Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 134

Thread: Why Libertarians are Failing at Politics

  1. #1

    Why Libertarians are Failing at Politics

    "Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center dropped a truth bomb on the beltway in his recent piece for Fox News about the decline of Rand Paul. Taylor notes that the alleged growth of the libertarian movement in the wake of the Ron Paul campaign was largely illusory. The alienated populists and conspiracy theorists that filled out Paul’s numbers in 2012 easily made the transition to the very un-libertarian Donald Trump in 2015, leaving Rand out in the cold.

    The lack of a broad-based movement, despite a number of high profile campaigns and events, is a bitter pill for libertarians who believe in electoral politics. Having libertarians in office may help raise the profile of issues like overcriminalization, tech freedom, and the insanity of the drug war. But those who await a libertarian takeover of the GOP misunderstand the fundamentally radical nature of libertarian ideas and how deeply that radicalism conflicts with the perceptions most Americans have about the role of government.

    Trump supporters are a grim reminder that millions of voters view the government as a hammer that can be wielded to smash opposing values or groups and force their beliefs on others. Educating the electorate about libertarian ideas misses the fact that they have no real incentive to learn; most don’t care about the relationship between man and state and likely never will, as long as the state continues to provide the stability they have come to expect. Ron Paul’s success in 2008 and 2012 can largely be credited to the mortgage crisis; once the sting faded, so did support for his radical ideas.

    There’s a good reason libertarians remain at the ideological fringe: “Libertarian politics” is a contradiction in terms. Libertarianism is not a third party, like the Know-Nothings or the Whigs or a prescription of policy tweaks to make the government more efficient. It is a distinct value system that abhors political power itself, even if some of its adherents consider power a necessary evil.

    Libertarians may disagree whether the state should be abolished or minimized, but the difference matters little to the average American: Both seem frighteningly outside his own experience. Even the most moderate libertarians will wax poetic about ending intellectual property or privatizing the welfare system. Moreover, virtually all voters are deeply invested in government services they have come to depend on, and libertarians have been unable to present hypothesized private-sector alternatives while the state forces dependence upon itself. Conceptually, libertarians are on a page that most people find bizarre.

    Libertarianism is best understood as the latest in a long line of radical liberation ideologies, rooted in the principles of natural law and individualism, that have provided the intellectual basis for rebellion since the American Revolution. It is a reaction to the perpetual expansion of government power in the U.S. and its frequent abuses. But radicalism, by definition, is immoderate and cannot compromise its way to reforms. Rather than moving toward the “Overton window” of public opinion by moderating controversial views (as Rand Paul attempted), radicals must pull public opinion towards their own viewpoints. Rand’s straying from libertarian principles means that he likely has little unique appeal even for the tiny libertarian electorate his father created. David Boaz’s research shows that 70% of libertarian-leaning voters went with Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson in 2012, so we know even libertarians who believe in politics are willing to blunt their own sword.

    If libertarianism is denied its radical characteristics, it degrades into a flimsy millennial conservatism: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and completely powerless, a mashup of existing ideas better espoused by other parties and ideologies. Without unyielding commitment to truly radical ideas, libertarians are drowned out by louder voices catering to the will of angry, pitchfork-bearing constituents. They add little of value, and are likely to end up little more than a footnote in the history of conservatism.

    To fail to understand this is to remain resigned to swim against the tide of American politics. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out: “Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide.”

    Instead, libertarians might be more useful as single-issue activists and innovators. While U.S. politicians fail to shrink government, individualists like Erik Voorhees, Cody Wilson, Peter Thiel and the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto are using technology to forge a new path. Time will tell exactly where that leads. But Rand’s decline underlines the fact that libertarian ethics predicate disruption and revolution, not moderation and compromise. As such, it is unlikely to ever get big votes in American politics."

    https://c4ss.org/content/40819



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Can't say I disagree with much in that article.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  4. #3
    libertarian leaning politicians are doing better in electoral politics on the state level than ever before. Rand's presidential bid does not define the nationwide liberty movement.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  5. #4
    The more radicals, the merrier.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  6. #5
    This article boils down to little more than "libertarians are not winning elections because their ideas are not popular." No kidding. The more important question is why? The article touches on the fact that people are ever more dependent on government programs, but there is more to it than that. The libertarian position is based on reason and the vast majority of people simply are not persuaded by reason, at least not to the extent that they develop a reasoned view of policy and vote on it. Instead, the majority of people are persuaded by, and vote on, emotion. The candidate who most effectively manipulates the fear, jealousy, resentment, hatred, guilt, trust, attraction, etc. of the voters wins. Reason doesn't win so libertarians don't win.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  7. #6
    Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and completely powerless, a mashup of existing ideas better espoused by other parties and ideologies.
    This is completely wrong. It mixes up personal morality with government, as all critiques of libertarianism do (and some libertarians do this as well).

