Libertarianism is dying, if not dead already (Ron Paul, independent, ideologies)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A classical liberal in the same vein as Hayek and Friedman. I suggest reading Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative" and ask yourself of the three classifications Hayek discusses in his editorial which classification you would put Goldwater in.
Hayek and Friedman both rightfully claimed to be liberals in the original meaning of the term.
I mean no offense here but my personal opinion is this is not helpful in a pragmatic sense. I've read Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative."
This is an interview with Mr. Goldwater on Thursday, July 28, 1994:
Libertarians (capital or small 'l') have countered that point by depicting ourselves as "classical liberals", in the sense of Voltaire and Locke, for the 45+ years I've been involved with them.
The Libertarian Party has officially been around since 1971. They are as mature as they'll ever be.
They haven't even so much as won a school board or a village council.
The party has always been led by inferiors incapable of leading, planning and organizing, who make nothing happen very slowly.
You couldn't be more wrong. The Libertarian party has members in state congressional seats, to mayors, to governing board members, from red states to blue states. Although the Libertarian party was established in the 70's, its core philosophy is rooted in colonial beliefs for which this country was founded, to escape government tyranny. As far as the party growing, it has done well and getting stronger, young millenials coming of age to participate in government are turning to the Libertarians as an alternative to the corrupted parties in power, they demand too high a price for the cost of membership, money and morals. The main reason you don't see them as strong on the national level is that the Dems and GOP keep them out, the bar to get them on the ballot gets raised every time they get close, they are also not included in media debates, and the power elite and plutocrats use government to their advantage and therefore don't support a party that wants to get rid of it.
I don't think anyone, including Mr. Goldwater, considered him a liberal. Granted, in today's political climate ...
I absolutely agree with what others have said, the classical liberal identity was perverted by the recent conservative movement. Especially with the advent of conservative media, who doesn't cringe when ever they hear the likes of Rush Limbaugh growl "libbberaaalll" absolutely dripping with contempt. Not even sure if he knows what one really is or if he can spell it.
I absolutely agree with what others have said, the classical liberal identity was perverted by the recent conservative movement. Especially with the advent of conservative media, who doesn't cringe when ever they hear the likes of Rush Limbaugh growl "libbberaaalll" absolutely dripping with contempt. Not even sure if he knows what one really is or if he can spell it.
Do you think it would make a difference if Libertarians could claw back the classical liberal identity? Would that get them on the ballot?
You said earlier the main reason Libertarians are not as strong on the national level is ... If this is so, why not concentrate on dealing with the obstacles?
& is overcoming the perversity or incorrect 'label' the biggest obstacle Libertarians are facing?
Part of the problem in not having all the answers is that NO ideology has all the answers. Adaptation relative to changes in conditions has always been a key to success, like it or not, this sometimes means flexibility, cooperation &/or compromise.
I absolutely agree with what others have said, the classical liberal identity was perverted by the recent conservative movement. Especially with the advent of conservative media, who doesn't cringe when ever they hear the likes of Rush Limbaugh growl "libbberaaalll" absolutely dripping with contempt. Not even sure if he knows what one really is or if he can spell it.
That would be understandable as I don't think that most who consider themselves a liberal understands what it means.
Many as far as I can see have confused the definition of liberal with authoritarian.
That would be understandable as I don't think that most who consider themselves a liberal understands what it means.
Many as far as I can see have confused the definition of liberal with authoritarian.
Yet again, a GREAT post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
