The Passing of the Libertarian Moment

Source: theatlantic.com/
Published: Apr 2, 2018
Author: KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON
Post Date: 2018-07-05 21:45:54 by Gatlin
Views: 31775

The end of the Cold War and the rise of Donald Trump have left classical liberals without a political home.

Senator Rand Paul is a man out of time. It was only a few years ago that the editors of Reason magazine held him up as the personification of what they imagined to be a “libertarian moment,” a term that enjoyed some momentary cachet in the pages of The New York Times, The Atlantic, Politico (where I offered a skeptical assessment), and elsewhere. But rather than embodying the future of the Republican Party, Paul embodies its past, the postwar conservative era when Ronald Reagan could proclaim that “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism,” when National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. could publish a conspectus of his later work under the subtitle “Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist,” and young blue- blazered Republicans of the Alex P. Keaton variety wore out their copies of Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose.

The view from 2018 is rather different. The GOP finds itself in the throes of a populist convulsion, an ironic product of the fact that the party that long banqueted on resentment of the media now is utterly dominated by the alternative media constructed by its own most dedicated partisans. It is Sean Hannity’s party now.

The GOP’s political situation is absurd: Having rallied to the banner of an erratic and authoritarian game-show host, evangelical leaders such as Jerry Falwell Jr. are reduced to comparing Donald Trump to King David as they try to explain away his entanglement with pornographic performer Stormy Daniels. Those who celebrated Trump the businessman clutch their heads as his preposterous economic policies produce terror in the stock markets and chaos for the blue-collar workers in construction firms and manufacturers scrambling to stay ahead of the coming tariffs on steel and aluminum. The Chinese retaliation is sure to fall hardest on the heartland farmers who were among Trump’s most dedicated supporters.

On the libertarian side of the Republican coalition, the situation is even more depressing: Republicans such as former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who once offered important support for criminal- justice reform, are lined up behind the atavistic drug-war policies of the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose big idea on opiate abuse is more death sentences for drug traffickers. Deficits are moving in the wrong direction. And, in spite of the best hopes of the “America First” gang, Trump’s foreign policy has not moved in the direction of Rand Paul’s mild non-interventionism or the more uncompromising non-interventionism of his father, Ron Paul. Instead, the current GOP foreign-policy position combines the self-assured assertiveness of the George W. Bush administration (and many familiar faces and mustaches from that administration) with the indiscipline and amateurism characteristic of Trump.

Some libertarian moment.

Postwar conservatism, under the intellectual leadership of Buckley, Frank Meyer, and their allies, was, famously, a “fusion”—an alliance between social and religious traditionalists, anti-Communists and national-security hawks, and libertarians ranging from ideologues and idealists such as Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises to Chamber of Commerce types with their more prosaic concerns about taxes and regulation. The libertarians have always been a junior partner in that alliance, but for many years they punched above their weight. Partly that is because libertarianism is an intellectual tendency rather than a cultural instinct, one that benefited from the rigor and prestige of the economists who have long been its most effective advocates. And libertarianism has benefited from the fact that American elites are notably more libertarian in their views than is the median American voter. That dynamic was explored by the economist Bryan Caplan under a typically bold title (“Why Is Democracy Tolerable?”) with a typically needling conclusion: “Democracies listen to the relatively libertarian rich far more than they listen to the absolutely statist non-rich … Democracy as we know it is bad enough. Democracy that really listened to all the people would be an authoritarian nightmare.”

But if libertarianism benefited from its rich friends, it surely benefited even more from its impoverished rivals: the Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba, North Korea, Mao’s China, and other practitioners of robust étatism. Despite the best hopes of the postwar conservative fusionists, libertarianism has always been more effective in opposition than in government. President Reagan may have called himself a libertarian from time to time, but he also enacted protectionist tariffs, radically expanded the military and the federal police powers, and failed to exhibit a great deal of energy in resisting the deficit-swelling spending bills sent to his desk by Tip O’Neill. The libertarian tendency mainly provided a useful ideological foil, not only to the totalitarian socialist projects of the time but also to more liberal efforts to expand the welfare states in the Western democracies. If you are not moving in the direction of Milton Friedman, the argument went, then you are moving in the direction of Leonid Brezhnev—it’s Chairman Greenspan or Chairman Mao.