    Libertarianism is not "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". Even saying that already presupposes that legislation and morality are the same thing.

  8. #7
    Libertarian ideology is radical for those that want to control other peoples lives.
    USE THIS SITE TO LINK ARTICLES FROM OLIGARCH MEDIA:http://archive.is/ STARVE THE BEAST.
    More Government = Less Freedom
    Communism never disappeared it only changed its name to Social Democrat
    Emotion and Logic mix like oil and water

  9. #8
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014


    ...the author is dense...

    ...no honest 'libertarian' ever voted for stinking mitt romney....ugh...

    ...i do know a few (ron paul) 'libertarians' still registered as republicans who will be supporting the hot-air balloon trump in the republican primary as a way to poison/infect this stinking rotten republican party...

    ..trump v. hillary...great! entertainment value and a great tactic for those of us hoping to kill this stinking republicrat party inc.!



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    This is completely wrong. It mixes up personal morality with government, as all critiques of libertarianism do (and some libertarians do this as well).

    Libertarianism is not "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". Even saying that already presupposes that legislation and morality are the same thing.
    I think by socially liberal they mean the government stops telling people what to do with their personal lives. It does NOT mean that libertarians use their freedom in any particular way.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  12. #10
    How are "political libertarians"(so called) really any different than statists?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by seapilot View Post
    Libertarian ideology is radical for those that want to control other peoples lives.
    Libertarianism in one sentence: "Other people are not your property."

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    How are "political libertarians"(so called) really any different than statists?
    The agenda of the political libertarian (including Ron Paul) is to dismantle the state through established political process while a statist seeks to enhance the scope and power of the state. Pretty big difference, I think, whether or not you think the political libertarians will succeed.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    The agenda of the political libertarian (including Ron Paul) is to dismantle the state through established political process while a statist seeks to enhance the scope and power of the state. Pretty big difference, I think, whether or not you think the political libertarians will succeed.
    When did Ron ever call himself a libertarian?

  16. #14
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    ...'libertarians' would be wise to get serious, specific, practical, etc., as to the hideous monetary order under which we rot and groan...

    ...i have communicated with many 'ludwiggers' who fancy themselves 'libertarians' and knowledgeable about 'economics' who spend lots and lots of time vomiting about the illion 'dollar' economy whilst worse than ignorant of the twisted, destructive origin and nature of even one 'dollar'...word...these ludwigging blowhards opine about some theoretical future absent an honest understanding of the pre$ent...and pa$t..

    ...and 'libertarianism' will be easy to $ell when you get 'the/a microphone' in the hands of some of the many wonderful libertarians we all know...instead of poisonous phony 'libertarians' like glen stinking beck and 'kneel boor'......and the rest of the stinking republicans who fancy themselves 'libertarian'...i'm pleasantly surprised 'libertarianism' is as popular as it is given the many high profile 'conservative republican' f@ckheads who claim adherence and spread destructive misinformation about 'libertarianism'...

    ...btw, ronin truth, wasn't ron paul calling himself 'libertarian' in 1988?...at least...
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 11-20-2015 at 04:47 PM.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    "Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center dropped a truth bomb on the beltway in his recent piece for Fox News about the decline of Rand Paul. Taylor notes that the alleged growth of the libertarian movement in the wake of the Ron Paul campaign was largely illusory. ]
    BULL$#@!


    Libertarianism ONLY promises to protect and defend your right to Life, Liberty, Property and to pursue Happiness


    We Do NOT promise

    1- to feed you

    2- to provide free health insurance

    3- to clothe you

    4- to quench your thirst

    5- free education

    6- we REJECT the welfare/warfare police state


    Americans are narcotized - but the Libertarian Party MUST NOT succumb to clamors demanding the it become electable.


    So if you like the staus quo then vote DEMOPUBLICAN.


    .
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and completely powerless, a mashup of existing ideas better espoused by other parties and ideologies.
    This is completely wrong. It mixes up personal morality with government, as all critiques of libertarianism do (and some libertarians do this as well).

    Libertarianism is not "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". Even saying that already presupposes that legislation and morality are the same thing.
    I think you misread what the author was trying to say. Note the colon preceding "Fiscally" (the "f" should not have been capitalized, as it makes what follows the colon look like a separate sentence, albeit a grammatically incomplete one).

