New York Times Magazine: Has the ‘Libertarian Moment’ Finally Arrived?

[Lucille]

It's a long one, and they interviewed Rand and Amash, so click through!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magazine/has-the-libertarian-moment-finally-arrived.html?_r=0


“Let’s say Ron Paul is Nirvana,” said Kennedy, the television personality and former MTV host, by way of explaining the sort of politician who excites libertarians like herself. “Like, the coolest, most amazing thing to come along in years, and the songs are nebulous but somehow meaningful, and the lead singer kills himself to preserve the band’s legacy.

“Then Rand Paul — he’s Pearl Jam. Comes from the same place, the songs are really catchy, can really pack the stadiums, though it’s not quite Nirvana.

“Ted Cruz? He’s Stone Temple Pilots. Tries really hard to sound like Pearl Jam, never gonna sound like Nirvana. Really good voice, great staying power — but the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.”
[...]
But today, for perhaps the first time, the libertarian movement appears to have genuine political momentum on its side. An estimated 54 percent of Americans now favor extending marriage rights to gay couples. Decriminalizing marijuana has become a mainstream position, while the drive to reduce sentences for minor drug offenders has led to the wondrous spectacle of Rick Perry — the governor of Texas, where more inmates are executed than in any other state — telling a Washington audience: “You want to talk about real conservative governance? Shut prisons down. Save that money.” The appetite for foreign intervention is at low ebb, with calls by Republicans to rein in federal profligacy now increasingly extending to the once-sacrosanct military budget. And deep concern over government surveillance looms as one of the few bipartisan sentiments in Washington, which is somewhat unanticipated given that the surveiller in chief, the former constitutional-law professor Barack Obama, had been described in a 2008 Times Op-Ed by the legal commentator Jeffrey Rosen as potentially “our first president who is a civil libertarian.”

Meanwhile, the age group most responsible for delivering Obama his two terms may well become a political wild card over time, in large part because of its libertarian leanings. Raised on the ad hoc communalism of the Internet, disenchanted by the Iraq War, reflexively tolerant of other lifestyles, appalled by government intrusion into their private affairs and increasingly convinced that the Obama economy is rigged against them, the millennials can no longer be regarded as faithful Democrats — and a recent poll confirmed that fully half of voters between ages 18 and 29 are unwedded to either party. Obama has profoundly disappointed many of these voters by shying away from marijuana decriminalization, by leading from behind on same-sex marriage, by trumping the Bush administration on illegal-immigrant deportations and by expanding Bush’s N.S.A. surveillance program. As one 30-year-old libertarian senior staff member on the Hill told me: “I think we expected this sort of thing from Bush. But Obama seemed to be hip and in touch with my generation, and then he goes and reads our emails.”
[...]
After eight years out of the White House, Republicans would seem well positioned to cast themselves as the fresh alternative, though perhaps only if the party first reappraises stances that young voters, in particular, regard as outdated. Emily Ekins, a pollster for the Reason Foundation, says: “Unlike with previous generations, we’re seeing a newer dimension emerge where they agree with Democrats on social issues, and on economic issues lean more to the right. It’s possible that Democrats will have to shift to the right on economic issues. But the Republicans will definitely have to move to the left on social issues. They just don’t have the numbers otherwise.” A G.O.P. more flexible on social issues might also appeal to another traditionally Democratic group with a libertarian tilt: the high-tech communities in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, whose mounting disdain for taxes, regulations and unions has become increasingly dissonant with their voting habits.

Hence the excitement about Rand Paul. It’s hardly surprising that Paul, in Ekins’s recent survey of millennial voters, came out ahead of all other potential Republican presidential candidates; on issues including same-sex marriage, surveillance and military intervention, his positions more closely mirror those of young voters than those of the G.O.P. establishment. Paul’s famous 13-hour filibuster last year, while ultimately failing to thwart the confirmation of the C.I.A. director John Brennan, lit afire the Twittersphere and compelled Republican leaders, who previously dismissed Paul as a fringe character, to add their own #StandWithRand endorsements. Paul has also gone to considerable lengths to court non-Republican audiences, like Berkeley students and the National Urban League.
[...]
During the father’s two runs for president as a Republican, in 2008 and 2012, libertarian activists gave him momentum far beyond his popular appeal, packing caucus halls and organizing rallies. But it’s an open question whether these same activists will get off the sidelines and support his son, whose libertarian bona fides are less sure but whose chance of victory is far greater. And if they do, it’s unclear whether G.O.P. establishment figures can put aside their longtime distrust of libertarianism and welcome Paul’s bid to expand the party’s base. If this is indeed the libertarian moment, do either libertarians or Republicans intend to seize it?