That was an effective rhetorical strategy while the Soviet Union was a going concern and while the Cold War remained fresh in the national memory. And it was enough to keep the right-wing coalition together. But as the memory of the USSR came to be replaced by the reality of NAFTA, WTO, ASEAN, etc., the fruits of globalism—everyday low prices at Walmart—turned out to be uninspiring to great masses of voters to whom those benefits are invisible for the same reason that water is invisible to fish. Ancient prejudices, including the prejudices against social relations with foreigners, began to reassert themselves, as did the expectation that government should take a paternal interest in the people rather than a merely administrative one. Libertarianism, with its emphasis on free trade, its deference to the market, and its hostility toward social-welfare programs, went quickly out of fashion. How quickly? Last week, my former National Review colleague Victor Davis Hanson published an essay calling for a stronger regulatory hand over high-tech companies, fondly recalling the “cultural revolution of muckraking and trust-busting” of the 19th century, and ending with a plea for “some sort of bipartisan national commission that might dispassionately and in disinterested fashion offer guidelines to legislators” about more tightly regulating these companies, perhaps on the public- utility model.

That from a magazine whose founders once dreamed of overturning the New Deal.

Libertarian attitudes enjoy some political support: Nick Gillespie, a true-believing libertarian, insists even in the teeth of the current authoritarian ascendancy that we still are experiencing a national— yes!—“libertarian moment,” based on Gallup polling data finding more support for broadly libertarian political sensibilities (27 percent) than for any other single group: conservative, liberal, or populist. But “libertarian” often means little more than “a person with right-leaning sensibilities who is embarrassed to be associated with the Republican Party.” (Hardly, these days, an indefensible position.) Libertarian sensibilities are popular because they enable the posture of above-it-all nonpartisanship, but libertarian policies, as Caplan and others have noted at length, are not very popular at all. Americans broadly and strongly support a rising minimum wage and oppose entitlement reform with at least equal commitment, and they are far from reliable supporters of free speech and free association or enforcing limits on police powers. Hence the peculiar fact that 2016 polling of Republican primary voters found self-identified libertarians backing the authoritarian Trump in remarkable numbers—59 percent in South Carolina—over more libertarian-leaning candidates such as Ted Cruz (17 percent in the same poll) or Marco Rubio (0 percent—ouch). By way of comparison, only 39 percent of self- identified independents backed Trump in that same South Carolina poll, 37 percent of self-identified Tea Party adherents, and 40 percent of voters in the oldest bracket (56-61). Self-described libertarians were not less likely to line up behind the authoritarian demagogue, but half-again as likely to do so. Self-professed libertarian voices such as Larry Elder have become abject Trumpists.

Post Comment   Private Reply

#37: Gatlin    To: tpaine, nolu chan (#35)

tpaine, ---- This antilibertarian obsession is akin to the antiTrump one.

With the minor exception that the Libertarian target can barely be found. --- nolu

You fanatics here have had no problem finding it, have you?

That’s right. It’s no problem at all finding why libertarians are failing at politics.

Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center dropped a truth bomb on the beltway in his recent piece for Fox News about the decline of Rand Paul. Taylor notes that the alleged growth of the libertarian movement in the wake of the Ron Paul campaign was largely illusory. The alienated populists and conspiracy theorists that filled out Paul’s numbers in 2012 easily made the transition to the very un-libertarian Donald Trump in 2015, leaving Rand out in the cold.