    If libertarianism is denied its radical characteristics, it degrades into a flimsy millennial conservatism: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and completely powerless, a mashup of existing ideas better espoused by other parties and ideologies.
    So he wasn't using the phrase "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" to describe "libertarianism" - he was using it to describe what he called "flimsy millennial conservatism."
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 11-20-2015 at 04:56 PM.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    "Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center dropped a truth bomb on the beltway in his recent piece for Fox News about the decline of Rand Paul. Taylor notes that the alleged growth of the libertarian movement in the wake of the Ron Paul campaign was largely illusory. The alienated populists and conspiracy theorists that filled out Paul’s numbers in 2012 easily made the transition to the very un-libertarian Donald Trump in 2015, leaving Rand out in the cold.

    The lack of a broad-based movement, despite a number of high profile campaigns and events, is a bitter pill for libertarians who believe in electoral politics. Having libertarians in office may help raise the profile of issues like overcriminalization, tech freedom, and the insanity of the drug war. But those who await a libertarian takeover of the GOP misunderstand the fundamentally radical nature of libertarian ideas and how deeply that radicalism conflicts with the perceptions most Americans have about the role of government.

    Trump supporters are a grim reminder that millions of voters view the government as a hammer that can be wielded to smash opposing values or groups and force their beliefs on others. Educating the electorate about libertarian ideas misses the fact that they have no real incentive to learn; most don’t care about the relationship between man and state and likely never will, as long as the state continues to provide the stability they have come to expect. Ron Paul’s success in 2008 and 2012 can largely be credited to the mortgage crisis; once the sting faded, so did support for his radical ideas.

    There’s a good reason libertarians remain at the ideological fringe: “Libertarian politics” is a contradiction in terms. Libertarianism is not a third party, like the Know-Nothings or the Whigs or a prescription of policy tweaks to make the government more efficient. It is a distinct value system that abhors political power itself, even if some of its adherents consider power a necessary evil.

    Libertarians may disagree whether the state should be abolished or minimized, but the difference matters little to the average American: Both seem frighteningly outside his own experience. Even the most moderate libertarians will wax poetic about ending intellectual property or privatizing the welfare system. Moreover, virtually all voters are deeply invested in government services they have come to depend on, and libertarians have been unable to present hypothesized private-sector alternatives while the state forces dependence upon itself. Conceptually, libertarians are on a page that most people find bizarre.

    Libertarianism is best understood as the latest in a long line of radical liberation ideologies, rooted in the principles of natural law and individualism, that have provided the intellectual basis for rebellion since the American Revolution. It is a reaction to the perpetual expansion of government power in the U.S. and its frequent abuses. But radicalism, by definition, is immoderate and cannot compromise its way to reforms. Rather than moving toward the “Overton window” of public opinion by moderating controversial views (as Rand Paul attempted), radicals must pull public opinion towards their own viewpoints. Rand’s straying from libertarian principles means that he likely has little unique appeal even for the tiny libertarian electorate his father created. David Boaz’s research shows that 70% of libertarian-leaning voters went with Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson in 2012, so we know even libertarians who believe in politics are willing to blunt their own sword.

    If libertarianism is denied its radical characteristics, it degrades into a flimsy millennial conservatism: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and completely powerless, a mashup of existing ideas better espoused by other parties and ideologies. Without unyielding commitment to truly radical ideas, libertarians are drowned out by louder voices catering to the will of angry, pitchfork-bearing constituents. They add little of value, and are likely to end up little more than a footnote in the history of conservatism.

    To fail to understand this is to remain resigned to swim against the tide of American politics. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out: “Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide.”

    Instead, libertarians might be more useful as single-issue activists and innovators. While U.S. politicians fail to shrink government, individualists like Erik Voorhees, Cody Wilson, Peter Thiel and the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto are using technology to forge a new path. Time will tell exactly where that leads. But Rand’s decline underlines the fact that libertarian ethics predicate disruption and revolution, not moderation and compromise. As such, it is unlikely to ever get big votes in American politics."

    https://c4ss.org/content/40819
    Well, you know....it's time to call the chickens home to roost.

    People on this board said those conspiracy folks were toxic to Rand (please go away!).....Rand himself went around reminding everyone that he's not really a libertarian. (Libertarians, go away!) Rand tried to embrace the bigger slice of the pie, Republican voters. Maybe it will work out....it's not over yet.

    But many of the people from Ron's base didn't walk out on Rand on their own volition . They were shunned, and pushed away.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    When did Ron ever call himself a libertarian?
    1988


  22. #19
    I think libertarian politics can probably win national elections with the right candidate. I know I'll get a million neg reps, but Rand Paul is not a very good candidate. He is not charismatic and often appears to lack fortitude.

    It's true, libertarian politics are not widely popular, but I think with the right candidate a libertarian-light philosophy could be successfully sold to the masses.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by brandon View Post
    I think libertarian politics can probably win national elections with the right candidate. I know I'll get a million neg reps, but Rand Paul is not a very good candidate. He is not charismatic and often appears to lack fortitude.

