Not by any libertarian (Rothbardian, Konkinian, Rockwellian, Paulian) standard. They are still for the warfare state, which is not the nightwatchman state, which itself is not libertarian, because to be libertarian, means you have to support contract and property rights, which the Constitution does neither.
Limited government libertarian is an oxymoron. I think you mean classic liberal.
There’s a reason why I’ve been calling the parties facist and socialist for quite some time now. I can handle some conservatives who are on the bridge of minarchism, but for the most part I hate the majoriy of both parties. Active Democrates are generally impossible to debate with though because they have the ultimate and most bestest argument ever which can be summed up in a simple sentence:
“IF TEH GOVERNMENTS DOESN’T START DOING MORE THINGS TO SAVE US SOONZ THEN TEH EVIL CORPORATIONZ WILL TAKE US ALL OVER AND WE’LL DIEEEEEEE!!!”
Don’t forget the fascist Bill O’Reilly. And of course the clown of the tea parties Glenn Beck.
I’ve been a libertarian for about two years I think, so I can’t offer a lot of insight, but I can say that I was kind of hoping McCain would defeat Obama for the simple reason that I figured that anything McCain would do couldn’t possibly be as bad as what Obama had planned for the US economy. That said, I find some conservatives to be very hard-headed over some very simple-to-understand issues (e.g. legalization of drugs).
I really like Limbaugh and Levin. I’ve got two of Levin’s books and I consider them to be quite good.
I don’t know if it’s as simple as “the commentators are the problem.” I think that a large percentage of Republicans represent something much more ingrained and innate than many people are willing to give them credit for.
Republicanism and Democratism seem to me to be worldviews. The people who vote either way (and also libertarians) represent a certain way of seeing the world and I think a lot of their policy preferences represent a certain way of seeing things.
So again, I don’t think any one group has any kind of absolute truth. I think the way they vote and/or see the world is very much based on personal experience and values.
The problem with social sciences is that they’re really not sciences at all. There are so many variables, so many factors to consider, so many possible outcomes that it’s really, I think, impossible for any one group to be “RIGHT.”
That’s why I can understand and relate to democrats or an-caps or even many “conservatives” and Republicans, but i can’t really agree with them fully. Even if I can’t always articulate why, something always seems off about many of the ideas. I don’t know that there is a solution for this problem.
I actually used to like Beck, now it’s just like a kick to the groin.
They have to give Judge Napolitano his own show, that’s not exclusive to the internet.
He at least has some semblance of sanity there.
Levin is absolute garbage. I grew up listening to these guys and Levin’s just all over the place with his damn views. The guy can’t make up his own mind, I used to think he was hilarious until I realized there’s really nothing there at all.
Rothbard just really clicks with me, I don’t think I’ve seen anything quite like his works before.
I’m not really stuck on one person. I’ve found a lot of good ideas in a lot of different places.
Or at least ideas that I personally can intuitively understand.
But if Rothbard’s your guy, Rothbard’s your guy.
Don’t shoot me, but when they’re taking about the consequentialist case for anarchism, Rothbard and David Friedman are practically the same person. I noticed it when I was reading Anarchy and the Law, in which their articles appear back to back in the opening chapter of the book.
For me, Rothbard is best when he’s speaking. He has such a wealth of knowledge and I feel like when he’s defending a particular thesis in a paper I’m missing out on the wonderful tangents he goes on during his lectures.
I can watch these type of shows without it bothering me. They are so cartoony that is very easy to remind yourself that the presenter is not here because he is smart. He is just a moron that was put on here by the greater powers behind him, who are the real enemy. So no use to get upset over the ramblings of a village idiot that was put here to prevent someone with a brain filling his shoes.
Rothbard is pretty good, but Mises is the real genius in my opinion.
He’s not necessarily my guy, but like Snowflake said, this man is just so articulate and everything just flows. He was funny, brilliant, and far from dry.
It’s a shame he’s dead.
It’s a shame Milton Friedman is dead too. I really enjoy his books that I have and all the lectures of his I’ve been able to find. Thomas Sowell is getting old as well.
we still have jeffrey tucker though.
Oh they are, especially the ones who outright call themselves “Democrats”. Their economic views are so screwed up they think a government health care option is market “competition”. I have a democratic friend who outright said he is very libertarian and fiscally conservative and then went on trying to explain why we need much more regulation and why government is so great. So please don’t confuse what they say with what they believe.
Don’t you see?! We need government to provide us with our liberties and government health care to lower the deficit!
Get your head out of the sand you commie-fascist pig!
No by a libertarian (Mises, Hayek, Rand, Friedman) standard.
That depends on your definition, if you mean the existence of a military, yes they do. If you mean a hawkish use of it, that depends. Independents largely want to get out of foreign affairs and so does a growing movement in the Republican party.
Again, you do not define what a libertarian is.
I pretty much agree with Poptech. My experience has been that the progressive American left is basically advocating socialism. They probably wouldn’t disagree either if they’re honest, they’ll just deflect the accusation.
Because, based on what I’ve read, the progressives ARE the FDR people who were all for Soviet Russia and Fascist Italy when those nations were still seen as being the future.
Now, they’re all on Canada and England’s nuts. I don’t mean to be crude, I just think they are.
It just seems that way…
(Warning: What follows is my “Purpose of the Two Parties” speech, I may have said this on other threads…) The two party system was established for one reason: To establish legitimacy for those in power. Those in power seek to expand the overseas empire and implement socialism here in the U.S. The two parties simply take turns in advancing toward these goals. Three or more parties would be too difficult to control. Only one party would be obviously totalitarian. So, we have exactly two parties.
The purpose of the Democratic Party is to enrage republican voters to GO TO THE POLLS to vote Republican. Conversely, the purpose of the Republican Party is to enrage democrat voters to GO TO THE POLLS to vote Democrat. All that matters in this exercise is strong voter turn out. It does not matter which party wins. Legitimacy is the objective. The only way they can hold onto power is through legitimacy, and they achieve that when we are foolish enough to vote. (…end speech…)
So, I would expect you are experiencing a temporary phenomenon regarding the apparent “openness” of republican voters to liberty. It is simply because they are out of power as you surmised. They don’t understand liberty, they understand empire. I should know, I used to be one (a republican, that is).[:'(]
Mises would have had nothing to do with tea baggers. Hayek either. Rand hated Libertarians, she was an objectivist, and Milton Friedman was a classic liberal. I think you just refuted your own claim.
No, I mean the warfare state. I mean the security state apparatus domestically, and the foreign empire externally.
I never claimed to. I’m simply applying the common definition of adherence to the NAP. If you favour aggression, then you’re not a libertarian.