The lack of a broad-based movement, despite a number of high profile campaigns and events, is a bitter pill for libertarians who believe in electoral politics. Having libertarians in office may help raise the profile of issues like overcriminalization, tech freedom, and the insanity of the drug war. But those who await a libertarian takeover of the GOP misunderstand the fundamentally radical nature of libertarian ideas and how deeply that radicalism conflicts with the perceptions most Americans have about the role of government.

Trump supporters are a grim reminder that millions of voters view the government as a hammer that can be wielded to smash opposing values or groups and force their beliefs on others. Educating the electorate about libertarian ideas misses the fact that they have no real incentive to learn; most don’t care about the relationship between man and state and likely never will, as long as the state continues to provide the stability they have come to expect. Ron Paul’s success in 2008 and 2012 can largely be credited to the mortgage crisis; once the sting faded, so did support for his radical ideas.

There’s a good reason libertarians remain at the ideological fringe: “Libertarian politics” is a contradiction in terms. Libertarianism is not a third party, like the Know- Nothings or the Whigs or a prescription of policy tweaks to make the government more efficient. It is a distinct value system that abhors political power itself, even if some of its adherents consider power a necessary evil.

Libertarians may disagree whether the state should be abolished or minimized, but the difference matters little to the average American: Both seem frighteningly outside his own experience. Even the most moderate libertarians will wax poetic about ending intellectual property or privatizing the welfare system. Moreover, virtually all voters are deeply invested in government services they have come to depend on, and libertarians have been unable to present hypothesized private- sector alternatives while the state forces dependence upon itself. Conceptually, libertarians are on a page that most people find bizarre.

Libertarianism is best understood as the latest in a long line of radical liberation ideologies, rooted in the principles of natural law and individualism, that have provided the intellectual basis for rebellion since the American Revolution. It is a reaction to the perpetual expansion of government power in the U.S. and its frequent abuses. But radicalism, by definition, is immoderate and cannot compromise its way to reforms. Rather than moving toward the “Overton window” of public opinion by moderating controversial views (as Rand Paul attempted), radicals must pull public opinion towards their own viewpoints. Rand’s straying from libertarian principles means that he likely has little unique appeal even for the tiny libertarian electorate his father created. David Boaz’s research shows that 70 percent of libertarian-leaning voters went with Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson in 2012, so we know even libertarians who believe in politics are willing to blunt their own sword.

If libertarianism is denied its radical characteristics, it degrades into a flimsy millennial conservatism: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and completely powerless, a mashup of existing ideas better espoused by other parties and ideologies. Without unyielding commitment to truly radical ideas, libertarians are drowned out by louder voices catering to the will of angry, pitchfork-bearing constituents. They add little of value, and are likely to end up little more than a footnote in the history of conservatism.

To fail to understand this is to remain resigned to swim against the tide of American politics. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out: “Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide.”

Instead, libertarians might be more useful as single-issue activists and innovators. While U.S. politicians fail to shrink government, individualists like Erik Voorhees, Cody Wilson, Peter Thiel and the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto are using technology to forge a new path. Time will tell exactly where that leads. But Rand’s decline underlines the fact that libertarian ethics predicate disruption and revolution, not moderation and compromise. As such, it is unlikely to ever get big votes in American politics.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-06 15:18:48   Reply   Private Reply

#38: Gatlin    To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#36)

... some guy stripped at a convention ...
I’m Shocked.

Well, not really. You libertarians are fucking crazy.

Libertarian Party chair candidate strips on stage at national convention.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-06 15:32:01   Reply   Private Reply

#39: nolu chan    To: Pinguinite (#36)

So you argue there is no duopoly today and that 3rd parties can attract a significant base to dethrone the R's and D's because it happened before, 160+ plus years ago.

If they had a leader to run. They don't. They will need to manufacture a Lincoln to repeat the GOP success. Until then, they will remain irrelevant.

nolu chan posted on 2018-07-06 19:14:08   Reply   Private Reply

#40: nolu chan    To: tpaine (#35)

You fanatics here have had no problem finding it, have you?