    It's true, libertarian politics are not widely popular, but I think with the right candidate a libertarian-light philosophy could be successfully sold to the masses.


    BULL$#@!.


    47 - 50% of the electorate is owned by the welfare/warfare state.

    You do the math..


    .
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    BULL$#@!.


    47 - 50% of the electorate is owned by the welfare/warfare state.

    You do the math..


    .
    So? Ron Paul was elected to Congress, why do you think it is entirely impossible for someone like him to be elected president? Lake Jackson and his district wasn't entirely comprised of libertarians. It is an uphill battle of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by brandon View Post
    I think libertarian politics can probably win national elections with the right candidate. I know I'll get a million neg reps, but Rand Paul is not a very good candidate. He is not charismatic and often appears to lack fortitude.

    It's true, libertarian politics are not widely popular, but I think with the right candidate a libertarian-light philosophy could be successfully sold to the masses.
    Good grief. No one should neg rep you for stating this.

    +rep to offset any you might get.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    So? Ron Paul was elected to Congress, why do you think it is entirely impossible for someone like him to be elected president? Lake Jackson and his district wasn't entirely comprised of libertarians. It is an uphill battle of course.

    Fort Jackson (Brazoria County ) has about 8% of the population which is considered parasitic.



    Compare that to New York County where 21.7% is below the federal poverty level.

    In addition , I am familiar with both areas - more people subscribe to the work ethic that they do in NY County.

    I don't think they would have elected a socialist scumbag as mayor down in Brazoria.


    .
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    ...'libertarians' would be wise to get serious, specific, practical, etc., as to the hideous monetary order under which we rot and groan...

    ...i have communicated with many 'ludwiggers' who fancy themselves 'libertarians' and knowledgeable about 'economics' who spend lots and lots of time vomiting about the illion 'dollar' economy whilst worse than ignorant of the twisted, destructive origin and nature of even one 'dollar'...word...these ludwigging blowhards opine about some theoretical future absent an honest understanding of the pre$ent...and pa$t..

    ...and 'libertarianism' will be easy to $ell when you get 'the/a microphone' in the hands of some of the many wonderful libertarians we all know...instead of poisonous phony 'libertarians' like glen stinking beck and 'kneel boor'......and the rest of the stinking republicans who fancy themselves 'libertarian'...i'm pleasantly surprised 'libertarianism' is as popular as it is given the many high profile 'conservative republican' f@ckheads who claim adherence and spread destructive misinformation about 'libertarianism'...

    ...btw, ronin truth, wasn't ron paul calling himself 'libertarian' in 1988?...at least...
    Actually it was Libertarian AKA the Libertarian Party (oxymoron).



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    This article boils down to little more than "libertarians are not winning elections because their ideas are not popular." No kidding.
    The article boils down to this: Libertarian ideas are radical to the larger community. No surprise. But if libertarians want to successfully enact libertarian ideas they have to hold on to that radical edge and sway more people to their stances. If they don't, if instead they act more like the masses, not only will they be indistinguishable in theory, menaing no one will pay attention or care, then so-called elected "libertarians" will just act like the oppressive majority while justifying it to get elected.

    This is why Rand is unpopular. His refusal to hold to libertarians ideas makes him blend in with people like Ted Cruz. Rand doesn't stand out, menaing he neither entices nor invites people to his point of view.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by brandon View Post
    I think libertarian politics can probably win national elections with the right candidate. I know I'll get a million neg reps, but Rand Paul is not a very good candidate. He is not charismatic and often appears to lack fortitude.

    It's true, libertarian politics are not widely popular, but I think with the right candidate a libertarian-light philosophy could be successfully sold to the masses.
    They can, if they hold to libertarian ideas and don't compromise them to look like everyone else. When they do that, they just look like every other Republican, and act like them too. I mean, there is a reason most people can't tell you the big difference between Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    How are "political libertarians"(so called) really any different than statists?
    Libertarian ideas allow for minarchism, a minimal state, but a state nonetheless.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    This is completely wrong. It mixes up personal morality with government, as all critiques of libertarianism do (and some libertarians do this as well).

    Libertarianism is not "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". Even saying that already presupposes that legislation and morality are the same thing.
    That is the point. That true libertarianism isn't that, but that is what you get when you compromise the true heart of libertarian ideas to get elected.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    BULL$#@!.


    47 - 50% of the electorate is owned by the welfare/warfare state.

    You do the math..


    .
    Maybe, but that statistic has nothing to do with who is elected president.

    Delegates + money
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  34. #30
    we eat our own.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •