Why do people hate libertarians?
I'm just really curious because I've been seeing not only the normal bipartisan mudslinging, but now there are some pretty nasty attacks at Libertarians on the internet (and occasionally on the news). What has brought this about? Sure, there are extremists in their party, but most people seem pretty down to earth. It's not like I hate the Democratic party for trying and succeeding in passing the most ridiculous bill I ever tried to read (Universal Health care). Or hate the Republican party for pushing their religion and prejudices on everyone else. And yes, some Libertarians think Snowden is innocent. So why the crazed hatred for libertarians? It's not like they got a large number of votes or pose a threat of creating a multiparty system (though they think they do). And I don't want a bunch of obscenity riddled answers. Please keep it educated :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
Can the Libertarian Party overtake the Republican Party?
No. The Libertarian PARTY cannot “take over” the Republican Party.However, more and more libertarians are choosing to join and/or run for office on the Republican line (rather than trying to get a few percent as a 3rd-party candidate, as I did twice) and the Republican Party has been sufficiently welcoming to them in most cases.Therefore, it would not surprise me to see a gradual “infiltration” as libertarians become more and more involved in the GOP. Now that the GOP “establishment” has become far weaker (with many in the “never-Trump” movement either deserting permanently and/or not being allowed back into power), I think it is entirely possible that the Republican Party of the future will become increasingly libertarian-dominated.Another factor is that there seems to be increasing acceptance among Republicans of individual-liberty positions (such as decriminalizing drugs, tolerance of unorthodox lifestyles, abolishing the Federal Reserve, and many other LP positions), as well decreasing support for previously-held GOP policies (such as launching land wars in Asia, military interventions all over the world, subsidizing foreign dictators and crony capitalism at home, etc.) so that a gradual melding is now more possible and I can envision a future Republican Party that is increasingly libertarian — in which many LP members can be comfortable and some will rise to leadership positions.Since David Nolan’s initial breakup with the Republican Party in 1971 (in response to the Nixon-Connally economic policies, gold devaluation, wage & price-control, etc.), the GOP has changed considerably. As libertarianism spread within the nation (as it certainly has during the past 45 years), many LP leaders have said that they would be perfectly happy if one of the two OLD parties were to adopt a platform similar to that of the LP, and they didn’t care which one. It is now apparent that the Democrat Party is too far gone to ever reject its virulent statism, deficit spending, and “progressive” usurpation of Federal powers, while Republicans have since become much more libertarian.Therefore, it would not surprise me at all if — in a decade or two, after more and more non-establishment candidates win primaries and get elected to office — the future GOP becomes nearly indistinguishable from the present LP and its party leadership consists largely of [small-L] libertarians.
Why is the libertarian party being hijacked by neocons?
Because it's easy? "When fascism comes to American it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross" -Sinclair Lewis
Why is the Libertarian Party not significant in the United States?
There are two sorts of reasons. Structural and ideological.StructuralThird parties of all stripes have a tough time of things in winner takes all systems. This is observed the world over. And at congressional and presidential level, the American system is an especially pure winner takes all system. So, libertarians who actually care about power tend to work within the Republican Party.IdeologicalLibertarians are extremists. I don't necessarily write that as a criticism. In many ways I am an extremist! But, they hold a bunch of views that many Americans find horrific. An easy example would be their views on the Civil Rights Act. Yes yes, I am aware of all the high falutin' philsophy that leads libertarians to come to the conclusions they do, but all that ain't worth spit in practical politics. When you are explicitly saying that a lunch counter should be able to have a sign that says "blacks not welcome" in 2016, everyone else thinks you are a lunatic. Like all extremists, libertarians are prone to factional in-fighting about who can be the most ideologically pure. They have a lot in common with the far left in this regard (See also, their devotion to philosophical dogma). This again comes across as ridiculous to anyone who is not a true believer. Libertarians are masters of making the perfect the enemy of the good.
What are some bad things about the Libertarian Party?