Yep, court opinions ain't the only thing I can find with the google.

nolu chan posted on 2018-07-06 19:15:29   Reply   Private Reply

#41: GrandIsland    To: Pinguinite (#17)

Put your big boy pants on, bitch. This ain’t no safe space for millennial snowflakes. It’s by freedom I can express my opinions in what you define as a “vulgar” way... and yet you supposedly espouse “freedom” of speech... but find little value in me exercising it or complain about the way I use it.

Most of you so called constitutional posters are full of fucking shit. What I posted was SPOT ON... and you don’t have the ability nor the balls to prove me wrong, factually.

GrandIsland posted on 2018-07-06 20:07:46   Reply   Private Reply

#42: GrandIsland    To: nolu chan (#27)

You are too generous.

I always try and give the Paultards the benefit of the doubt. (Btw, that 6% figure always pisses off any paultard).

Thanks for posting the actual facts. You can be counted on to post researched facts... not just YELLA AGENDA spin.

GrandIsland posted on 2018-07-06 20:12:28   Reply   Private Reply

#43: GrandIsland    To: Gatlin (#19)

One cannot help but notice that you did not dispute anything GI posted or in any prove what he said was wrong. Why not? Is it because you can’t?

He’s a BITCH. I honestly find it hard to believe that Stone would have ever made a biased paultard little bitch like that, a past site moderator.

GrandIsland posted on 2018-07-06 20:17:03   Reply   Private Reply

#44: GrandIsland    To: Pinguinite (#18)

Tell me Stone, why you think it's a great idea to have a vote system where someone winning 30% of the popular vote gets to represent 100% of the people

Because a democracy is dangerous... and unfortunately, our forefathers should have taken EVEN MORE steps to ensure we today, don’t suffer from it.

Everyone with an O’bunghole phone, will vote for illegals to stay and vote... and the snowball starts to grow.

GrandIsland posted on 2018-07-06 20:22:55   Reply   Private Reply

#45: Gatlin    To: GrandIsland (#43)

Ah, he is just another candy-assed libertarian crybaby who whines when someone doesn’t fully agree with everything he says and and runs away to pout when he loses a discussion. Libertarians try to pass themselves off as intellects who know everything about politics and how the world should be run. Yet there is not a country anywhere that has a libertarian government and NO libertarian has ever done anything except....TALK.

These libertarians are locked in the past. They thought they were big shits with the “Ron Paul Revolution.” Well that died after producing nothing and Ron Paul went back to being even a less of a nobody than he was before. Now, all these poor children can do is try to live on a memory that dies and grows colder each passing day. They fail to realize that the only way their dreamed-of "libertarian movement” is moving is backwards. They are fun to watch and even more fun to agitate. They are a bunch of assholes....each and every one of them.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-06 20:41:13   Reply   Private Reply

#46: GrandIsland    To: Gatlin (#45)

and NO libertarian has ever done anything except....TALK.

Exactly. How many legislative bills did Ron Paultard pass? And the paultards MOCK Trump for his progress, and worse, the things he’s gotta do to get progress with the obstructive assholes he’s up against.

Ops... I was vulgar. Everything I said doesn’t count.

GrandIsland posted on 2018-07-06 20:43:56   Reply   Private Reply

#47: buckeroo    To: nolu chan (#22)

You need a better excuse. Youtube videos, including that specific Youtube video, are watchable on TOR.

Scripts are disabled in TOR based upon my predetermined settings. I use TOR to ensure anonymity on the Internet to include third party tracking cookies. The approach I use is effective, too. I have used TOR for over a decade, even before joining LF.

