We often times have usually younger conservatives by almost any one's opinion claim to be "libertarian" who then always say that "libertarianism" is misunderstood. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/mbu5VpNczCo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is a really stupid video, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Just because everyone who calls themselves "Libertarians" aren't 100% on board with that ideology doesn't mean that's not what they are. I suppose you think that all Democrats believe 100% with that party's ideology and that 100% of Republicans believe 100% of that party's ideology too. There are "socially conservative Democrats" and "economically liberal Republicans" and hundreds of other variations so why would anyone expect every Libertarian to fit the ideology perfectly? I consider myself a Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they stand for and I'm sure that confuses the hell out of Thom Hartmann with his simplistic binary world view.
Libertarian is a word that has suddenly become trendy, and therefore demonized. It suffers from the polar reactions you get from saying "democrat" or "republican" with the added bonus of being much less established in pop culture. The sudden rise of Ron Paul on the internet has contributed to everyone thinking all Libertarians are Ron Paul, as if all Democrats are Barack Obama. I do think a lot of people claim to be libertarian because it's cool. I suppose most of them ARE "socially liberal Republicans" or "economically conservative Democrats". While I would technically describe myself as "economic conservative, social moderate", I don't want to immediately invite hatred and pretense to rain down on me by calling myself a Republican, nor do I typically vote Republican. I guess another option is independent, which has almost no meaning at all.
It is certainly true that it is "trendy". I just think folks should understand the ideology behind it. Not just think simplistically. Such as lI am for legalizing pot and see nothing wrong with gay marriage therefore I must be a "libertariabn since I am not a liberal or a democrat.
It's basically a liberal version of Glen Beck attacking something he doesn't fully understand and doesn't like.
I know you're all worked up by watching the video of liberal Glen Beck but you really shouldn't parrot that simplistic nonsense if you want people to take you seriously.
The kochs are about making the kochs money. If you honestly want to understand the modern political libertarianism movement go here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq But I'm betting you don't.
I think the adjective derives from Ron Paul supporters. Ron ran as president for the Libertarian Party in 1988. Afterwards he fled back toward the Republican Party of big money, big guvment. What Libertarians refer to as being a Benedict Arnold or turncoat. The Libertarian Party began in the 1970s due to increases in welfare spending such as SS. They were followers of Ayn Rand. It often seems to me that the vast majority of Libertarians are male. Women seem to reject Rand's cold hearted ethicism. I think same is true of Hildog. US won't have a female prez anytime soon.
The confusion for most people arises between Ayn Rand lovers and Rothbard lovers. Ayn Rand hated Rothbard style libertarianism but Rothbard was more popular with "libertarians" however more ordinary people read Ayn Rand's books and defined "libertarianism" by what she said it was. Ron Paul likes Rothbard.
A "Libertarian" anywhere but the US means some flavor of an anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist. Some tiny bit of that still exists under the big tent, and there are certainly some things I agree with in Rothbard's (and Paul's) positions, but I don't share the leap of logic that retcons Adam Smith into a progression towards blind faith in the Austrian School. As for the Ayn Randbots, I suppose they will have their place there, but I find them hard to take seriously. I think LP positions, particularly those on civil liberty, small business rights and foreign policy are missing from the serious political conversation. But even where I might disagree, I wish the LP had better success in elections and had more political capital to contribute to policy debates. If more libertarian-minded Republicans voted Libertarian, more leftists in the Democratic Party voted Green or Socialist and more Christian "values" voters went for the Constitution Party, leaving us with 5 or 6 real choices, they would better represent what American voters actually want. C-Span ratings would also probably hit all-time highs because debates on the House floor would suddenly matter. Legislative bodies would be actually creating legislation and it would force them to find short-term allies to get things passed rather than be idealogical heel-draggers and opportunists for lobby money. That the Kochs try to use it as a private fiefdom is largely irrelevant (especially when they always give money to whatever Republicans run in general elections anyway). Their interests don't coincide with that of Bobbythegreat's or Mr. Clutch's, which they both made clear, and likely not any more than the top of the Republican and Democratic oligarchies do, but at least they have more of a voice in their party of choice on the issues that matter to them. The last thing anyone should be doing is persuading them to vote Republican, where those interests that matter to them are at best, low in priority and are more often, in direct opposition. In any case, I think the minor parties, flawed as all parties are flawed, are good for democracy and more people should actually vote their beliefs.
You aren't going to get your point across if you are posting videos. Ain't no one got time for that. Videos prevent easy access and synthesis of information because they take 5 times longer to make the same point and it is extremely difficult to circle back and re read certain sections. It's tough to pin down what libertarianism means when it's fairly big tent, even in America. Here's one self-identified libertarian's journey. Maybe hope is not lost for those snatched away to soon by reading Atlas Shrugged at too young of an age before the mind matures (if it ever does). http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/confessions_of_a_recovering_libertarian_how_i_escaped_a_world_of_ron_paul_hero_worship/
I agree, but they aren't your Eisenhower Republicans; they are essentially the kissing cousins of the Tea Party.
As a party, Libertarians are dumbasses being led by the nose of big money. Individually, there's some internal game theory playing on whether tha pathe or the current government is the better of the two evils. It allows them to vote for **** policies while individually distancing themselves from the mess. As much as the smug hipster-like attitude says otherwise, they're no different than any other voter.
They are less likely to be moderate than the average voter as their positions on many issues are at polar extremes.
The moment this country stops treating political parties and political ideologies like their favorite sports teams is the day all our political problems get fixed. Voting for your party just for the sake of voting for your party is stupid, opposing the opposite ideology for the sake of opposing the opposite ideology is dumb as well. And I'm not going to lie I used to come into every thread with preconceived judgments and conviction depending on who started the thread, but I try to stop myself from doing that now. I swear most people are more concerned with winning points than most anything else. The meaning of politics and debate gets lost very easily. Its not as prevalent here on Clutchfans (it still exists) because most people here are educated, but man a lot of ignorant people out there just live 100% for their party lines with zero independent thought. Its like most people just see you as either a Repub, Dem, or a Libertarian and that's as far as most people really go when determining who to vote for, who to attack, who to defend, etc.
