I would love to be a Libertarian

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I would love to be a Libertarian. Theoretically, the Libertarian position makes all kinds of sense. Small government, lots of individual liberty, etc. Most of the on-paper Libertarian thought out there is hard to argue with, except in stupidized versions marketed to idiots (read: Tea Party).

And, to be fair, some of the knee-jerk reactions to Libertarianism (They won't pave your street! They won't make sure drinking water is safe! They won't defend the country!) are a little out of proportion to what Libertarianism actually suggests.

Some Libertarian positions I actually agree with. Social policy by legislation (like the Civil Rights Act) is a bit of an end-run around the democratic process. Government regulation is often incompetent and easily circumvented. The tax code is convoluted and sometimes unfair. I would honestly love to leave Government out  of these processes.

But, there's just one problem. While Libertarianism is a great philosophy, Libertarians don't exist! Everyone I've met who claims to be a "Libertarian" is, in reality, an extreme Statist who just doesn't like what the State is doing right now. They don't like being taxed, but they love the thought of enforcing moral laws on other people. They don't like the Government telling private businesses how to operate, but they don't mind the Government telling private individuals how to behave. They don't want anybody threatening their right to own guns, but they often threaten to use those guns on political opponents. And, in some cases, have used them.

And they really don't like uppity Negroes living in the White House.

Now, I could be the first true Libertarian. I could try to effect social change and Government policy along those lines. But if I got my way, expecting "social pressure" to move social reality, I'd be in for a rude awakening. Societies do not change or adapt, especially not fast enough to cope with the hypersonic speeds of the global economy, by "social pressure" alone. I would live in a place where nobody forced businesses to serve black people, and guess what? They wouldn't, because without a clear mandate, people will happily maintain the status quo in their societies. In Saudi Arabia, the government has not passed any women's rights legislation in apparently 900 years. And they don't have to, because "social pressure" is transforming women's place in society. Right?

The people clamoring now for Libertarianism are just disgruntled because "No Government" is better, in their opinions, than progressive Government. But don't be confused about their actual intentions. If they are elected in numbers large enough to direct Government policy, don't expect them to shrink anything except the number of places where free people feel free.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I would love to be a Libertarian. Theoretically, the Libertarian position makes all kinds of sense. Small government, lots of individual liberty, etc. Most of the on-paper Libertarian thought out there is hard to argue with, except in stupidized versions marketed to idiots (read: Tea Party).

And, to be fair, some of the knee-jerk reactions to Libertarianism (They won't pave your street! They won't make sure drinking water is safe! They won't defend the country!) are a little out of proportion to what Libertarianism actually suggests.

Some Libertarian positions I actually agree with. Social policy by legislation (like the Civil Rights Act) is a bit of an end-run around the democratic process. Government regulation is often incompetent and easily circumvented. The tax code is convoluted and sometimes unfair. I would honestly love to leave Government out  of these processes.

But, there's just one problem. While Libertarianism is a great philosophy, Libertarians don't exist! Everyone I've met who claims to be a "Libertarian" is, in reality, an extreme Statist who just doesn't like what the State is doing right now. They don't like being taxed, but they love the thought of enforcing moral laws on other people. They don't like the Government telling private businesses how to operate, but they don't mind the Government telling private individuals how to behave. They don't want anybody threatening their right to own guns, but they often threaten to use those guns on political opponents. And, in some cases, have used them.

And they really don't like uppity Negroes living in the White House.

Now, I could be the first true Libertarian. I could try to effect social change and Government policy along those lines. But if I got my way, expecting "social pressure" to move social reality, I'd be in for a rude awakening. Societies do not change or adapt, especially not fast enough to cope with the hypersonic speeds of the global economy, by "social pressure" alone. I would live in a place where nobody forced businesses to serve black people, and guess what? They wouldn't, because without a clear mandate, people will happily maintain the status quo in their societies. In Saudi Arabia, the government has not passed any women's rights legislation in apparently 900 years. And they don't have to, because "social pressure" is transforming women's place in society. Right?

The people clamoring now for Libertarianism are just disgruntled because "No Government" is better, in their opinions, than progressive Government. But don't be confused about their actual intentions. If they are elected in numbers large enough to direct Government policy, don't expect them to shrink anything except the number of places where free people feel free.

I AGREE WITH THIS POST!!!

On the off side though... there are 'real' libertarians, they're just drastically outnumbered by the frauds and are left impotent.

One way I've found of determining the 'libertarian' nature of the individual is to inquire about the charities and social projects that they are personally involved in. A big part of libertarian 'social justice' is that in theory We The People should be dealing with most of this shit voluntarily, so the government doesn't have to.

Most of the so-called Libertarians though, fail to provide any evidence that they can take on the responsibility if the government relinquishes it.

[Freeky]

Fuck yeah, Vex.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I AGREE WITH THIS POST!!!

On the off side though... there are 'real' libertarians, they're just drastically outnumbered by the frauds and are left impotent.

One way I've found of determining the 'libertarian' nature of the individual is to inquire about the charities and social projects that they are personally involved in. A big part of libertarian 'social justice' is that in theory We The People should be dealing with most of this shit voluntarily, so the government doesn't have to.

Most of the so-called Libertarians though, fail to provide any evidence that they can take on the responsibility if the government relinquishes it.

The problem with We The People dealing with social justice voluntarily is, when we do (not often), it's almost always through a religious organization which,  without any government interference, would gladly spit on anybody who isn't there for the Jesus.