When you ask Libertarians who will take care of the poor if we abolish welfare, and other social programs, they will tell you that charity will do it. Well, before we got our social programs there was much higher church attendance, so churches did more charity. Plus there were a lot more fraternal organizations, you know, like Elks and Shriners -- but these other ones went out of business long ago. Even with those extra charity capabilities which we no longer have, it wasn't enough. We had poor houses (look that up) and it wasn't enough. So the truth is that if more charity couldn't handle the load back then, less charity can't handle it now. You want to see what Libertarianism looks like in practice? Look at Charles Dickens' writing. The England he describes had almost no regulations whatsoever on business. It was a free market. You had a tiny rich class, a tiny middle class (a few wealthy merchants such as Scrooge, doctors, lawyers) and a huge sprawling poor class (Bob Cratchett, his wife, Tiny Tim). No unions (please can I have another lump of coal Mr. Scrooge, my hands are so cold? NO!). Take a good look and that's what the world would look like with Libertarianism and our Liberal policies and programs gone. Main Street USA would look like downtown Calcutta with children begging in the gutters. Look up hunger in the US today. You can get stats from Second Harvest and other soup kitchen outfits that actually feed the poor. Find out how many children America has going to bed hungry every night right now even with our social programs. Then imagine what it would be without them. The thing about Libertarianism is it's a great idea and it sounds so good on paper. It would work great if people were really spiritually evolved and compassionate and caring for the poor. But they're not. So the world that Libertarians would create would be truly ugly. Imagine if you were poor and couldn't get an education. Multiply that times millions. How good is that for the country? What if your house caught on fire but the fire station was for profit and you had no money? Keep going and you'll see where Libertarianism would get us. ##
There's a libertarian party; is there an authoritarian party?
Here are the first and last of Umberto Eco’s definition of authoritarianism from a few decades ago:The cult of tradition. => Calling yourself an authoritarian in a democracy would not be traditional. Authoritarians in the US are going to claim the flag and Constitution.Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak => No, authoritarians don’t call it as they see it. They often make a wild array of claims, making promises that contradict; Nazi’s called themselves “National Socialists” … because sticking that word in there might bring in more support, they had never stood for worker control of anything (“the means of production”) nor allied with left groups, always had a hierarchical approach of a strong man on top.So, no, someone who called themselves authoritarian would more or less be breaking the normal definition of authoritarian.Libertarians call for less government waste and spending, without really be specific about what needs to be cut or how to do it, or why someone who joins the Libertarian party will actually say no to a lobbyist — all sounds good. Libertarian is somewhat the opposite, in that it sounds great to want a leaner government in the abstract: everybody wants to be called a waste-cutter and most people are attracted to “fiscal conservative” — but if Paul Ryan is getting campaign contributions, he’s probably off doing their bidding when he isn’t calling himself a libertarian. Being against waste, at campaign time, is easy and fun! Cutting waste in DC might piss off the money people. There might be some real libertarians out there, but a lot of the more famous ones are much faster to cut any government spending on the poor (who have little political power) than on corporations with lobbyists… campaign labels have only a small connection to whether a politician does the right thing when money and re-election is on the line, but libertarian is an easy label, worn by more people than really do it, while authoritarian is a hard label, not worn by people who aim to practice it.
Is libertarianism a moderate political idea?
Libertarians come in all shades of the political spectrum, from the progressive liberal to the staunch conservative, and of course the moderates throughout. === Libertarianism, like classical liberalism, takes liberty and property ownership to be inviolable natural rights, and resists mosts collectivist approaches to social organization. Libertarianism is difficult to place on a conventional left/right, progressive/conservative scale: Libertarians often support progressive issues, such as broad freedom from search and seizure, freedom of the press, and other civil liberties more generally put, in the same breath as they support traditionally conservative positions such as gun ownership, free market capitalism, and strict property ownership.[4] Some libertarians reject the leftist/rightist dimension completely, seeing it as a holdover from debates between political positions that libertarians consider to be defunct.[7] Libertarianism is primarily a political philosophy, and like all political philosophy deals with the interrelation of individuals within a society and the potentials for, and proper role of, violence in social life.[8] Libertarianism is not a complete moral or aesthetic theory - it does not try to determine 'correct' standards for social interaction - but is rather a pragmatic approach that tries to define and defend certain basic social principles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian...
Are Libertarians really just the same as Republicans?
On economics perhaps to some degree. On everything else, nope.Libertarians want to remove the whole public sector(including military and law enforcement), all taxation would be prohibited, any regulations on businesses should be banned(including environmental), no government at all - all is controlled by supply and demand without any interference for nobody. That is Liberalism - at it is not what Republicans and Democrats want. The nearest you come to Libertarians is the Tea Party Movement - but still they want to pay taxes for military and law enforcement - but Libertarians want NO TAXES AT ALL - ALL TAXES ARE TO BE PROHIBITED.