h/t http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/07/new-york-times-magazine-has-the-libertar

[Christian Liberty]

Libertarian? More like just halfway-sane conservatism. I think I may just have to start calling myself a voluntarist and ditch the "libertarian" label, its getting so watered down these days that it doesn't mean anything. I don't know that Rand even knows what the NAP is, let alone agreeing with it.

[Christian Liberty]

There are still so many people who think "libertarian" means "conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues."

I'm always careful to define the term these days if I use it at all.

[surf]

There are still so many people who think "libertarian" means "conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues."

I'm always careful to define the term these days if I use it at all.how do you define it - quickly?

[Christian Liberty]

how do you define it - quickly?

A combined belief in the non-aggression principle and private property rights.

[Keith and stuff]

The last six paragraphs were about the Free State Project (http://freestateproject.org/)'s Porcupine Festival and a speech by one of the three keynote speakers. Here is some of it.


This June I watched Nick Gillespie deliver the keynote address at PorcFest, the annual libertarian outdoor festival held in Lancaster, N.H., and named for the area’s ubiquitous porcupine. About 500 campers sat attentively, while several others stood off to the side, Hula-Hooping as they listened. Arrayed before Gillespie were several boxes of exotically flavored Pop-Tarts that he had purchased at the Lancaster grocery store. He held them up as evidence that individualism was flourishing and choices were in abundance or, as he put it, “The libertarian moment is now.” Their moment had arrived, Gillespie said, “because the main political drivers have destroyed their credibility. Only the dead think the G.O.P. is the party of small government.” At the same time, he added, “the Democrats had a clean shot to demonstrate that they’d protect our liberties, and they proved themselves to be utter frauds.”

With deadpan aplomb, Gillespie then said, “If we can have 20 different types of Pop-Tarts, maybe we can have more than two types of political identification.”

After the speech was over and Gillespie gamely posed for a few pictures with admirers, I cornered him and asked him if he was suggesting that libertarians leave the G.O.P.-flavored Pop-Tarts on the shelf. Gillespie said it all depended on Republicans. “This is the fundamental question for the Republican Party,” he said. “Are they going to embrace the libertarian elements of Rand Paul and Justin Amash? Because that’s their only way out. They’re at 25 percent self-identification, and it’s not going to climb back up if they keep re-electing the old horses. Libertarians don’t need them. We’re already alienated and out of the mainstream. We don’t need the Republican Party in the way that they need the energy and the vision of libertarians.”

But, I wanted to know, would libertarians be willing to meet the G.O.P. somewhere in the middle? Among the 1,700 or so attendees, I had seen guns and Bitcoins and slogans like “Liberty: Too Big to Fail” and “I Do Not Consent to Searches.”

The article also featured a photo taken at PorcFest. While I'm not in the photo, it is kinda cool that some of the people at PorcFest got their face featured in a photo that's in the what 2nd largest newspaper in the nation.
http://static01.********/images/2014/08/10/magazine/10libertarians3/mag-10Libertarians-t_CA2-superJumbo.jpg

[Keith and stuff]

It's a long one, and they interviewed Rand and Amash, so click through!

h/t http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/07/new-york-times-magazine-has-the-libertar

Some of the Reason blog post.

New York Times Magazine: “Has the ‘Libertarian Moment’ Finally Arrived?”
Matt Welch|Aug. 7, 2014 9:16 am


The New York Times Magazine has just published a 6,600-word exploration of, essentially, whether, Nick Gillespie is right when he says "The libertarian moment is now." Writer Robert Draper, author of the terrific 1991 book Rolling Stone Magazine: An Uncensored History, and more recently When the Tea Party Came to Town, takes an entertaining tour through various antechambers of the libertarian movement, from Reason's gin-swilling D.C. headquarters, through the Free State Project's anarchic PorcFest (http://porcfest.com/), to the offices of Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), in search of ever-elusive answers about what these libertarians want, how/if they plan to use two-party system to get there, and whether 2016 will be the presidential cycle when the burgeoning libertarianism of the millennial generation will produce a political realignment.

