The Trouble with Libertarians

I have been thinking of writing about this for a while. I am going to discuss why I think the new Libertarian movement is bad for America (aside from being full of Republicans).

Ever since George W Bush was elected to office and started displaying idiocy (and other bad traits) thousands of Republican voters have switched to calling themselves Libertarians (and assumedly voting for them). Also, many young people who are alienated by the establishment parties for corporatism, corruption, the environment or other reasons have also swelled the ranks of Libertarians. In my opinion this modern libertarian coalition is not good for America and here's why.

Most libertarians now are young males in their 20's and 30's. Many of these young men are idealistic, but their ideals are not based on a full understanding of the world, or politics, because they don't understand other segments of society and their needs. These Young men are predominately single or married without children, don't have health problems (and the massive costs they bring), are renters and many of them are employed in good paying jobs such as computer programmers, sales, etc. so they are insulated from a great deal of difficulty that "normal" people have to deal with.

Living in Washington state where there are a large number of libertarians, as well as democrats (and republicans in the Eastern part of the state), I have a lot of exposure to people of each persuasion. While conservatives like to call Democrats naive and idealistic (and that's true for some, mainly the younger ones), in my opinion the libertarians are worse. Because they have little attachment to the world, combined with low responsibilities and a high degree of mobility, flexibility and financial support, they see the problems of the rest of society as exaggerated, minimal, or even imaginary.

A prime example of this is Social Security, which many libertarians believe should be eliminated because supposedly everyone could save and profit more without it, and they feel that somehow they are being cheated by helping others in society. Other people, like moderates and Democrats, see the great utility and importance of the program because of all the needy people that rely on it, and realize that most people would not have the discipline, knowledge or ability to save that much money on their own. They see correctly, that removing this huge societal support would not only impact the retired people, many of whom rely on it, but would also impact their grown children who might have to start supporting them if their benefits are taken away. If the grown children have to support their parents then they will stay longer in the workforce preventing younger people from finding jobs. When the young people don't have jobs they won't have spending money to prop up the economy (and neither will their parents who are paying the grandparents bills).

This is just a small example of how many aspects to issues libertarians don't see or understand because they don't currently have to deal with them. There is also an issue of selfishness at play here, though most libertarians will deny it, it seems to me that many of these young libertarians feel that they don't have any obligations to society because their ideology makes it convenient to only care about yourself.

The trouble with dividing the masses is it splits us instead of uniting us. Everyone sees and understands the issues well enough regardless of how your labelled. The labeling of a persons ideology only serves the interests of those who designed the two party system to work against we the people and to give credence to their corrupt system. As they (congress) appear divided (and sometimes are), when it counts they are united and we are not.

Your OP works as a wedge further separating us. Soon you will have self-appointed party speakers arguing blindly the other point of view, when truly in the end we all want the same thing. If we all really addressed the core issue here, corruption in the party system and worked together to get money out of politics we wouldn't have need to squabble of such issues as they would correct themselves.

originally posted by: CB328

Many of these young men are idealistic, but their ideals are not based on a full understanding of the world, or politics, because they don't understand other segments of society and their needs. These Young men are predominately single or married without children, don't have health problems (and the massive costs they bring), are renters and many of them are employed in good paying jobs such as computer programmers, sales, etc. so they are insulated from a great deal of difficulty that "normal" people have to deal with.

Why don't you just say, "Libertarians are ignorant and naive."?

Other people, like moderates and Democrats, see the great utility and importance of the program because of all the needy people that rely on it, and realize that most people would not have the discipline...to save that much money on their own.

"The people are irresponsible children who can't take care of themselves."

Why the fluffy rhetoric? Savoring the condescension?

originally posted by: CB328
Most libertarians now are young males in their 20's and 30's. Many of these young men are idealistic, but their ideals are not based on a full understanding of the world, or politics, because they don't understand other segments of society and their needs. These Young men are predominately single or married without children, don't have health problems (and the massive costs they bring), are renters and many of them are employed in good paying jobs such as computer programmers, sales, etc. so they are insulated from a great deal of difficulty that "normal" people have to deal with.

Interesting generalization.

Out of curiosity, where do you get these figures from?

There is such a thing as libertarian socialism. I sometimes think the libertarian movement has been hi-jacked by the right-wing. Putting the services of a country into the hands of private companies does not make the citizens any more free.