However, your attempt to dismiss my opinion for the use of TOR is silly. I don't need to do anything to include answering to you or anyone for my free choices. What little information I provide [today] is the last post on the matter.

buckeroo posted on 2018-07-06 21:59:40   Reply   Private Reply

#48: Gatlin    To: buckeroo (#47)

What little I information I provide [today] is the last post on the matter.
You provide LITTLE information at any time, you need to make this your LAST post forever.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-06 22:04:43   Reply   Private Reply

#49: buckeroo    To: GrandIsland (#46)

How many legislative bills did Ron Paul[sic] pass?

Doesn't your question tell you something about the nation? If Ron couldn't ensure passage of many of his pro-American bills, it is ABSOLUTE PROOF there is something horribly wrong in America.

buckeroo posted on 2018-07-06 22:14:12   Reply   Private Reply

#50: buckeroo    To: tater (#48)

You provide LITTLE information at any time, you need to make this your LAST post forever.

I was here before you and I will be here after you leave the planet. FUCK OFF, yukon loser.

buckeroo posted on 2018-07-06 22:16:13   Reply   Private Reply

#51: Deckard    To: buckeroo (#49)

If Ron couldn't ensure passage of many of his pro-American bills, it is ABSOLUTE PROOF there is something horribly wrong in America.

Sadly, Gatlin's senile mind is unable to grasp that simple concept.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-06 22:16:37   Reply   Private Reply

#52: Gatlin    To: buckeroo GrandIsland (#49)

How many legislative bills did Ron Paul[sic] pass?

Doesn't your question tell you something about the nation?

His question tells me there are some stupid people in the district that elected Ron Paul to Congress.
If Ron couldn't ensure passage of many of his pro-American bills, it is ABSOLUTE PROOF there is something horribly wrong in America.
There were NO “many” of his pro-American bills....there was absolutely NONE. The only bill he passed was to sell a house in Texas.

And since he couldn’t get but ONE bill to sell a house passed in Congress, it’s ABSOLUTE PROOF of Ron Paul's long record of glorious failures in congress!!!

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-06 22:26:02   Reply   Private Reply

#53: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#51)

If Ron couldn't ensure passage of many of his pro-American bills, it is ABSOLUTE PROOF there is something horribly wrong in America.

Sadly, Gatlin's senile mind is unable to grasp that simple concept.

His post was ADDRESSED to GrandIsland, stupid...not to me.

Geeeeze....why are you so dumb and unable to follow what goes on?

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-06 22:29:01   Reply   Private Reply

#54: buckeroo    To: Gatlin (#52)

You are a living example of superficial examination of objective evidence. As a result you will NEVER uncover "root cause" and necessary "corrective action" ... you will perpetually exist in a containment mode such as, "shoot the messenger."

buckeroo posted on 2018-07-06 22:32:06   Reply   Private Reply

#55: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#53)

His post was ADDRESSED to GrandIsland

You two efftards are joined at the hip - your views are exactly the same as FireIsland's. Besides, you have made the same statement many times.

It's so doggone hard to tell you fascists apart.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-06 22:42:18   Reply   Private Reply

#56: buckeroo    To: Deckard, tater, fireisland (#55)

It's so doggone hard to tell you fascists apart.

I have to admit, these two Siamese Twins [tater, fireisland] are difficult to differentiate from tyme to tyme.

buckeroo posted on 2018-07-06 22:51:48   Reply   Private Reply

#57: buckeroo    To: A K A Stone (#13)

amoral libertarians

What in the world are you talking about?

buckeroo posted on 2018-07-06 23:40:57   Reply   Private Reply

#58: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#55)

Nothing you said here excuses your stupidity.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-07 00:19:18   Reply   Private Reply

#59: Gatlin    To: buckeroo, A K A Stone (#57)

amoral libertarians

What in the world are you talking about?

Why Do People Think Libertarians Are Amoral?

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-07 00:27:22   Reply   Private Reply

#60: Gatlin    To: buckeroo (#54)

Obviously, TRUTH bothers you greatly.