You'll come for the Kennedy Ron Paul/Nirvana quote, stay for the Nick Gillespie/Lou Reed comparison, savor David Frum's delicious contempt, and be left rooting for a clarifying Rand Paul/Hillary Clinton showdown.

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/_external/2014_08/you-laughed-then.jpg

[SneakyFrenchSpy]

From Gawker (http://gawker.com/if-ron-paul-is-nirvana-who-is-everyone-else-1617522403):

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--s_H_70lA--/e42oa3l2w2pfq1df0k8e.jpg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--YnBEUnOo--/fqb25syp4ebxxchtflnq.jpg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--jRvOdOSI--/jzhmhypmnej26ooyz71k.jpg

[TER]

Great article!

[lib3rtarian]

From the article. This is what people here needs to understand:


But later, with an irritated edge to his voice, Paul added: “Some people are purists, and I get grief all the time — all these libertarian websites hating on me because I’m not as pure as my dad. And I’m putting restrictions on foreign aid instead of eliminating foreign aid altogether. And I’m like: ‘Look, guys, I’m having trouble putting these restrictions on, much less eliminating them! So give me a break!’ ”

[Christian Liberty]

From the article. This is what people here needs to understand:Speaking only for myself, I've got NO PROBLEMS with Rand supporting restrictions on foreign aid with hopes of eventually eliminating them. And I'd have a problem with it if he wouldn't do that. My problem is that he doesn't support (at least vocally) a lot of the things we support.

[Slave Mentality]

From Gawker (http://gawker.com/if-ron-paul-is-nirvana-who-is-everyone-else-1617522403):





Now that is good stuff right there. I can go with the first two, but Cruz is the lead singer (Scott Stapp if you even give a shit. I can't believe I wasted my time looking it up) for Creed if we are doin' this right. Annoying to all but the most zealous.

I did intend to offend all Cruzombies and Creediathans, or whatever you call yourselves these days, by typing this out. When I hear Creed I wish that all of music was killed off back in the caves before it could ever come to this.

Oh, and beware of labeling or aligning yourself with any ideological groups. I guess I could consider "libertarian" to kind of mean "I leave you alone, you leave me alone, let's do some business" in a nutshell, but it is not a nutshell. That is why I stay away from any "isms", as it is like asking who is right about spirituality and religion. Ya don't know and you are an idiot in my book if you think you do. It is a trap. Dividing people up into neat little rows and columns is what isms do for you.

With that said I suppose I could be considered a Constivolibertanarchist. Catchy huh? GO Constivolibertanarchists 2016! You can doo eat!

[Christian Liberty]

The article was definitely good. It was nice to hear something from Rand Paul's mouth that at least seems to indicate that he's pandering.

[lib3rtarian]

Speaking only for myself, I've got NO PROBLEMS with Rand supporting restrictions on foreign aid with hopes of eventually eliminating them. And I'd have a problem with it if he wouldn't do that. My problem is that he doesn't support (at least vocally) a lot of the things we support.

Like what? Something which will alienate 99% of the GOP primary voters instantly I bet?

[cocrehamster]

Speaking only for myself, I've got NO PROBLEMS with Rand supporting restrictions on foreign aid with hopes of eventually eliminating them. And I'd have a problem with it if he wouldn't do that. My problem is that he doesn't support (at least vocally) a lot of the things we support.

Who is "we"?

[Henry Rogue]

Constivolibertanarchists Either it covers all the bases or alienates everyone, I'm not sure which. I agree about the isms, people use it to classify people they disagree with and then marginalize the identified group.

[LibertyEagle]

There are still so many people who think "libertarian" means "conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues."

I'm always careful to define the term these days if I use it at all.

You're an anarchist; not a libertarian. Please don't conflate the two.


Speaking only for myself, I've got NO PROBLEMS with Rand supporting restrictions on foreign aid with hopes of eventually eliminating them. And I'd have a problem with it if he wouldn't do that. My problem is that he doesn't support (at least vocally) a lot of the things we support.

You mean, YOU support. Don't even begin to speak for all of the people here.

[Carlybee]

STP should sue them.

[DamianTV]

You're an anarchist; not a libertarian. Please don't conflate the two.



You mean, YOU support. Don't even begin to speak for all of the people here.