Corporations can force you to undergo financial checks, back ground checks, drug tests, they can and have fired people because of opinions posted on social networking sites, yet the supreme court ruled that corporations are people, yet why do they have more rights than you?

Libertarians are just another name for a branch of the republican party, don't they vote republican more than libertarian?

originally posted by: CB328
...

A prime example of this is Social Security, which many libertarians believe should be eliminated because supposedly everyone could save and profit more without it, and they feel that somehow they are being cheated by helping others in society. Other people, like moderates and Democrats, see the great utility and importance of the program because of all the needy people that rely on it, and realize that most people would not have the discipline, knowledge or ability to save that much money on their own. They see correctly, that removing this huge societal support would not only impact the retired people, many of whom rely on it, but would also impact their grown children who might have to start supporting them if their benefits are taken away.

Emphasis mine, and yeah, that's not my problem. I don't like paying for foolish people and the mistakes that they make.

"They see correctly..." Funny.

2 problems with the current Libertarian movement:

The first problem with Libertarians is the Conservatarians that pretend to be Libertarian. You can't be Libertarian on some issues, but then turn around and want to use the power of the state to enforce religious ideals onto everyone. If you are just a Republican, go be a Republican.

Second is that some Libertarians pretend Libertarianism is Anarchism when it suits them. Libertarianism is reduced government, not total lack of government. Firstly, Libertarianism seeks to reduce government interference for citizens, and then for business if it does not interfere with the liberty of citizens, not the other way around. The hierarchy of liberty starts with actual people.

That said, the Libertarian movement is important. So, anyone that wants to be a republican should get out. Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out. Or, realize that you can't pick and choose liberty when it suits you. Liberty is a wide ranging ideal, so maybe these Conservatarians should just figure that out and be real Libertarians.

Putting labels aside for the moment, I think it comes down to whether you want a bigger government or a smaller government.

Voting one way will almost assure a bigger government while voting another will assure a smaller government.

I will always vote for the candidate that will want a smaller government and more freedoms over the candidate that wants a larger government and less freedoms.

a reply to: CB328

Lets use your example of social security.

First, lets understand that none of our monetary problems can be "fixed" so long as we maintain our current economic system.

A centrally planned, debt based monetary system (the Western world's economic model, especially in the US), is based on borrowing, expanding the money supply and devaluation of the dollar or what Ron Paul called the "hidden tax on the middle class" ie inflation. So long as they continually destroy the value of our dollar, our cost of living is guaranteed to go up.

Why doesnt our government get rid of this debt based, inflation system? Because it benefits the banks (including privately owned central banks), who profit from debt and lets be honest, banksters rule the world.

So doing things like raising the minimum wage is a way for government to convince the masses that they're doing something to help as opposed to addressing the real issue: our inflation based monetary system (which has only been around since the creation of the Fed in 1913).

If the government really wanted to fix our economic problems, the first thing they would do is put a stop to the devaluation of our dollar so people could afford a lot more with much less.

So why would a Libertarian be opposed to social security? Are we opposed to helping people? Of-course not. We're all about charity and helping each other. We just dont think that government should be the one to do it, especially not by force.

You're forced to pay into a system. Thats called coercion and libertarians are against force and violence.

Like every other government program, social security has been destroyed. Not only have they continually raided or stolen from the social security fund but in normal government fashion, they've bankrupted it. Since about 2010, more money is now paid out than is taken in, which by any normal definition is considered bankrupt.

Its now a ponzi scheme, relying on the money coming in to pay for the money going out.

So why would I want to pay into a bankrupt system which wont provide me any benefit when its my time to retire (or if it is able to pay out, it will be with thoroughly devalued dollars).

Ron Paul has talked about this at length. He says that measures should be taken to ensure that people who have paid in, will receive their benefits but that others should not be forced to pay into yet another massive government failure.

And to pay for these unfunded liabilities he of-course advocated us shutting down our foreign empire and putting a stop to the war-for-profit industry.

You're right that most people have been brain washed to spend spend spend, a conscious effort by the establishment and the Edward Bernays of our world who said that "propaganda should not be limited to war time" ie consumerism.

We need to get back to a culture of saving.

The same applies to every other monetary issue: cost of health care, cost of education, the general cost of living etc.

