"You're all smelly, atheistic, sexually depraved potheads. No one cares what you think, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Oh, and if our side loses the next election, it'll be your fault for not voting for us."
Ridiculous assertion by the author.
Libertarians can’t get out of their own way, let alone become a ‘menace’ to anyone....(chuckle)
We have too much “democracy” right now, and, unfortunately, we’re bound and determined to get more.
Don't let that fool you, though. Paul is lagging far behind in the polls, and his record speaks more about the poor field of candidates than anything
Why does the fact that Paul (called a nutcase in the next paragraph) is lagging in the polls imply that the other candidated constitute a poor field?
People like him have no concept of community. They say the "invisible hand" can solve everything, but deep down inside, I think they're just selfish.
Who cares what you think? After all the article isn't very thoughtful.
Good arguments can be made against some of the Libertarian posistions. But you made none. For example, the gold standard: you could read Milton Freidman's analysis in his book "Free to Choose." Or you could make arguments about the Libertarians position on abortion from the inalienable rights clause of the Declaration of Independence. Further you could make arguments against free sex on the basis of Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England." Abraham Lincoln made many arguments against popular sovereingty in his debates with Douglass.
You say he's an unrealistic selfish nutcase whose ideas sound good on paper but are unproductive, annoying, or destructive; and he's just an extremist pessimist and should be considered a menace. At least his ideas sound good on paper.
(Never mind, don't tell me... it just might be there, LOL. It ain't in MY Libertarian platform!!!)
The needle should be pegged on the BS meter.
This author is an idiot.
Strawman. Neither would libertarians. PUBLIC behaviors may rightly be regulated. Unlike PRIVATE, consensual behaviors.
It's not necessary to support abolishing Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and the Interstate Commerce Commission.
I'd settle for just the DOE and the IRS.
It's not necessary to advocate a return to hard money (gold standard) or withdrawal from the United Nations and NATO and for workers to opt out of Social Security.
Getting out of the UN and the Social Security opt-out would more than satisfy me as a good first step.
I am sure there are a lot of others who are similarly not as "extremist" as Dr. Paul!
What services? Roads are paid for through the gas tax, license plates, and other fees. Police and fire department are paid for through local taxes. The only "services" the Feds provide that I give a rat's ass about are those proscribed by the Constitution, which are a miniscule part of the budget and could be paid for through tariffs or a 5% national sales tax.
This nation was never intended to be a pure democracy. It was intended to be a constitutional republic with a democratically elected legislature and executive.
I’m all for abolishing the dept of education but abolishing all taxes completely? That’s nutty.
Also, what is wrong with protecting national security
btw the ICC was abolished
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.