Now, before I was exposed to the libertarian ideology I was a big Ron Paul fan… and before that I was a huge statist Democrat. I firmly believed that the state was good and that the state was purely legitimate. I’m more of a minarchist myself. I’m not an anarchist. But one thing that I saw back when I was a huge statist Democrat was seeing all these conservatives cry socialism all the time. I thought it was immature. Before I was exposed to libertarian thought- and the libertarian thinkers… I thought these people were nuts. I still think these people are nuts because they’re just saying this stuff unintelligibly and they’re still continuing state interference- and now that I know- that conservatives aren’t for small government like they claim- they’re for in fact just the opposite. My question to you is do conservatives discredit us by acting in such a complete immature way and at the same time parroting off of what Ludwig Von Mises and Henry Hayek and Carl Menger says to try to appear as if they’re free market when they’re really just demagogues and loyal servants to the state?
I hate it when they appeal to Henry Hayek as an authority.
Yes social conservative and neo-conservatives do not support limited government. But there are many fiscal conservatives who do. The Republican party was once a battle of ideologies between social conservatives and libertarians, it is now dominated by neo-conservatives and social conservatives. This confusion is causing a lot of problems.
what do you mean by discredit? I’m guessing that you mean does our ideology get misrepresented by sharing some points with the republican party? To this I answer no simply because all the examples I’ve seen of people misunderstanding libertarianism come from our association with ayn rand. This is obvious by the fact that some accuse us of being selfish, egoistic, the children of rand, etc. So the common thread among these denuciations is randian philosophy and ayn rand herself. Also libertarians are called crazy libertarians which means that libertarians are attacked qua libertarianism (only once have we been attacked qua republicanism; when we were called neocons). So I think that ayn rand is more a part of it than the republicans. We must also not rule out how badly libertarianism is viewed in the republican party too and partly for the same reasons.
Yes, people like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Steve Malzberg make us look like fucking racist morons.
People who call themselves conservative are largely responsible for socialism remaining popular despite its logical and empirical emptiness. Their tendency for weak arguments based on classical religious and imperialist flim-flam constitutes their scary alternative, too easily dismissed on reasonable grounds and crowding out more widely acceptable alternatives.
That is a good point but Randians call themselves Objectivists and not necessarily libertarians. Limited government libertarians (Minarchists; Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Cato, Reason) only get attacked as neo-cons by anarcho-capitalists (Rothbardians). I’ve stated this is not helpful only to be continually called a neo-con. The people who use the word cannot even define.
But I would not right off the Republican party as Ron Paul is a member.
Sure. Nationalists and militarists who claim to be libertarians is the worst that can happen to libertarianism. Poptech is a prime example.
It also doesn’t help when they advocate destroying the Muslim world.
Yes I am well aware you don’t support anyone who is not an anarchist. But I am a limited government libertarian who supports the United States existing and having an all volunteer military to defend itself.
Minarchists are allowed to exist and there is nothing you can do about it.
Yet I haven’t. I actually explained that it was our military presence in Saudi Arabia near their holy cities that led to 911, not that it justifies it. Nor do I lose sleep over the death of Al-Qaeda members since retaliation was justified for the murder of over 3000 innocent American civilians.
I wasn’t talking about you, I don’t know you.
You are a sick apologist of the american military. Stop lying.
Yes I always support the members of U.S. Military but not always their mission, least of all nation building and being a police force.
You are just plain sick.
My name was in your quote, I just wanted to clear that up.
Poptech, your routine is basically this :
- you declare you are a libertarian (since anyone can pretend to be anything on the internets…)
- you declare you don’t support ‘nation building’ (or was it empire?)
- you proceed to justify the crimes of the government and the military.
So, if people point out that 1) and 3) are not compatible, you just repeat that you are a libertarian, cause it was ‘proven’ by 1) - that is, you said you were libertarian - so you must be. Cause you said so.
Please enlighten me, Poptech dear, how many ‘defensive’ wars did the murderers of the american military fight ?
Are minarchists allowed to violate my rights by stealing tax money to fund their government? I really don’t care if they “exist” so long as they don’t propose to take anything from me by force or coerce me into action or inaction.
I declare to be a limited government libertarian.
I don’t support nation building, it is a waste of money and lives, the U.S. military is not a police force.
I don’t justify “crimes” I provide inconvenient facts that disrupt your ideological agenda.
The American Military are not murders and WWII was a defense war. I realize you hate the United States because you live in a third world country that lacks much of what we have but jealousy is no reason to lie.
I forget where I read this particular thing today, but I read some austro-libertarian making the point, that they thought that the Chicago-ites were compatible because they claimed to be free marketers as well, but in the end that alliance was toxic just like alliances with other incompatible groups.
I can understand the well intentioned conservatives who have trouble getting past the mental hurdle between minarchism and anarchism. Sorta like you. You’re not ready to take the plunge, and yet if you had anarchy, I bet you wouldn’t go out the next day and organize a minimal government, because you would see no need for it. But there are the people who believe in the state, ideologically or otherwise. It’s a form of rent seeking for them. The scientists and intellectuals who rent seek for the “good of society”. The soldiers, and contractors, the educators and union members, the corporatists and lawyers. The state, even a minimal state, gives them opportunities they would not have in a free market.
Unfortunately, well intentioned people like you, who are still stuck on minarchism, are helping to enable all of those rent seekers by condoning minimum violence, instead of zero violence.
I try to give the C4L a pass. But I notice how little promo they get on LRC, and that’s indicative of the fact that liberty flows from C4L to LRC,and not the other way around.
The fight between anarchists and minarchists is somewhat ironic because these days we have neither.