[Vene]

Most of the so-called Libertarians though, fail to provide any evidence that they can take on the responsibility if the government relinquishes it.

The problem is that they can't take on the responsibility, the problem is that it would require everybody to take on the responsibility. Unless you can create a society where your actions don't affect other people and where their actions don't affect you, there has to be some sort of social order.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I AGREE WITH THIS POST!!!

On the off side though... there are 'real' libertarians, they're just drastically outnumbered by the frauds and are left impotent.

One way I've found of determining the 'libertarian' nature of the individual is to inquire about the charities and social projects that they are personally involved in. A big part of libertarian 'social justice' is that in theory We The People should be dealing with most of this shit voluntarily, so the government doesn't have to.

Most of the so-called Libertarians though, fail to provide any evidence that they can take on the responsibility if the government relinquishes it.

The problem with We The People dealing with social justice voluntarily is, when we do (not often), it's almost always through a religious organization which,  without any government interference, would gladly spit on anybody who isn't there for the Jesus.

That is definitely true in some situations. However, when society was less urban, there was also a lot of social help through community and even through religious groups that are/were altruistic.

There are plenty of instances in our current society where someone could contribute to help with social issues. The company I work for, for example, is diligent in their pursuit of  social justice. We let people leave the office and go teach kids to read (while still getting paid), the CEO (one of the more wealthy people on the planet) spent days helping paint a barn and toys at a urban park which badly needed work. The reason, IMO< is that the CEO was born and raised poor. His family depended on social assistance and now that he's made millions, he seems heavily influenced by those experiences. It will be interesting to see if his children express the same dedication or if their more privileged life will leave them without that deeper understanding of service to the community.

[Iason Ouabache]

Along with the Statists we've also got the entitled Randian Corporatists who assume that they would be filthy rich if the government wasn't holding them down all the time.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Along with the Statists we've also got the entitled Randian Corporatists who assume that they would be filthy rich if the government wasn't holding them down all the time.

I feel sad, its one of the most obviously duped groups around today.

[Jasper]

Vex kinda hit the nail on the head.  Great thinking on that one, dunno why the truth of it never occurred to me, but this is it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

YES VEX YES VEX YES VEX!

[tyrannosaurus vex]

YES VEX YES VEX YES VEX!

I feel like I should offer you a cigarette now.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

YES VEX YES VEX YES VEX!

I feel like I should offer you a cigarette now.

Indeed, you should. 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

In response to a couple of the posts, I agree with the sentiments here

Charity work is often done through religious organizations, and while some of them are doing it for the right reasons, some of them do try to throw their version of morality into it, and others use it as a front to proselytize. If you want to prevent HIV transmission in underdeveloped countries, they will need condoms and the straight and honest truth about them. Why? Because people like sex, and they'll have it with whoever they want if it can be had, whether they are married or not. (Just an example).

People aren't prepared, by and large, to contribute to the greater good. Having a slightly larger paycheck with fewer taxes won't fix that. They'll just buy more shit for themselves. I know I would. It's human nature.

Rich guy who was probably poor=nail on the head, I think. If you're rich, more often than not, you were born into it. And granted, there are legacies that do the philanthropy thing, which is great. But I would like to see the figures of the average wealthy person's actual contribution is. I could be way off, but I think that if you're moderately wealthy or just have a few million dollars, you'll probably try to maintain that. But if you're so rich that there is no way you could spend all your money, you'll probably donate quite a bit, since you won't really miss it anyway.

It's interesting to see Libertarianism put in this light. When I was in the process of developing my political position, my mother told me I was probably a Libertarian (probably thinking along the lines that Vex puts it). I ended up joining the Green Party in 2002 (switched from Democrat, which I originally registered as in 1999)

[memy]

I think this makes sense, and does Libertarianism the justice it deserves.

I would like to point out that (besides the fact that I wouldn't take anything I say too seriously, I'm no expert) perhaps Libertarianism can evolve in ways that, for instance, Anarchosyndicalism couldn't. The main complaint about the latter is that it was geared towards an early industrial environment, before the advent of modern technology. As such the models it expected to use were primitive, though nevertheless the system still needs to be held up by the hands of every worker.

The mistake people make is that they expect everything to just fall into place when the government is lessened. It won't. It needs people to band together, educate themselves on the politics of their community and nation as a whole, and do some good honest work. The government would then be in your hands, otherwise it is anarchy. I personally think there is no reason why there should be unemployment. At the very least everyone should be volunteering. After all, what's the point of being free to live right if you don't do right?

[Kai]

I think this makes sense, and does Libertarianism the justice it deserves.

I would like to point out that (besides the fact that I wouldn't take anything I say too seriously, I'm no expert) perhaps Libertarianism can evolve in ways that, for instance, Anarchosyndicalism couldn't. The main complaint about the latter is that it was geared towards an early industrial environment, before the advent of modern technology. As such the models it expected to use were primitive, though nevertheless the system still needs to be held up by the hands of every worker.

The mistake people make is that they expect everything to just fall into place when the government is lessened. It won't. It needs people to band together, educate themselves on the politics of their community and nation as a whole, and do some good honest work. The government would then be in your hands, otherwise it is anarchy. I personally think there is no reason why there should be unemployment. At the very least everyone should be volunteering. After all, what's the point of being free to live right if you don't do right?

The problem is labels. Stupid labels evolve into different but equally stupid labels over time; and intelligent labels are eventually be co-opted into stupid. This is Kai's Law of Label Lail.