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.
And this thread is how libertarianism always is: a few libertarians really into arguing intricate philosophy, and the other 95% of them who are ALL about the pot and anything-goes marriage.....
The accuracy of those numbers aside, what you're saying it true of most ideologies. Few Christians have read the Bible. Most of the college Marxists haven't read Marx.
Naturally, plenty of young Libertarians don't actually understand Libertarianism. But this doesn't mean you can reduce the ideologies into the misconceptions about it.
Allow me.
The majority of conservatives feel sympatico with the IDEA of libertarianism. But as actually practiced, no: Reagan was a warrior when it came to drugs. I also urge you to find even one instance of him supporting "anything goes" when it came to marriage....he was a traditionalist socially.
So, his quote was more aspirational than polemic.
I should note that it was the only such defense of libertarianism he ever gave, other than half a sentence uttered in a 1975 60 Minutes interview. I will judge him based on an entire career of actions, versus one quote. (He was also not perfect; very good, to be sure, but not perfect).
How do Libertarians vote?
As per Barry Deutsch's 'The 24 Types of Libertarian', typically they're 'Denial-cans:
The accuracy of those numbers aside, what you're saying it true of most ideologies. Few Christians have read the Bible. Most of the college Marxists haven't read Marx.
Naturally, plenty of young Libertarians don't actually understand Libertarianism. But this doesn't mean you can reduce the ideologies into the misconceptions about it.
I think its fair to say that the OP is absolutely right that the big money donors who fund this ideology use pot and gay rights to lure people in. Most people agree with those two issues so it is a way for the big money donors to get more people to support the agenda of the super rich (massive cuts in taxes and support for the 99% including privatization efforts of everything they cant make profits on currently (like Medicare, medicaid, social security, roads, parks, public transit, public schools, VA etc).
I think its fair to say that the OP is absolutely right that the big money donors who fund this ideology use pot and gay rights to lure people in. Most people agree with those two issues so it is a way for the big money donors to get more people to support the agenda of the super rich (massive cuts in taxes and support for the 99% including privatization efforts of everything they cant make profits on currently (like Medicare, medicaid, social security, roads, parks, public transit, public schools, VA etc).
I don't think he's wrong either. But that doesn't make Libertarianism something different. An actual Libertarian would probably legalize pot and believe the marriage isn't for the state to decide (actual Libertarianism would probably end government marriages all together rather than open it up to same sex couples; if the former isn't possible, they'd probably settle for the latter though some self described Libertarians do actually oppose same sex marriage for various reasons), but those two issues are not the crux of their ideology. It doesn't matter if the 19 year old who thinks Ron Paul is cool think that's what it is. What matters is the actual philosophy of Libertarianism, which is really just the view that government exists to only maintain national security and provide rights for private property.
Are there pseudo Libertarians who are in it just to make money. Yes. But again, this doesn't change what Libertarianism is.
If it's relevant; I am definitely not a Libertarian. Just in case you think I'm arguing that Libertarianism is some pure philosophy and Gary Johnson is the second coming. In fact, as it turns out, a lot of Libertarians don't actually like Johnson all that much.
I don't think he's wrong either. But that doesn't make Libertarianism something different. An actual Libertarian would probably legalize pot and believe the marriage isn't for the state to decide (actual Libertarianism would probably end government marriages all together rather than open it up to same sex couples; if the former isn't possible, they'd probably settle for the latter though some self described Libertarians do actually oppose same sex marriage for various reasons), but those two issues are not the crux of their ideology. It doesn't matter if the 19 year old who thinks Ron Paul is cool think that's what it is. What matters is the actual philosophy of Libertarianism, which is really just the view that government exists to only maintain national security and provide rights for private property.
Are there pseudo Libertarians who are in it just to make money. Yes. But again, this doesn't change what Libertarianism is.
If it's relevant; I am definitely not a Libertarian. Just in case you think I'm arguing that Libertarianism is some pure philosophy and Gary Johnson is the second coming. In fact, as it turns out, a lot of Libertarians don't actually like Johnson all that much.
Yes, I do agree with you that libertarianism is just another word for social darwinism, in its essence. As you point out, when people actually learn about the specifics and the real world consequences of this ideology, it has extremely low support because most human beings are not social darwnists, but social animals and believe in community and compassion. That's why the funders of this movement know they must be vague and focus on pot, gay rights and "freedom", "founding fathers" and "constitution" and other buzz words.
Each one of us is a free individual. Free to make our own decisions but not free from accountability as each of our decisions has consequences.
It's an attitude of live and let live.
...and small government. Which appears to be anathema not only to faux-Libertarian Gary Johnson, but also his liberal Massachusetts (yawn) running mate, Weld.
I am not. Most libertarians believe pot should be legal and marriage should be free from government control. The top issues for us is the government control. Legalizing drugs and opening marriage to everyone are just the end results of removing government control.
In fact it's not even the government control. It is one group of people using the government as the proxy to control others with the threat of violence. This is something we are against.
Exactly: end the govt. control SO THAT people can smoke pot and marry whoever/whatever they want.
Few Libertarians are as high-minded as you.
...and small government. Which appears to be anathema not only to faux-Libertarian Gary Johnson, but also his liberal Massachusetts (yawn) running mate, Weld.
Gary Johnson got booed at the Libertarian Convention because he doesnt support blind people being allowed to drive. Were you one of those libertarians?
Yes, I do agree with you that libertarianism is just another word for social darwinism, in its essence. As you point out, when people actually learn about the specifics and the real world consequences of this ideology, it has extremely low support because most human beings are not social darwnists, but social animals and believe in community and compassion. That's why the funders of this movement know they must be vague and focus on pot, gay rights and "freedom", "founding fathers" and "constitution" and other buzz words.
You're conflating community and compassion with forced versions of those things. Libertarianism is a philosophy based on the idea that it's wrong to attack and steal from people. Then you need to be principled and apply that consistently. It has nothing to do with social Darwinism.
You're conflating community and compassion with forced versions of those things. Libertarianism is a philosophy based on the idea that it's wrong to attack and steal from people. Then you need to be principled and apply that consistently. It has nothing to do with social Darwinism.
It has everything to do with social darwinism. It would be the law of the jungle with the super rich having total domination over Joe Sixpack. Everyone knows what happens when you eliminate all social safety nets funded by "attacking and stealing from people". You tell me what you would do as a blind and disabled person living on $650 a month SSI and the libertarian agenda tells millions of disabled and desperately vulnerable elderly people to go pound salt. There is NO WAY churches can replace even 5% of the support for the disabled, sick, elderly and vets currently being served by "attacks and thefts" from taxpayers. Even if you cant imagine yourself ever getting disabled or getting a child with severe disabilities, you NEED government to enforce your rights and a corruption free court system is impossible in this law of the jungle you envision. Libertarians dont even consider anti-trust legislation appropriate. Monopolies ripping you off left and right and there aint nothing you can do about it. No power for salt of the earth Americans. Total domination by private tyrannies. That is the goal of the libertarian agenda.
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.