Learn to live with it.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-07 00:46:15   Reply   Private Reply

#61: Gatlin    To: buckeroo (#50)

GOOD....I pissed you off. I’m GLAD!!!

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-07 00:49:10   Reply   Private Reply

#62: Tooconservative    To: Gatlin (#52)

And since he couldn’t get but ONE bill to sell a house passed in Congress, it’s ABSOLUTE PROOF of Ron Paul's long record of glorious failures in congress!!!

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!

RP is living in your head, rent-free. LOL

Tooconservative posted on 2018-07-07 01:03:53   Reply   Private Reply

#63: Pinguinite    To: GrandIsland (#41)

GI, you have all of the intellect, maturity and communication capability of a sophomore high school student who has just discovered the estasy of employing vulgarity outside of earshot of his parents. When you rise above that, maybe we can have an adult conversation about adult topics.

Pinguinite posted on 2018-07-07 01:05:26   Reply   Private Reply

#64: Pinguinite    To: buckeroo (#49)

If Ron couldn't ensure passage of many of his pro-American bills,

I would point out the stupidity of measuring the soundness of one's political ideology by the number of laws that he pushes through congress. If that's the standard, GI should probably be a cheerleading democrat.

Pinguinite posted on 2018-07-07 01:09:32   Reply   Private Reply

#65: A K A Stone    To: buckeroo (#57)

You think heroin should be legal and cocaine. That is one of many examples.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-07-07 06:52:17   Reply   Private Reply

#66: buckeroo    To: A K A Stone (#65)

You think heroin should be legal and cocaine.

While you "push" your claim upon me, you neglect the offense of government meddling in "morality." It is a very interesting balance act you wield so that you can claim, "government is good."

buckeroo posted on 2018-07-07 08:08:49   Reply   Private Reply

#67: buckeroo    To: Pinguinite, GrandIsland (#64)

I would point out the stupidity of measuring the soundness of one's political ideology by the number of laws that he pushes through congress. If that's the standard, GI should probably be a cheerleading democrat.

He claims to be a cop. This means that the more laws are on the books, the more citations he can write and the more bucks he can milk off the government for doing nothing worthwhile in life. He needs justification for his mere existence.

buckeroo posted on 2018-07-07 08:21:21   Reply   Private Reply

#68: Gatlin    To: buckeroo, A K A Stone (#66)

... amoral libertarians ...

While you "push" your claim upon me, you neglect the offense of government meddling in "morality." It is a very interesting balance act you wield so that you can claim, "government is good."

Uh, at this time in the exchange you really need to show that libertarians are not amoral instead of attempting to deflect Stone’s point and change the conversation over to government. Deflection is a fallacious debating tactic you libertarians TRY to use far too often.

Picking up on Stone’s point, a recap of the findings from Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians shows that:

Compared to self-identified liberals and conservatives, libertarians showed 1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle, and weaker endorsement of all other moral principles; 2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional cognitive style; and 3) lower interdependence and social relatedness. As predicted by intuitionist theories concerning the origins of moral reasoning, libertarian values showed convergent relationships with libertarian emotional dispositions and social preferences.
It is abundantly clear the ONLY thing that matters to libertarians is freedom.

Freedom Uber Alles!

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-07 08:53:19   Reply   Private Reply

#69: buckeroo    To: Gatlin (#68)

... at this time in the exchange you really need to show that libertarians are not amoral ...

Actually, all the other idiots running the country have PROVEN their deceit about the nation. The idea of 21 TRILLION in federal debt [alone] proves the point.

instead of attempting to deflect Stone’s point and change the conversation over to government.

I didn't, A K A Stone performed the deed but you were high on the hookah obviously enamored with his post.

Deflection is a fallacious debating tactic you libertarians TRY to use far too often.

That is a rhetorical remarck and has no significance to anything.

buckeroo posted on 2018-07-07 09:04:44   Reply   Private Reply

#70: Liberator    To: Pinguinite, THE ACLU-COMMIE FASCIST (#1)

And so the obsession continues.

