Why isn't Libertarianism more popular?

libertarians don't share the morals of the republican party due to not standing against abortions and homosexual marriage and they don't have the morals of the democrat party of taxing the rich to give welfare to the poor.

its lose lose for them.

 

Correct, but in every society, instead of being seen simply as a tool for such ends, it is glorified and dramatized as an idealized concept - totally detached from reality. That's much like the electoral process. There are way too many people in the Western world (and probably most other places) that just vote for "their party" as a replacement to "the right party" and they convince themselves they are moral agents by engaging in this delusional fantasy of 'them vs us' and the splendor of the supposed ideology their party upholds etc. I'm really sad to see Australian politics go the way of US politics and its downturn is being spearheaded by conservatives, who have simultaneously silenced any form of libertarianism or classic liberalism we had established. Anyway I digress.

I agree, but it isnt enough to simply to give personal liberty - you need to give them basic skills also. There is no point in voting if you have no idea who is running in the election or how to vote, if you get my meaning.

 

How so? You can think that abortion is an abomination of epic proportion and still believe that it is not the provenance of government to enter into the sacred hoop of life, especially when the government is an entity that also kills. You can certainly believe that the rich should pay their fare share of the tax and be a libertarian.

 

They think that the "progress" we've made going from a republic to an imperialistic authoritarian nation is beneficial to their own interests. As for so-called libs, they've had 12 years of Bush, but pretend that war is peace with the new guy sitting on the throne.

They are propagandized into the norm by the obviously owned media and simple desire for social acceptance. Convinced that somehow the path we're on is a noble and progressive path. Conservatives just fight against what they see as an advancement of socialist agendas.

 

Which means they have more consistent and respectable morals than either the democratic or republican platform.​

 

Educating people as to whether one policy is better than another is not a responsibility of the state. The point of giving people a vote is to make them accountable for the outcome. One man, one vote means we all own this nation in partnership and we're all equally responsible for where it ends up. It's not possible for someone to point a finger and say "our rulers screwed up, hang em" ... because we have no rulers, we rule ourselves.

Deep down each of us knows, he had as much vote and as much opportunity to propose a solution as the next man. No one owed him the skills or knowledge to make a better decision or lead our nation in a better way, rather he owed it to all of his partners to educate himself and lead or at least support the right course.​

 

I did not say it was, or that it should be.

But it is pointless if they have no ability to understand or provision to utilize it to its full extent.

You do have rulers, they are called "representatives." Unfortunately, I have them as well.

He would not know that without proper education or the resources to obtain such knowledge.

Its not a matter of "owe" its a matter of outcomes. There is no point in giving a guy a car if there is no way he can teach himself how to drive it. It similarly pointless to give people the vote and leave them without any resources to gain information on how to use it. The government is just a managerial institution. However it can become a system of corrupt tyranny if people do not know how to utilize it.

 

I'm not saying I'm oppressed. I don't care if people were oppressed in the past in either democratic or other forms of government. The U.S. has oppressed people in the past and present, though to a lesser extent than countries like China or the Soviet Union. But the Soviet Union and China made huge strides from where they were before communism, so you can't compare them side by side. And there are examples of people being arrested in the U.S. for criticism of the government which I pointed out. Communism and Socialism don't require oppressive governments. Like I said, the Soviet Union and China have made many mistakes. However, we should learn from those mistakes and apply their systems better instead of completely throwing it out like most Americans believe.

The U.S., and every other nation for that matter, have the potential to be a lot better off than they are. There is no reason to have a 40 hour workweek anymore. If the U.S. has the potential to reduce the workweek in half and still have the same wealth, but they don't because of their policies, isn't that oppression? Shouldn't people have freedom from having to waste half their lives working? Why should people have to work if they don't want to just to survive?

 

That's complete BS. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't work less, I'm saying having the government dictate how many hours people work is BS. BTW, how many hours a week do you think the average factory worker put in, in the USSR or other CIS countries? And for what standard of living?
I'll tell you what standard of living. Get a job working 25 hours a week for $9 an hour. You're now making more money than the average worker who worked 35 - 55 hours a week in the USSR.
Your examples simply don't hold up.
Oh and btw, I've heard that people in the USA are allowed to work part time, if they want to.

 

This is a nice idea, but if we're being honest it's entirely false. While we all have only one vote, there are a few who have far greater opportunity to "propose a solution" and otherwise influence government representatives. Aside from that, politicians appeal to the lowest common denominator, not the best ideas.