Sure it would help if we could eliminate government intervention but none of these things can truly be reformed without first addressing the main problem: a debt based, dollar devaluing monetary system.

originally posted by: beezzer
Putting labels aside for the moment, I think it comes down to whether you want a bigger government or a smaller government.

Voting one way will almost assure a bigger government while voting another will assure a smaller government.

I will always vote for the candidate that will want a smaller government and more freedoms over the candidate that wants a larger government and less freedoms.

I agree with you.

I lean strongly toward libertarianism because I feel that one should live and let live for the most part.

If people want to do stupid stuff and hurt themselves, short or long run, let them.

People's private lives are just that and should stay private as long as they don't harm others -
or try and force others to think what they do in private should be applauded by everyone -
especially those who won't applaud their private lives.

I guess I am more of a social libertarian and governmental conservative.

I struggle with how to vote. I look at candidates and their platforms carefully (even the proverbial local "dog catcher").

I then weigh their stand on government, after all these years I have come to the conclusion that the smallest government possible is the best government.

Then I weigh their stand on interference in personal lives, ie social issues, I am looking for a strong libertarian on social issues.

Lastly, if there is a conflict which makes it difficult to chose, I go in favor of the small government person, because the smaller the government the less intrusive it is in personal lives.

(for example I would never vote for anyone who believes they should make regulations on what size cola people can drink,
or the maximum number of calories the school lunch lady can fix for the kids,
or what people can not do on their private property because some snail might be hurt)

I guess this old lady also wants and votes for more personal freedom
and smaller government too.

a reply to: CB328
You seem to be painting with a very broad stroke based on the people in your area, which, most probably, aren't representative of the whole population.

I'm going to say the same thing I say to anyone who has a "Problem" with someones viewpoints on issues that differ from your own.

1. Aren't they allowed to have their viewpoints, without being name called and ridiculed?


2. Why are you so opposed to them having their views? Can't you debate them and win a war of words/ideas?


3. If you can't do either of the above, I suggest you shouldn't be engaging in talking to/or about politics then. One sided debates with people with preconceived "I'm right, your wrong" type people are a waste of time for everyone involved.


Just my 2 pesos.......

So to restate the OPs position. Libertarians are well employed, self sufficient yet selfish. The rest of society needs the governments help and libertarians money.

There's a name for what you're advocating and it already exists in the US. You're just another person lobbying against self sufficiency and advocating for the gov to take care of us.

originally posted by: beezzer
Putting labels aside for the moment, I think it comes down to whether you want a bigger government or a smaller government.

Voting one way will almost assure a bigger government while voting another will assure a smaller government.

I will always vote for the candidate that will want a smaller government and more freedoms over the candidate that wants a larger government and less freedoms.

According to Forbes (a conservative source) Obama has not grown the fed government compared to past presidents.

Conclusion

Although we may have a temporary reprieve from overall government growth, on the road to a larger government lies many perils. Although the size of government has declined slightly in the past four years, the debt has exploded and higher taxes are likely on the horizon. It is during periods of government expansion that freedoms are commonly surrendered. When Paul Revere took his midnight ride shouting, “The British are coming,” the colonists were facing a mortal threat from an army intent on taking their land and freedom. Today, the threat is no less real, but is not of the type which threatens our life, just our liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Think about it.

Forbes

GWB grew the government more than Obama, under Obama we have seen a decrease in size of government, according to right leaning Forbes in the article posted last year....

a reply to: LDragonFire

But government control has increased. Government intrusion has increased.

Just look at the IRS, EPA, NSA.

Government authority has increased.

a reply to: CB328

I love the strong sense of generalization, and the almost total lack of anything resembling a fact. You must not really like people that aren't you.

a reply to: beezzer

But its a trend that has nothing to do with Obama, increased governmental control under reagan, bush h, clinton and especially under gwb then obama, you truly think that one party or the other will stop this control?

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: beezzer

But its a trend that has nothing to do with Obama, increased governmental control under reagan, bush h, clinton and especially under gwb then obama, you truly think that one party or the other will stop this control?

That's why I never specified parties in my original post.

I look to those individuals that would reverse the trend.

a reply to: beezzer

How when corporate control is the fact?

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: beezzer

How when corporate control is the fact?

Corporate control. . . government control. . . all government is, is another type of corporation.

to-may-to, to-mah-to.

Find a way to limit corporate over-reach at the same time you can limit government overreach and I'll buy you a cookie.