Like a child who can't stop tossing cake at all the other kids at another kid's birthday party.

Old ACLU-Commie Authoritarians HATE any part or parcel of libertarianism. They are rigidly militaristic and inflexible in all ways. Thus, Gatlin is only comfortable as a fascist (who also dislikes Trump -- don't be fooled.)

It's cool that you're bringing so much attention libertarianism, even if in attempts to cast it in an unfavorable light. It's not going to go away, in spite of whatever direction the current political winds are blowing.

Yes, and isn't also odd that Gatlin has simultaneously been touting the ACLU, the hood ornament and legal-wing of MARXISM?? The ONLY way libertarianism (as intended by the Founders) will go away (as he wishes) will be via the rigid Dem-Commie authoritarianism Gatlin espouses through his fascist ACLU lens.

(As also discussed, libertarianism AT ITS LIMITS IS ANARCHY, and frankly just as dangerous as Gatlin's Commie-Authoritarianism. It should be noted that BOTH SIDES OF THIS SAME COIN OPPOSE DONALD TRUMP.)

That said, arguably ALL of our Founders favored a balance of libertarianism to some degree or another, which is the basis for our individual liberties and foundations of our Republic.

Liberator posted on 2018-07-07 09:39:47   Reply   Private Reply

#71: Liberator    To: hondo68 (#2)

Let me tell you right now, up front; YOU are not a "Libertarian"; You are an ANARCHIST. Rand Paul? He wouldn't give you the time of day.

That's rich -- YOU mentioning Mao. Castro. The ACLU.

YOUR kind of Anarcho-"Libertarianism" can only result in utter chaos. And then the strong-arm OF a Castro, a Mao, a Stalin to usher in "ORDER".

Liberator posted on 2018-07-07 09:43:18   Reply   Private Reply

#72: Liberator    To: nolu chan (#4)

If the Libertarians could not obtain any traction against a GOP ticket of McCain/Palin, it seems their moment passed some time ago.

They just don't get it; "Libertarianism" is woven in the fabric of Constitutionalism. (The conservative wing)

Liberator posted on 2018-07-07 09:44:55   Reply   Private Reply

#73: Liberator    To: A K A Stone (#13)

Amoral libertarians don't have much support. That is and was always my problem with libertarians. They equate moral things with immoral things. Do what thou wilt just like the satanic so called Bible.

Yup.

At its limits, "Libertarianism" = Total Anarchy. Moral (and otherwise) Laws unto themselves.

Liberator posted on 2018-07-07 09:46:51   Reply   Private Reply

#74: Liberator    To: GrandIsland (#15)

The best and most viable libertarian minded candidate, EVER, is Rand Paul... and the bulk of the rabid 6%, aka, RON PAULTARDS, turned your backs on Rand... because Rand doesn’t run on anarchy.

Absolutely RIGHT.

Liberator posted on 2018-07-07 09:47:32   Reply   Private Reply

#75: Liberator    To: Pinguinite, GrandIsland (#17)

Gatlin gave you a big AMEN on that.

The Old Commie is just stroking for allies.

Frankly, I believe Gatlin is the type of rigid Major Burns-like AK-ing AH that GI saw over and over for 20 years at his dept...and despised their hypocrisy and select rigidity. JMO.

Liberator posted on 2018-07-07 09:50:59   Reply   Private Reply

#76: Liberator    To: Gatlin, Pinguinite (#21)

Now you've done it, Ping...

"Father" Major Burn is again at his fake pulpit, stealing the scripture he *thinks* will support his fake piety.

His YUGE Pope's Hat is dyed Castro-military green.

Liberator posted on 2018-07-07 09:54:59   Reply   Private Reply

#77: Liberator    To: Pinguinite, Gatlin (#24)

I infer from your response that you purport to be an enlightened Christian saint. That's wonderful...even though it seems you've yet to learn not to be so condescending toward others, but all things in time.

