Libertarians-Isn't it annoying to see neo-cons trying to co opt your ethos?

Originally posted by joechip
"Annoying" isn't the right word.

Maybe "disheartening" would be more accurate. I think we have to accept that most Americans are so gullible and impressionable that they can't tell an apple from an orange, if you call the apple an orange. Mix in some racism, and other elements of ignorant "populism" ("I like him, he's one of us" thinking) and we have the modern tea party. Very easy folks to manipulate, nothing at all like Dr. Paul's original supporters. And yes, the leaders of this movement are nothing more than re-branded neo-cons, practically fascists in their ideology. And the followers are largely authoritarian types that eat it up.

That's one reason labels are so difficult to manage politically. The larger number of us tend to accept the label as identical to the thing labeled. And most people have neither the time nor the inclination to do their research into candidates pasts. You can never "take back" your movement...it's gone, the new folks don't even believe in the fundamentals that started it. Here's an excellent article about Michele Bachmann if anyone cares:
www.rollingstone.com...

A great example of who the new leaders of the tea party really are.

I'm still voting for Dr. Paul, but I wish he would loudly, clearly denounce this "tea party" and distance himself from it. It doesn't even vaguely resemble his ideals.

Agreed. Unfortunately, it would appear even the most trustworthy and consistent among us would still prefer to accept 'support' from those who dont actually agree with them in terms of ideology.

Many 'libertarians' apparently dont mind their rank being swelled with the lies of the very same people they were criticizing durring the Bush years.

reply to post by macman

SO all or nothing. As per the definition from "incrediblelousminds".

I've got to jump in here.

Really, it is the height of absurdity to identify with a political party working at cross purposes to one's fundamental beliefs. If you are anti-war and identify with either political party, you are hypocritical. If you are fundamentally "libertarian" in your political beliefs, you are either deluded, or openly hypocritical when identifying with either major party. Just because you WANT them to represent your ideals doesn't mean they do, for gods sake.

Believe me, I find it difficult to accept Ron Paul's "Republican" status, much less anyone else's on here. His own personal record of consistency and integrity is the only reason this identification isn't a deal-breaker for me. I've been voting exclusively third party since 1996. I don't believe "working within the system" has a chance in hell of achieving anything significant. He has zero chance of moving his "party" toward ideals of liberty. As you may be able to tell, I'm rather disgusted with the entire process at this point, but the OP is correct...all these blurring of lines, and re-branding of "corporate republicanism" is foul, and obvious to anyone with the slightest critical faculty.

reply to post by joechip


and yet it doesnt seem to concern any ATS libertarians as far as I can tell. Perhaps because, as I suspect, may of them arent actually libertarians at all.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

and yet it doesnt seem to concern any ATS libertarians as far as I can tell.

It concerns me. I assume yourself as well. Add two more in this thread alone (which was heavily trolled). Take heart, we are out there, if not exactly legion.

All statist wanna-be libertarians are annoying.

Neo-Conservative wanna-be libertarians are no different.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


As long as they follow through with their Libertarian promises I'm fine with it. Not like any Libertarians are actually going to get elected is it?

I don't like the Tea Party though because they took a Libertarian movement and perverted it into a Neo-con pseudo Christian nightmare.

The Repugnicans [spelling intentional] took over the Libertarian party/movement a long time ago, in my opinion. I read and subscribed to Reason magazine in the early days, and years later, I saw a copy, and it looked like a GOP rag. Call me a disgusted ex-Lib. The Tea Party fell even quicker...

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
The Repugnicans [spelling intentional] took over the Libertarian party/movement a long time ago, in my opinion. I read and subscribed to Reason magazine in the early days, and years later, I saw a copy, and it looked like a GOP rag. Call me a disgusted ex-Lib. The Tea Party fell even quicker...

The Libertarian Party has alway been pathetic, all of the Libertarians within the Libertarian party have been nothing more than Republican lites [excluding Ron Paul] the Libertarian Party needs to be far more radical if it actually wants to be taken seriously.

I, personally, am disgusted generally yes. That disgust, however, stretches from LA to DC as the political games being played at on everyone, not just Libertarians.

It's all a game, but there are some who are trying to take over the Republican party as Libertarians, but they are weak ones. They pay lip service to Libertarians values, which fool quite a lot of people who don't pay attention or like to think of themselves as Libertarian (but really aren't).

There is no real move to remove any of the huge social programs.
There is no real move to reduce our militarism around the world
There is no real move to fix taxation, spending or borrowing.

At the end of the day, I don't really think it matters on a grand scale. They will do what they want and we can scream and cry at the top of our lungs at the hurricane of stupidity this nation puts forth to no effect.

Peace
KJ

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Not only are current Republican candidates trying to steal Ron Paul's thunder by asking for an end to the Afghan war, but the entire GOP seems to have slipped into pseudo-Libertarian garb since about nov of 2008. I would thin this would get kind of annoying to all the ACTUAL libertarian types on ATS. You had to listen to these very same people champion nation building in Iraq while they now criticize the current POTUS for the VERY SAME THINGS they supported under Bush.

Now, I know very, VERY few on ATS will ever admit to being a Bush-bot. It would be suicide to out yourself as a neo-conservative in the midst of so many so-called libertarians.

So, how about it Libertarians? ISn't it uncomfortable to have so many Republicans-in-hiding trying to jack your swagga?

No.

TPTB don't subscribe to a party. They can care less really. What you need to worry about is will the global elitist let us get invaded by russia and china all because we started to wake up and know they are the real terrorists. The foreign policy terrorists.

There are no/few libertarian socialist(s) (like Ron Paul) candidates nor pure anarcho-capitalists as candidates. So why should I care?

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
All statist wanna-be libertarians are annoying.

Neo-Conservative wanna-be libertarians are no different.

edit on 25-6-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)

I agree.

We need to be community ran not state ran. States are obsolete.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

There are no/few libertarian socialist(s) (like Ron Paul) candidates nor pure anarcho-capitalists as candidates. So why should I care?

What makes you think Ron Paul is a libertarian socialist? And what is a ``pure`` anarcho-capitalist?

We need to be community ran not state ran. States are obsolete.

What is your definition of the state?