Would 'Libertarian' also include sticking up for the Rights of people who have opinions that are not agreed with? IE, this guy is Christian, and that guy is Muslim, but they both stick up for each other when oppressed, although they disagree on this philosophical issue peacefully. Would that be included in the definition? Just cant think of a way to better phrase that...

[KurtBoyer25L]

STP should sue them.

I'm sick of reading for 20 years that Stone Temple Pilots were an attempted cover band of Pearl Jam, or that Pearl Jam was an arena-rock version of Nirvana. Nirvana was, essentially, a really dark pop-punk band with postmodern screaming vocals. Pearl Jam has always been about a classic guitar sound with hit or miss indie-rock songwriting. STP in contrast was slow, leaden, more influenced by psychedelic music and stoner rock.

I minored in musicology and have played or booked artists for a living for 10+ years and I do not see any more similarity between those three acts as between say, Van Halen and Bad Company. Not musically or production-wise. I think the comparison came about because they were all from the West Coast and because there's a couple of ambient sections on the first STP and PJ records that sound somewhat alike.

It's pathetic how ignorant and lazy people are when they write or talk about music. If today's journalists would have been around in the 60s, Cream would have been considered a lounge jazz band for decades on end because their first single was "Wrapping Paper."

[Brett85]

There are still so many people who think "libertarian" means "conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues."

I'm always careful to define the term these days if I use it at all.

That's how they define it in this article. All of these articles about how libertarianism is on the rise make it sound like support for gay marriage is the most important and most crucial aspect of libertarianism.

[Brett85]

Now that is good stuff right there. I can go with the first two, but Cruz is the lead singer (Scott Stapp if you even give a shit. I can't believe I wasted my time looking it up) for Creed if we are doin' this right. Annoying to all but the most zealous.

I did intend to offend all Cruzombies and Creediathans, or whatever you call yourselves these days, by typing this out. When I hear Creed I wish that all of music was killed off back in the caves before it could ever come to this.

Oh, and beware of labeling or aligning yourself with any ideological groups. I guess I could consider "libertarian" to kind of mean "I leave you alone, you leave me alone, let's do some business" in a nutshell, but it is not a nutshell. That is why I stay away from any "isms", as it is like asking who is right about spirituality and religion. Ya don't know and you are an idiot in my book if you think you do. It is a trap. Dividing people up into neat little rows and columns is what isms do for you.

With that said I suppose I could be considered a Constivolibertanarchist. Catchy huh? GO Constivolibertanarchists 2016! You can doo eat!

Hmmm. Creed has always been my favorite band. :)

[satchelmcqueen]

lol thats the best! wow so funny.
From Gawker (http://gawker.com/if-ron-paul-is-nirvana-who-is-everyone-else-1617522403):

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--s_H_70lA--/e42oa3l2w2pfq1df0k8e.jpg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--YnBEUnOo--/fqb25syp4ebxxchtflnq.jpg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--jRvOdOSI--/jzhmhypmnej26ooyz71k.jpg

[klamath]

Speaking only for myself, I've got NO PROBLEMS with Rand supporting restrictions on foreign aid with hopes of eventually eliminating them. And I'd have a problem with it if he wouldn't do that. My problem is that he doesn't support (at least vocally) a lot of the things we support.You need to learn to speak for yourself and LEAVE the "we" out of it. I don't consider myself part of you..

[Brett85]

"There may be some libertarians who say, ‘By golly, we’re not going anywhere unless they attack us."

Sounds good to me.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

You're an anarchist; not a libertarian. Please don't conflate the two.

Anarchism is the logical end game of libertarianism.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

And if anything, Ron Paul is the Pixies in Kennedy's shitty analogy.

[NewRightLibertarian]

And if anything, Ron Paul is the Pixies in Kennedy's shitty analogy.

Kennedy is a good example of the perils of big-tent libertarianism

[Lucille]

Anarchism is the logical end game of libertarianism.

Q: What’s the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
A: About 6 to 7 years, if you’re paying attention!!

[CaptUSA]

Ugh.

Listen,
little "l" libertarians hate big "L" Libertarians.
An Caps hate Constitutionalists.
Left Libertarians hate right libertarians
Objectivists hate minarchists
Circus clowns hate party clowns
and call girls hate street whores.


Give up the labels. Acknowledge and accept our differences, but focus on our commonalities. It creates a much happier existence for you and is more inviting to others.

[specsaregood]

./

[Christian Liberty]

Like what? Something which will alienate 99% of the GOP primary voters instantly I bet?

