Why isn't Libertarianism more popular?

Why is advocation for increased personal liberty, in social and fiscal capacities, such a toxic political position? Why do so many view it as an extreme and unrealistic view?

 

Well, you can start with 12 years of progressive government schooling which is designed to turn children into adults that do not question the legitimacy of government authority.

 

I really like the libertarians. As a group they seem to be pretty intelligent.

But they also seem to suffer from romantic notions of Mad Max-type scenarios. Delusions of independence, like they exist without any help from anyone else. Or the idea that they could and they would if only the rest of us would let them. But you can still do that in America, that thing where you go off into the wilderness and you live off the land and achieve true independence. Nobody's stopping them. They don't want that, not really. They still want to be part of an economy, preferably a really big one. That creates interdependence, not independence.

Most of us have a sense of community that I think makes the libertarians seem extreme, is what I guess I'm getting at. Like it or not, we're all in this together and we have to look out for each other. The libertarians have a very strong point, one that should never be ignored or forgotten. But there are sometimes higher priorities than freedom, and sometimes libertarians get too caught up in that one single ideal, to the point that they forget all other things.

 

Because the ignorant ones paint the whole group poorly. Not everyone is a Doctor Paul, most are wannabe children. Like the Commie Kids of the last generation... when it was 'cool' to be communist and, of course, not know anything about it besides a few names.

 

It's hard to inspire the masses by telling them to be more self-reliant.

 

A lot of libertarians have a very strong communitarian streak, but they don't really get to show it because they're too busy defending individualism from rabid, power-hungry collectivists.

 

Libertarianism has been tainted by an influx of right-wingers who claim to be for "freedom" and "individualism" but hold values contrary to libertarian ideals. These are the kind of fake libertarians who don't agree with same-sex marriage and go and vote for a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage when the libertarian position would be that government shouldn't be involved in marriage anyways.

These are the "libertarians" who feel that freedom of religion means the freedom to worship their God while other religions should be banned or curtailed.

These are the "libertarians" who feel that the "War on Drugs" is important because drugs are bad.

The same "libertarians" who believe that a government with a permanent and VERY expensive military should use that military at any opportunity to invade countries that we don't agree with.

 

Your idea of freedom requires that a portion of my property is taken in order to give it to whomever you choose. In that sense I see your higher priority is placed appropriately. But that was not how our country was founded. It was quite the opposite.

A few weeks back my daughter should have won free tickets to a ball game from school because she was the only one to have perfect attendance. That was one of the five categories of drawings. Since she was the only one in that category the teacher thought it unfair and put all names in the bowl. The student picked had missed almost two weeks of school. My daughter had the chance to understand the spread-it-around mentality that I've told her to watch out for.

 

As well they should.

 

It isn't, as long as liberty is not confused with license - which it clearly is in the minds of many libertarians.

 

I see it more as recognizing that all property is slightly public. The bigger it gets, the more public it is.

Practically speaking, there's an inverse index between wealth and freedom. And I don't see any way around that. The only way to be completely free is to have no influence over other human beings, which is what wealth represents.

 

Libertarianism is very squishy.. but you would expect that from people who read Ayn Rand in HS.

 

In your opinion...

And what is the difference between license and liberty? Give us some examples pertaining to libertarians and their alleged confusion.

 

I wish those types would just stay in the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus). I tend to like the RLC types, but they don't get the libertarian principle of non-violence and they infect the Libertarian Party with their conservative awe of authority. It's the reason that the party is so divided right now between the purist faction and the former Republicans faction with the rest of us caught in the middle.

 

Quite simply, because pandering, vote harvesting collectivists have nurtured a culture of dependency and entitlement....
the ends of which will see rivers of blood coursing through the streets.

My most ardent wish is that current adherents to such a deluded and dangerous ideology live long enough to be swept up in it.

 

Well, two things can mitigate that. One, don't give the wealthy access to political power. The elimination of political power serves that agenda. Two, don't allow the wealthy a monopoly on the legal use of force. Again, the elimination of political power serves that agenda. Where political power is allowed to concentrate, the wealthy gain an upper hand because they find it easier to organize in favor of their interests. That's why libertarians speak truth to power. Rather than concentrate more of it, which will only serve the wealthy and the plutocrats, eliminate it an allow people to maximize their personal and economic freedom.

 

There are many reasons. The first is that the position that increased freedom for individuals automatically correlates to a decrease in government, and there are many people who find that to be a highly problematic notion. Some people believe US foreign policy protects our freedoms, from "terrorists" and other unsavory sorts like "marxists" and "communists"(I put those words in quotes, because it is not always clear what people imagine those things to be).