 

The government we share, provides equal access to all of us. Yes, some of us are taller, or smarter, or have more personal wealth -- but those differences are separate. Our government only guarantees to treat us equally, not make us equals.

As far as politicians appealing to base motives rather than better ideas, they do so because voters respond to them. In the end, it's the voters fault not the politicians or the systems. If we as a people cared more about alternative energy than entitlements, energy would be the common denominator and energy would be the problem politicians sought to solve.​

 

If my partner and I invested and the profit was two cars, I'd owe him one car and the point in giving it to him would be that it was his property. There is no associated obligation that I teach him to drive.

The point of giving people a vote is they own an equal portion of this country and whether you or I respect their ability to decide how it should be run, taking that vote from them would be denying them what they own. You steal from a man in that way, you claim the right to manage his property, well he's likely to resent it regardless of how well he might have done without your 'help.'​

 

I'll give you several reasons, Jacob:

1) Libertarians have done an awful job selling and explaining Libertarianism and how it could improve people's lives

2) Too many wackos have been associated with Libertarianism and "Libertarian" political parties

3) The isolationism associated with Libertarianism is viewed by many as naive and unrealistic

4) Too many people - particularly along the Collectivist fringe - hate Individual Freedom

5) Many people don't trust people to operate ethically and responsibly in a laissez-faire economic environment

The biggest problem is #1, though. Libertarians have got to do a better job communicating the merits and benefits of their ideology and agenda.

 

Equal access? You don't think the donors who can afford a $1,000 seat at a fundraising dinner have greater access to their politicians? You don't think CEOs of large corporations have greater access to politicians?

 

I think a politicians wife has greater access to him than someone he has dinner with. That doesn't mean the government can or should regulate who he can marry, or who he can have dinner with.

The access provided by the government we share, is provided equally to all.​

 

Prove it, then, using nonwestern, non U.S. sources. Anyway, I'm done with this thread. There is no use arguing with Libertarians because I don't see them becoming that popular. You're right about Libertarians, and if we want to debate about communism or socialism, we can do it in another thread.

 

Libertarianism requires prodigious sagacity. Sadly, society lacks ubiquitous eruditeness, impelling ideological rejection.

 

A 40 hour work week isn't mandatory. Many people work less and live quite comfortably -- provided what they do is valuable enough to their neighbors.​

 

Because it's built out of our political system. When is the last time that you heard the Democrats, Greens, or Republicans, when asked how to solve a problem, say "do nothing"? People want a forceful solution. They don't want to go through all of the effort to understand how each problem works, they just want to know that an alpha male is taking care of it.

It's also not too easy to push a self-reliance system like libertarianism does. Think Atlas Shrugged. The many will seek to reap the rewards sown by the few. The entitlement systems are mostly paid by the successful that have contributed a great deal to society, but are mostly enjoyed by those who enjoyed less than their fair share. That's why the system is so popular. It gives to the many less than it takes from the many. A more libertarian government would eliminate freebies that people enjoy like that.

 

We are not talking about driving. We are talking about voting. No comparison can be drawn here.

I never said to take the vote away I said to give them the opportunity to be able to use it to their full ability to do. Otherwise it is pointless to have a vote. Its like giving a guy a gun that cant fire and then tell him he can fight a war along with everyone else who has working guns.

Property is an invention. As to what he cares I couldn't give a rat's.

I should make it clear I'm generally opposed to democracy, however I feel the principle I have pointed out here is one that is necessary, and you could apply it to shared interests (of which voting is kind of vague). Still the point stands - you give someone rights without any opportunities and its a meaningless gift.

 

that is flagarantly subjective and in the US one has to fall into the morals of either republicans or democrats because the majority is heavenly in the eyes of a democracy.

 

Why do you say this? I hope that you're not making the argument that it requires a membership in Mensa to understand the value in individual liberty and freedom. We all have a basic understanding of our own desires and those desires do involve having the ability to make for ourselves necessary decisions without intervention from the state.

 

And if 100% of the people don't want to work, how will food ever be grown? Do you think there is enough wild food to feed our entire population? But even then, someone would have to go get the food, ie, work.

 

Sympathizing with individual liberty and freedom is a more appropriate description. Comprehending such concepts, in theory and in practice, require great study. This cognitive divide renders Libertarianism largely undervalued.

 

More importantly, they have never proven EVEN ONCE that this ideology works.