We are nothing like the GOP. We aren't even the same species. I don't think Rand can win the GOP primary even with his watered down positions. We're no more like the Republicans than the Democrats.

Who is "we"?


You're an anarchist; not a libertarian. Please don't conflate the two.



You mean, YOU support. Don't even begin to speak for all of the people here.

I still agree that I can't speak for everyone here, but I didn't have the differences between anarchism and minarchism in mind when I wrote my original post. I had the difference between Rand Paul and minarchism in mind.

For instance, that whole foreign policy quote.

Would 'Libertarian' also include sticking up for the Rights of people who have opinions that are not agreed with? IE, this guy is Christian, and that guy is Muslim, but they both stick up for each other when oppressed, although they disagree on this philosophical issue peacefully. Would that be included in the definition? Just cant think of a way to better phrase that...

I don't know for sure what you mean, but no, I didn't have religious differences in mind at all with my post. It was political differences.


That's how they define it in this article. All of these articles about how libertarianism is on the rise make it sound like support for gay marriage is the most important and most crucial aspect of libertarianism.

That's why I'm starting to like the term less and less. I'm a voluntarist. I think all kinds of aggression are evil. I have disdain for soldiers* and cops* because they are the pawns that implement the aggression. I think trying to keep people out of those evil careers** has more to do with libertarianism than this political stuff ever could. I have disdain for almost all politicians because they purposely vote to restrict our freedom and to codify aggression. I hate our society because it is a wicked society that has embraced aggression as good and people who dare to assert the right to protect themselves from that aggression as "terrorists." I hate the fact that the government takes half of what we own in order to pay for huge pensions for the aggressors and their pawns, and produces little if anything of value. I hate that drug dealers go to jail while cops who commit murder don't. I have little interest in the social liberalism.

*I mean disdain as a group, not hatred of every single individual in said category.

**I understand that if the careers in question were restructured to where soldiers defended our country and cops arrested only actual aggressors, that my assessment of the careers would change. But that isn't the case right now.

"There may be some libertarians who say, ‘By golly, we’re not going anywhere unless they attack us."

Sounds good to me.

Indeed. And to me, this is a basic litmus test for being a libertarian. And when I say that Rand isn't a libertarian because he doesn't agree with this, they call me an anarchist. Which may be in some sense a true accusation (I prefer the term "voluntarist" but there are definitely people who use the term "anarchist" to describe what I believe), but its irrelevant. Ron Paul is a minarchist as far as I know, and he didn't want to go anywhere unless we were attacked.

Now, again, maybe this is just another rhetorical game on Rand's part. That's certainly possible. But as far as Rand's stated positions go, he's a conservative. Not a libertarian. And most people who call themselves conservatives today are neoconservatives.

Anarchism is the logical end game of libertarianism.

I agree.


Ugh.

Listen,
little "l" libertarians hate big "L" Libertarians.
An Caps hate Constitutionalists.
Left Libertarians hate right libertarians
Objectivists hate minarchists
Circus clowns hate party clowns
and call girls hate street whores.


Give up the labels. Acknowledge and accept our differences, but focus on our commonalities. It creates a much happier existence for you and is more inviting to others.

My issues with Rand weren't his failure to embrace anarcho-capitalism, lol!

And I don't hate constitutionalists. In fact, in some sense I am one, since I wholeheartedly condone strict interpretations of the constitution rather than loose ones. I don't even hate Rand. I just don't think he's a libertarian, and that he is disappointing in some ways.

Mind you, I respect that Rand is kind of challenging the whole "fiscal conservative/social liberal" line, but he's not replacing it with the right thing. He's replacing it with a conservative/libertarian hybrid instead. Which isn't necessarily terrible (it would certainly be an improvement for the Republican Party) but I wish they'd stop calling it "libertarianism." Oh well.

[CaptUSA]

And I don't hate constitutionalists. In fact, in some sense I am one, since I wholeheartedly condone strict interpretations of the constitution rather than loose ones. I don't even hate Rand. I just don't think he's a libertarian, and that he is disappointing in some ways.

Mind you, I respect that Rand is kind of challenging the whole "fiscal conservative/social liberal" line, but he's not replacing it with the right thing. He's replacing it with a conservative/libertarian hybrid instead. Which isn't necessarily terrible (it would certainly be an improvement for the Republican Party) but I wish they'd stop calling it "libertarianism." Oh well.