OUCH.

Liberator posted on 2018-07-07 09:56:19   Reply   Private Reply

#78: buckeroo    To: Liberator (#73)

At its limits, "Libertarianism" = Total Anarchy. Moral (and otherwise) Laws unto themselves.

OK.

Take a lookie-loo at the GOP-DEM federal debt; ever consider that topic as ANARCHIST?

NAW, its just a cool 21,000,000,000,000 bucks, so it is under control and non-anarchist?

buckeroo posted on 2018-07-07 09:59:32   Reply   Private Reply

#79: Liberator    To: tpaine (#30)

This antilibertarian obsession is akin to the antiTrump one. --- Both types should be pitied for their fanaticism.

You're HALF right.

The Libertarians who we've been witnessing running for office are far more supportive of ANARCHY. It is NOT the Founder's intent and the direct opposite side of the Authoritarian coin.

Liberator posted on 2018-07-07 10:01:01   Reply   Private Reply

#80: Liberator    To: buckeroo (#78)

Take a lookie-loo at the GOP-DEM federal debt; ever consider that topic as ANARCHIST?

NAW, its just a cool 21,000,000,000 bucks, so it is under control and non-anarchist?

A whole different subject to address.

The Feral Deficit is the fault of printing-pre$$ SOCIALIST-Dems and GLOBALIST Pubbies -- neither who are Constititutionalist or America-Firsters.

And btw -- No pure Libertarian Gummint would ever be able to collect a penny for taxes.

Liberator posted on 2018-07-07 10:04:32   Reply   Private Reply

#81: buckeroo    To: Liberator, gatlin (#80)

Differentiate the idea that "libertarians" caused the current government fiasco. Your love of the two party system is what brought the USA to its knees.

buckeroo posted on 2018-07-07 10:09:42   Reply   Private Reply

#82: Pinguinite    To: Liberator (#73)

At its limits, "Libertarianism" = Total Anarchy. Moral (and otherwise) Laws unto themselves.

A common misconception is that libertarians want to abolish government. But that is the anarchist, not libertarian philosophy. Libertarians recognize the need for government, but that it should be much smaller than it is today in the USA.

Pinguinite posted on 2018-07-07 10:11:28   Reply   Private Reply

#83: Gatlin    To: buckeroo (#69)

Deflection is a fallacious debating tactic you libertarians TRY to use far too often.

That is a rhetorical remarck and has no significance to anything.

It has GREAT significance since it APPLIES directly to you.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-07 10:13:12   Reply   Private Reply

#84: buckeroo    To: Gatlin (#83)

GO FUCK YOURSELF.

buckeroo posted on 2018-07-07 10:16:08   Reply   Private Reply

#85: Gatlin    To: buckeroo (#84)

Now I have REALLY pissed you off....I am even happier about that.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-07 10:20:47   Reply   Private Reply

#86: Pinguinite    To: Liberator (#80)

And btw -- No pure Libertarian Gummint would ever be able to collect a penny for taxes.

Given the philosophy of some libertarians, I could see that argument being made as a valid criticism of libertarianism. I myself disagree with one major plank of the L party having to do with open borders. I do understand the philosophical argument in favor of open borders, but in practice it falls short due to differing rules of alternate governments of foreign countries.

The fed gov got by almost exclusively on import duties for the first 100 years or so, if I'm not mistaken.

Humorously, I've speculated on the idea of a "citizenship exchange program" where if you want to emigrate to another country, all you need to do is find someone from that country that wants to come to the USA, and you trade citizenship and both move at the same time. It's a net zero gain in both residency and citizenship for both countries so neither government can claim to be adversely harmed. Sounds like it could be a good libertarian compromise!!

Pinguinite posted on 2018-07-07 10:26:03   Reply   Private Reply