Why Do Libertarians Lose?

[helmuth_hubener]

One practical problem it seems like we run into:

[William Tell]

One practical problem it seems like we run into:

Open Borders? Voting? All of it?

[helmuth_hubener]

All of it?

Strength does seem like a prerequisite for victory. And weakness to rule it out. So the applicability is pretty broad.

It's a bit of a dilemma.

[jmdrake]

One practical problem it seems like we run into:

Funny. But here's another reason why libertarians loose. We fight other people's battles for them. Trump this, Trump that. A libertarian just lost a special congressional election and there's not been a single story about him period. I know. I just checked.

[Natural Citizen]

Not a lot of libertarians in libertarianism these days.

[Ender]

Why Do Libertarians Lose?

Because people haven't got a clue what real Liberty means any more.

[Natural Citizen]

Ender. HellOoooOooo. I just said that.

Ya copycat.

[Natural Citizen]

Okay wait, hode up, hode up, hode up. Let's figure on a good meaning of libertarian while we're here. A good simple, universal, one. And then we can see amongst ourselves if we all on the same page. Ready?

Here's what I think it means in its most simple and functional of meaning. And, of course, we're talking about it from the perspective of the traditional philosophy of governance in America only. We're not talking about Plato here.

To be libertarian means...oh..I say that it fundamentally means to be against government-over-man. Naw?

So, then, say for instance a guy actually does believe in government-over-man. For instance he wants the guy in charge to be the one who wants to send men with guns from the government to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their property to other Individuals or other groups of Individuals at the ends of their barrels. Now, that guy wouldn't be a libertartian. Right? Because everyone knows that property rights are the principal support for the bery rights to life and liberty themselves. In fact, the latter is aggressive toward the very foundation of Individual Liberty. This person would be its most dangerous aggressor.

So, yeah. I say libertarianism aligns with the former. To be against government-over-man. Not the latter. Which is patenetly pro- government-over-man.

[euphemia]

Why Do Libertarians Lose?

Because people haven't got a clue what real Liberty means any more.

And they don't know how to distill the message down to logical talking points. Plus, they can't get along. If they could be a little more unified on core principles, they would accomplish much more. Playing to the fringes isn't helping.

[Ender]

And they don't know how to distill the message down to logical talking points. Plus, they can't get along. If they could be a little more unified on core principles, they would accomplish much more. Playing to the fringes isn't helping.

Liberty should not be a "fringe" subject. Everyone in this country should have a clear idea what that means.

Unfortunately, few do.

[undergroundrr]

Meh. We win some, we lose some.

We tend to be male, self-absorbed and weird and proud of it. As a result, we don't attract the pretty people needed to fuel a sustained social trend upward. Libertarianism would have to take on a whole new MBTI if it wanted to be a big tent movement.

On the day that libertarianism becomes extroverted, inclusive, compassionate and sexy it will gain currency at an alarming rate.

[Anti Federalist]

Why Do Libertarians Lose?

Because freedom is not popular.

Never has been.

[euphemia]

Liberty should not be a "fringe" subject. Everyone in this country should have a clear idea what that means.

Unfortunately, few do.

Re-read. I didn't say liberty was a fringe subject. I said if libertarians could agree on the core issues and talk about them logically, they would make more progress. People think libertarians are all about cannabis for a reason. The discussion needs to elevate quite bit for libertarians to get people thinking about how little liberty they have.

[Ender]

Re-read. I didn't say liberty was a fringe subject. I said if libertarians could agree on the core issues and talk about them logically, they would make more progress. People think libertarians are all about cannabis for a reason. The discussion needs to elevate quite bit for libertarians to get people thinking about how little liberty they have.

Who is this "they" you speak of?

[fedupinmo]

Because it can't promise free $#@! to the weak and the useless.

[euphemia]

Who is this "they" you speak of?

Non-libertarians.

This, right here, is exactly what I'm talking about. Every discussion does not have to be an argument.

[shakey1]

Meh. We win some, we lose some.

We tend to be male, self-absorbed and weird and proud of it. As a result, we don't attract the pretty people needed to fuel a sustained social trend upward. Libertarianism would have to take on a whole new MBTI if it wanted to be a big tent movement.

On the day that libertarianism becomes extroverted, inclusive, compassionate and sexy it will gain currency at an alarming rate.

... on the other hand... https://steemit.com/anarchism/@capop...-women-of-2016

[Feeding the Abscess]

Not a lot of libertarians in libertarianism these days.

This is true, but even including those who claim to be libertarians but jump off board on the first exit (whether conservative or liberal in slant), there aren't more than a million of them.

The first step in diagnosing political success, or the lack thereof as it pertains to libertarianism, is to understand and accept this.

[undergroundrr]

This is true, but even including those who claim to be libertarians but jump off board on the first exit (whether conservative or liberal in slant), there aren't more than a million of them.

The first step in diagnosing political success, or the lack thereof as it pertains to libertarianism, is to understand and accept this.

As of Reuters polling April 2015:

One in five Americans consider themselves libertarian, with younger adults being the most likely to adopt the label. Among adults aged 18 to 29, 32 percent consider themselves libertarian. Just 12 percent of Americans age 60 or older consider themselves libertarian.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/30/19...ify-as-liberta

[Brian4Liberty]

Funny. But here's another reason why libertarians loose. We fight other people's battles for them. Trump this, Trump that. A libertarian just lost a special congressional election and there's not been a single story about him period. I know. I just checked.