On a less controversial note, most people would agree that government is a series of trade offs, and many people are willing to make those trade-offs. They decrease certain freedoms while at the same time increasing others. Government often DOES increase freedom. In the most simple, but obvious way, a person who is kidnapped and rescued by the FBI has obviously had their freedom increased by government. Similarly the person accused of a crime, whose rights are looked after and is ultimately found innocent, is freer and better off with government than in a system without government where vigilante justice takes place.

This same strain of thought brings up the question of how you define freedom as well. If you only define freedom as negative rights, then government tends to be more intrusive than if you include both positive and negative rights as part of your definition of freedom. You know the whole, there is no freedom without bread sort of thing. In that situation, government has a clear role to play in increasing freedoms for people, by helping to guarantee some level of positive rights.

There is similarly a trade off people see between freedom and security. Despite what Ben Franklin said(or whoever actually said it), many people ARE willing to trade liberty for security.

Next up, many people are just busy bodies. A religious extremist DOESN'T want people to be free to do what they want, if what they want conflicts with their conception of what is morally acceptable. Those people want to shape society in their image, and live in a society which represents their values.

Next up, many people don't buy into the fairy tales about the efficiency of the market and socially optimal outcomes it is supposed to be able to produce. They believe that the market doesn't provide socially optimal results MUCh of the time, and therefore intervention in the market and opposition to free market capitalism is seen as desirable.

The last part of the equation, and the one I find most compelling and the largest reason I am not a libertarian, is to be a libertarian you need to take a stance in the structure vs agency debate, on the extreme side of agency!! This is related to the government being able to increase freedoms argument to an extent, but it is also more complicated than that. Even without direct government intervention, there are structures in place which limit peoples ability to do what they want. In that scenario, positive actions need to be taken to reduce the limitations placed on people by the structures that exist in the world. Whether that is done by government or some other entity is not really all that important. It just requires an acceptance that government not directly intervening, doesn't mean the structures that limit people have been removed. For example, if a person is poor and has a choice between extreme poverty and working some sort of demeaning job, is that person free? If their choices are that limited, how can they be described as free?

So I would say, that although I am pretty strongly anti-state I am a vague leftist, and NOT a libertarian. Largely because I don't fall on the extreme side of agency vs structure debate, and because I feel like capitalism is a large part of what actually creates the structures that limit people. I believe it limits people just as much as most governments do. Unfortunately, I just see no alternative, because socialism has proven itself a massive failure. So we are stuck with capitalism, and the best we can hope for is some center-left inspired mixed market capitalism, which attempts to alleviate some of the more serious deficiencies in capitalism, and makes some attempt to limit the ability of the structures created by capitalism, to limit peoples lives.

 

Establishment media and education do not want people to think that way. So they are conditioned to think like Collectivists rather than Individualists, from birth.

 

Because we formed a country for a reason. And because we have to compete with other countries and it has been shown time and time again that the ideal model for a modern country lies somewhere between Libertarianism and Socialism. At least if you want to compete economically.

 

The problem is then that they would not be libertarian as it is understood in USA. Because from my point of view, as European, libertarian is synonim of liberal. And liberals don't have communitarian streak, are absolutely individualists without no conscience.

 

Actually, I think the ideal would be libertarian socialism.

 

Has the system (politics + media) flipped libertarianism to the opposite (anarchism)?

Libertarians are in favor of significantly reducing the authority of government, with some taking that as far as advocating no state at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Via social engineering (politics) and mass media they have caused an antagonistic attitude in many people (nowadays people's mind are filled with terms) When one hears the term libertarian one 'hears' negativity. Before this change occured the term sounded positive.
They have masterminded all these terms (the political terminology) and they can flip them over in a person's mind.

 

I basically agree. But on a practical level, how do you eliminate political power without the use a government? It's the government that is most bound by, and responsible for enforcing, the constitutional rights that we're all (especially libertarians) so big on. If we eliminate all democratic power and we're left with nothing but the power of money, have we improved things? Have we even eliminated political power, really?

 

What's squishy about libertarianism? I've come to understand that it's one of the most consistent political ideologies. Leave someone alone as long as they don't harm others... I'm having a hard time seeing your logic. Please explain.

 

I don't exactly understand what you are advocating. Are you saying those who have amassed larger fortunes than others you should be coerced into supporting others? Or are you simply arguing that a free (libertarian) society isn't simply an independent society, but an interdependent one, and the existence of wealth demonstrates that individuals participation with others?