Lol... You missed the entire point of that post. Stop with the labels!!! They are confining you.

[Christian Liberty]

Lol... You missed the entire point of that post. Stop with the labels!!! They are confining you.

No, labels are appropriate because they mean things. Labels are only probalmatic if you pick a label and then try to change your views to conform to that label. But if you have certain viewpoints and those viewpoints are described accurately by a label, then the label is fine.

I am an anarcho-capitalist and a libertarian because my beliefs fit those labels.

[CaptUSA]

No, labels are appropriate because they mean things. Labels are only probalmatic if you pick a label and then try to change your views to conform to that label. But if you have certain viewpoints and those viewpoints are described accurately by a label, then the label is fine.

I am an anarcho-capitalist and a libertarian because my beliefs fit those labels.Labels are problematic in many more ways. MANY.

It may be simpler for you to categorize people and ideas, but that misses the beauty of individuality. The more narrowly a label is drawn (either for yourself or for someone else - or for an idea) the more you division you create in your own mind. I can sense your frustration in your posts - some of that frustration is external, but more of it is the internal struggle you are creating for yourself. There is a way of acknowledging differences without having to label them. You will find that each individual - and each idea - transcends the label that you may wish to impose on it.

[Christian Liberty]

Labels are problematic in many more ways. MANY.

It may be simpler for you to categorize people and ideas, but that misses the beauty of individuality. The more narrowly a label is drawn (either for yourself or for someone else - or for an idea) the more you division you create in your own mind. I can sense your frustration in your posts - some of that frustration is external, but more of it is the internal struggle you are creating for yourself. There is a way of acknowledging differences without having to label them. You will find that each individual - and each idea - transcends the label that you may wish to impose on it.

I am sometimes frustrated but I don't know that that has anything to do with labels. I don't care what a person calls himself. I care how much aggression he is OK with, if any. The more aggression a person is OK with, the less libertarian he is.

[CaptUSA]

I am sometimes frustrated but I don't know that that has anything to do with labels. I don't care what a person calls himself. I care how much aggression he is OK with, if any. The more aggression a person is OK with, the less libertarian he is.

There you go. That's better. Keep the labels as broad as possible. Aggressive vs. non-aggressive. But realize that even in those, there will be people and ideas that will appear aggressive in some sense and non-aggressive in others.

[mczerone]

What's a good word for an article that pretends to be fair and balanced, pretends to give it's subjects some hope, but is really just a screed meant to remind the "common reader" that the subjects are weird, give the hack Frum the chance to have un-answered smears, and to fail at even defining what "libertarianism" is?

Ultimately, it was a passable attempt at placating libertarians that was really just a hit-piece intended to solidify Democrat's and Republican's pre-existing misconceptions about libertarianism.

[Christian Liberty]

There you go. That's better. Keep the labels as broad as possible. Aggressive vs. non-aggressive. But realize that even in those, there will be people and ideas that will appear aggressive in some sense and non-aggressive in others.

There are definitely a few cases that are legitimately tricky. But not nearly as many of them as most people think that there are. Most people have just been conditioned into support gratuitous violence.

Now, WRT labels, anarcho-capitalism MEANS a rejection of all statist aggression in particular. Minarchists support a minimal amount of necessary State aggression. Most people support aggression for whatever whims they have.

[CaptUSA]

"Once you label me, you negate me" - Kierkegaard
This holds true for people, but also for ideas. It is one thing to define a label; it is quite another to apply that label to a person or circumstance. The problem is that the labeler does himself just as much damage as the labeled.

[Christian Liberty]

This holds true for people, but also for ideas. It is one thing to define a label; it is quite another to apply that label to a person or circumstance. The problem is that the labeler does himself just as much damage as the labeled.

Labels are often inaccurate or hastily applied. That doesn't make labels useless.

[Contumacious]

It's a long one, and they interviewed Rand and Amash, so click through!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magazine/has-the-libertarian-moment-finally-arrived.html?_r=0


Rand Paul (R-Gooberville) is a Libertarian? Who would have thunketh?!?!?!?!?

.

[idiom]

how do you define it - quickly?

NAP = Non-violation of contracts with, or property currently homesteaded by, living humans.

Its a pretty narrow definition, and the definition of those terms hide major issues and expose major divides.

