Tag Archives: Libertarianism

The Libertarian Fad

Wow, a second article in a row ripping Libertarians, I need to watch it, people will think that is all this blog is about 🙂

I have a beautiful dream sometimes: where the two national parties both believe in limited government and the rule of law and we have long national debates on how best to secure Liberty to our children, rather than the ideological civil war between the Bureaucratic state full of moral busybodies and do-gooders versus Americans who want to be left alone. When I read that in Louisiana, Libertarians outnumbered Democrats in congressional races (Challenging 5 of 6 versus the Democrat’s 3, according to Libertarian Republican) I thought that this is how it could start. In those states where Democrats have less and less chance of winning, rather than Republicans getting lazy and careless (and RINO), the Libertarians could get strong enough on a statewide level to compete, and between the two parties (Republican and Libertarian) constantly drive for smaller and less intrusive government.

What a lovely world that would be, state after state, the libertarians keeping Republicans honest enough long enough to develop into one of the two party system. And then I remember the sad miserable truth about Libertarians. They seem to almost never be like the Vodkapundit, they always seem to be moonbats and cultists focused one panaceas like eliminating the Federal Reserve and massive American demilitarization, without a single thought about the consequences of their actions, or the possibility that the problems America faces are far more complicated and will require other solutions as well. I have commented before on the frightening similarity of Ron Paul libertarians and cultist organizations. The biggest thing I notice is the all-encompassing desire to be ‘in the know’ that is fed by Ron Paul and his fans, and eventually pushes them to believe in things like Chemtrails.

However, in the last month or so, another side of the Libertarians has been revealed. They apparently are obnoxious, petty, and spiteful. First, Ron Paul manipulates every loophole to steal a majority of delegates from a number of states that clearly voted in a majority against him. But Oh, foolish Republicans, actually thinking that the vast majority voting in a non-binding primary or caucus for someone would mean that that person would or should take the delegates. According to Libertarians, apparently, democracy and the voice of the people are only important when they vote for libertarians. And now, in petulant anger over a rules change that appears to me to be an attempt to keep people from stealing delegates, some Ron Paul supporting Electors are threatening to withhold their vote from Romney even if he wins their state. So now we find out that in every way, the Ron Paul supporting Libertarians behave almost identically to the worst of the democrats. They care nothing for the rule of law, they seem to only want legalized drugs and prostitution, and ultimately care nothing for the founding principles of the country, merely using them as cover and engaging the Alinsky tactic of holding Republicans to their idea of the Constitution while never allowing themselves to be held to the same interpretation.

Until Libertarians reject the Ron Paul cult, they will be an annoying fad, and not actually a valuable part of any party, let alone be able to grow into a party that can stand on its own.  For a less ranting discussion of this idea, read: More on Why Ron Paul’s Libertarian Fans Need to Support Our Constitution…and Romney.  And so I echo the warning from this article. If Libertarians want to be something other than a political fad, they need to abandon the Ron Paul fixation, recognize that on the national level, after you have your say in the primary, it is time to beat the Statists, and whether they like it or not, either Romney or Obama will be president in 2013.  Lastly they need to stop behaving like manipulative, petulant, and slimy Democrats. Because right now, the cultural behavior of the Libertarian brand is almost identical to that of the Democrats, while the stated political belief is only compatible with the Republicans. This dichotomy alone has the power to destroy the Libertarian party.

Well, rant over. Next time, I’ll talk about books or cotton candy or something, otherwise I will be in a political rut.

Related:
Cults: The Mind Enslaved
Escaping Cults: The Mind Enslaved, Part II

Problems with Libertarians

I was going to always avoid politics here, but its too late. I have been thinking about libertarians in general and Ron Paul in specific and organizing my thoughts against him. However, I do not intend to write much about politics, as fiction and philosophy are so interesting to me. However, philosophy frequently overlaps politics, and this is an election year….

The major issues I have with Ron Paul libertarianism (as I heard it in the presidential debates, and experienced it talking to his supporters) are three. First, the apparent abandonment of the principal by which laws are justified, secondly, the curious insistence that Ron Paul is the ultimate expression of constitutionalism and the embodiment of the American founding, and lastly, his followers seem to frequently think and behave like cult followers.

First Point: I believe that the law is always founded upon someone’s idea of what is moral. If you remove all moral thinking you actually remove all basis for law. The result is generally anarchy which in turn usually breeds tyranny. Without founding laws upon someone’s morals, (if it is one person’s morals, then it is a monarchy, if several persons, an oligarchy, if it is based on the majority opinion of a people who rule themselves, it is a democracy) how can the law say that murder is wrong, or that selling national secrets is wrong, or that rape is wrong? Every argument against these things starts with a form of morality whether the person making the argument uses that word or not. For instance, rape is wrong because it forces one persons will upon another person. The morality here is fairly obvious, just not stated explicitly. It is: “Anything that takes something without consent from someone else is wrong. Anything that does not affect someone else is acceptable.” This seems to me to be the basic morality of the libertarian position. I tend to think it is not comprehensive enough, but that is not my point. It seems to me that a Ron Paul libertarian would, if given their way, make it so that communities who have a different, more extensive, set of morals (like believing that drugs should be illegal) cannot enforce them, while at the same time denying that their laws are based on morality.  I believe that this is an untenable position. It is better to admit that laws are based on what society thinks is moral and then to constantly debate what is moral and immoral and should therefore be legal or illegal.

Second point: This point actually meshes with the last point. It seems to me that somehow, through machinations unknown, a man who has sat in congress for years, who has had no applicable effect on the thinking of his colleagues or the execution of laws, who indulged in the egregious habit of earmarks just like everyone else in congress somehow claims to be ideologically pure, for small government, and a good choice for a leader. He is supposedly a pure conservative, when in fact his actions, regardless of excuses, have been almost identical to the behavior of his colleagues.

Third Point: At some point when a man’s supporters behave like followers of cult leader, speak like followers of a cult lead, and insult anyone who criticizes their leader, it seems to me to be fairly safe to think many of them are cult members. To prove me wrong, any Ron Paul supporters who reads this, I challenge you: in the comments below, describe one moderate to major flaw in your candidate: one thing that makes him less than 95% perfect for the presidency whether from personal life or legislative career. (Of course you can also make the case why he is good for the presidency.) No excuses unless the excuse leaves you at least moderately uncomfortable.

I will start. (I only support Mitt Romney because he is the republican, and I think on the presidential scale that’s the best you can do. I think America needs reforming on the local scale by people like Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal, and on the federal scale we pick the least bad of two for now.) However, I do now support Mitt Romney. I will probably volunteer for his campaign and at some point I may even send him some of my hard earned money.  However, it deeply disturbs me that although I agree with most things he has said since 2008, he has no political record that matches with these beliefs. I understand the excuse that people change their positions and that he had to deal with a very, very, leftist state, but these excuses make me still feel uncomfortable, and I deal with it while wishing that he was better. I also realize that every politician is going to have done things I don’t like, and I support the ones who do things the most like what I believe. Someone who follows a politician without knowing and dealing with their human shortcomings is remarkably similar to a cult member.

I just found this article, another longer discussion of the problems of Libertarianism (as opposed to my rant).