Is that the one that CPUd posted about?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ection-results

[Matt Collins]

People who love liberty lose because they don't take the time and effort to learn how to win.

[Natural Citizen]

People who love liberty lose because they don't take the time and effort to learn how to win.

Matt, that ship has sailed. At least for the moment. I commend you for what you've done in that regard. And even now, there are a couple people here whom I know are working on the down-lo to try to grab some senate seats.

Respectfully, though, I just don't like the way that some of you in the 'education' end of it have tried to teach the processs to new (even experienced) people. What happens is you get a guy who is really dedicated to his cause and wants to learn the process in order to further his personal cause, and then when he goes to somebody to teach him how to become involved, he ends up spending all of his time committing himself to some other guy's right to work cause or something. And then he forgets his own reasons for wanting to become involved. He never gets a chance to do what he wanted.

I know a little bit about these programs you're talking about, Matt. I've been to em.

To a large extent, what they're doing is sucking up all of the people who want to make change and using them for little minions in someone elses personal projects which have nothing to do with why the guy wanted to learn how to do it in the first place.

You know that I'm right.


That said, we'd do well to focus on the other kind of education. Daniel mentioned that to you a few months back right here on these very forums. Most people here are likely in that camp. Granted, preaching to the choir is like pissing into the wind but people have to spread out.

Personally, I'm done with 'learning' the political process from the self-professed uppercrust within the group.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Simple: libertarians do not study power, and therefore do not understand how to get it. The entire movement is trapped between heady concepts that sell very poorly and weird lifestylist libertines. There's also an engineering problem inherent in the structure of government. Separations of power, constitutions, these things don't engineer liberty. Everything about libertarianism needs to be rethought, or it won't survive as a philosophy.

[Matt Collins]

Simple: libertarians do not study power, and therefore do not understand how to get it.

Bingo

[Matt Collins]

What happens is you get a guy who is really dedicated to his cause and wants to learn the process in order to further his personal cause, and then when he goes to somebody to teach him how to become involved, he ends up spending all of his time committing himself to some other guy's right to work cause or something. And then he forgets his own reasons for wanting to become involved. He never gets a chance to do what he wanted.

huh wut? Why would learning the ropes in a political fight hurt one's ability to do other things? On the job training is actually very helpful.

To a large extent, what they're doing is sucking up all of the people who want to make change and using them for little minions in someone elses personal projects which have nothing to do with why the guy wanted to learn how to do it in the first place.

Uh everything is voluntary, except for taxes of course.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything.


But if you are referring to RTW, you have to understand that it is a very functional model, and unions are the largest single supporter of progressive causes. Remove their warchest and you remove their power.


Regardless though, tactics and strategy are ideologically neutral, so it doesn't really matter the cause if one is learning the foundations the technique.

Personally, I'm done with 'learning' the political process from the self-professed uppercrust within the group.

You are confusing several things together that are not actually together.

[jmdrake]

Is that the one that CPUd posted about?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ection-results

Yep. That's it. And the entire thread is about the democrat vs republican horserace. Bernie Sanders, who wasn't a candidate, got mentioned, but the libertarian candidate didn't get mentioned by name (he's there on a graphic) until just now (I posted his name). It's like a reverse Ron Paul blackout. The media covered the libertarian candidate more than we did. Folks what the hell are we doing? End the Trump obsession pro or con. He's draining all of our energy.

[jmdrake]

People who love liberty lose because they don't take the time and effort to learn how to win.

Oh libertarians have found how to "win." Hook yourself to a winner and declare him to be good enough and attack anyone who disagrees as a "purist." MAGA!

Edit: Even co-op the term "3D chess" and apply it liberally to your new pro-libertarian, orange skinned, toupee wearing kinda-sorta liberty "champion." Yes winning is everything!...until it's not

[merkelstan]

Oh libertarians have found how to "win." Hook yourself to a winner and declare him to be good enough and attack anyone who disagrees as a "purist." MAGA!

Edit: Even co-op the term "3D chess" and apply it liberally to your new pro-libertarian, orange skinned, toupee wearing kinda-sorta liberty "champion." Yes winning is everything!...until it's not

I grant your point that some portion of libertarian-leaning people have a high-inertia emotional investment in Trump. It's not completely unwarranted, because this election cycle was a rare event, where the deep state had a strong preference for one candidate over another, and the underdog won.

That does not mean everyone who engaged in the political effort to elect Trump believed that US Presidents wield arbitrary executive power, or sets policy independnt of the rest of the government. That also doesn't mean we believed Trump's policy stands completely align with their own. Many of US saw a coming US/Russia confrontation - the most dangerous thing in the world - and decided we had to take any possible action against it.

The most enlightened and effective ideological purist is the one who also acts as a tactical realist.

[Ender]

Oh libertarians have found how to "win." Hook yourself to a winner and declare him to be good enough and attack anyone who disagrees as a "purist." MAGA!

Edit: Even co-op the term "3D chess" and apply it liberally to your new pro-libertarian, orange skinned, toupee wearing kinda-sorta liberty "champion." Yes winning is everything!...until it's not

LOL

Not sure I'd call the above "libertarians".

[jmdrake]

The most enlightened and effective ideological purist is the one who also acts as a tactical realist.

Okay. So how well did that work out with Trump?



(Evil robot)