[idiom]

Would 'Libertarian' also include sticking up for the Rights of people who have opinions that are not agreed with? IE, this guy is Christian, and that guy is Muslim, but they both stick up for each other when oppressed, although they disagree on this philosophical issue peacefully. Would that be included in the definition? Just cant think of a way to better phrase that...

Not of the NAP. In fact unless you are specifically invited to stick up for someone you really have no business interfering.

Libertarian can include doing that, but its a blanket term that covers a lot of different schools. Objectivism, for example, certainly has the ability to affirm intervention on behalf of the oppressed, even if they don't want your help.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand Paul (R-Gooberville) is a Libertarian? Who would have thunketh?!?!?!?!?

.

He's more libertarian than you are.

I have a long memory. I remember your defenses of police brutality.

[56ktarget]

Kennedy was not a libertarian. He is more progressive than Obama. Paulites, stop trying to claim him as one of your own.

[idiom]

From the article:


Why has the libertarian takeover not come to pass? With charming understatement, the authors of the 1971 magazine article pointed out a small complication to this otherwise-unstoppable tidal wave they predicted. “At present,” they wrote, “the only areas of disagreement within the libertarian movement are whether the movement should strive for anarchy or for limited government, and whether it should work through revolution or within the system.”

[idiom]

Also from the article, Rand explaining how democracy works to all the whingers here:


During our conversation, Paul made a point of characterizing libertarianism as being “moderate” rather than liberal on social issues. Movement leaders would likely object, but Paul’s preoccupation is with swaying the center-right.

“The party can’t become the opposite of what it is,” he told me. “If you tell people from Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia, ‘You know what, guys, we’ve been wrong, and we’re gonna be the pro-gay-marriage party,’ they’re either gonna stay home or — I mean, many of these people joined the Republican Party because of these social issues. So I don’t think we can completely flip. But can we become, to use the overused term, a bigger tent? I think we can and can agree to disagree on a lot of these issues. I think the party will evolve. It’ll either continue to lose, or it’ll become a bigger place where there’s a mixture of opinions.”

In effect, Paul was saying that the way for Republicans to win was to become more libertarian — though only up to a point. Purity was the movement’s game, not his. Paul reminded me that he worked on his father’s 1988 Libertarian Party presidential campaign and felt a great deal of sympathy for anyone trying to take on the major parties. “I also gathered signatures to get him on the ballot,” he said. “I know what a thankless job that is. Anybody who stands in a parking lot is thought to be an extremist.”

But later, with an irritated edge to his voice, Paul added: “Some people are purists, and I get grief all the time — all these libertarian websites hating on me because I’m not as pure as my dad. And I’m putting restrictions on foreign aid instead of eliminating foreign aid altogether. And I’m like: ‘Look, guys, I’m having trouble putting these restrictions on, much less eliminating them! So give me a break!’ ”

[LibertyEagle]

Kennedy was not a libertarian. He is more progressive than Obama. Paulites, stop trying to claim him as one of your own.

I'm not claiming Kennedy. lol. He was horrible.

[2young2vote]

My goodness, every comment is asking "but who will build the roads, but who will keep my food safe, but who will stop pollution, but who will perform medical research?" They seem to have some holier-than-thou attitude regarding libertarianism, as if they are somehow capable of an understanding that libertarians are not capable of, as if libertarians do not live in the same world as they do. They seem to feel that, without big government, society would collapse. That somehow a free and unregulated market caused the financial collapse.

Read this comment:

The only force that is able to counteract these private concentrations of power is a public concentration of power -- that is, the people, acting collectively, by forming a government which is effectively controlled by the people. Sure, we don't have that now (because private concentrations of power are able to dominate it), but we could get a lot closer to it.

This person believes that we need power to be concentrated in the form of government, yet fails to realize that power is currently concentrated so heavily in the private sector BECAUSE of government manipulation of the economy. As if we can somehow control politicians in a government that has a heavy concentration of power. Not to mention that government has killed billions of people over the centuries and that it was not until the dawn of free thought and free enterprise that we got some semblance of peace (notice that nearly every war and massacre in the 20th century was caused by a government, when was the last time McDonalds rounded its customers up and put them in concentration camps? It happened less than 100 years ago here in the USA with the Japanese).

I guess I shouldn't expect anything more from regular NYTimes readers. Their only solution to every problem is bigger government with a greater concentration of power in the hands of the few.