The Trouble with Libertarians

a reply to: CB328

I am oppressed. Some, not all, is because of laws past by "progressive" politicians. Some examples of my oppression:

- To travel by air I have to submit to being looked at while nude, or being groped/fondled. This has limited my business opportunities, as I will not sacrifice my dignity in exchange for passage on a flight
- I now am forced to pay for insurance, whether I want it or not. Of course, I do want it (and already had it). But now, thanks to the "Affordable" Care Act, my insurance has almost tripled since 2010. Economic oppression has another term: fascism. Just sayin'.
- I cannot own the vast majority of arms guaranteed me by my Constitution
- I am finding that my right to privacy has not existed for quite some time.
- Loved ones living in Mexico...thanks to my government I am not able to safely see them. And when I do, I now have to have a passport. Maybe not so oppressive...but a drastic change from my younger days relating from a loss of freedom of travel and deteriorating safety

I could add more, but you get the point. Corporations may be oppressing us...but they mostly do it via lobbying for laws that stick us right in the keister. A good example of this is corporations partnering with progressives to create ACA.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

THANK GOD. I used to think "wierd" was a bad thing ,THESE days we should all appear so.

I think many are blinded by labels and are too focused on attaining the label, than fully understanding what they, themselves as an individual believes and stands for. Maybe it takes too much thought process for them, maybe they are just lazy, and it's more of a "comfortable rebel" thing to just pick another label, rather than figure out what their own thoughts really are.

Politicians have really succeeded in getting many to be 'blind' to the fact they give us labels, but shun labels between us as a double standard. It's working in their favor too - pitting one against the other.

As people, are we really that gullible?

I just want the GD government out of my life..!

Is that a lot to ask?

originally posted by: CB328

It isn't freedom. It's oppression disguised as "progress".

Last I checked there are a lot of people in this country with a lot of freedom. The ones who don't have freedom are the ones oppressed by business, who you don't want to regulate.

No, the ones who are not free are those kept down with the government dime, in exchange for votes. It's one giant government plantation.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
a reply to: CB328

Nice piece of condescending, partisan drivel. Before you even got started you had tarred and feathered Libertarians, based on your own pure conjecture that Libertarians are mostly Republicans.

Your own obscured perception and 2-party mentality immediately disable you from providing a meaningful analysis of anything political.

From the day I was 18 and had the right to vote, I cringed at the 2-party nonsense. I was pro-choice, yet pro-gun, socially liberal in many regards, yet financially conservative. I believed in strong borders, strong military, yet I'm non-interventionist. I support prayer in schools, yet I'm not religious at all.

If pressed to label myself when I was younger I would have to call myself a liberal. But I always stressed that to be Liberal, meant only that I believed in LIBERTY, and the freedom to do as you wish with you own life and body so long as it doesn't affect others.

So... sorry for not fitting into your cookie cutter, but here's a newsflash: ALMOST NO ONE DOES.

I've been an independent since 1989 when I turned 18. I saw through the BS even back then.

I will admit, I leaned liberal though, but it is a known fact for most, that the older you get, the farther away from liberal ideals you will drift. It's called exposure to the real world.

What it seems to me is that in a country with 2 main parties that are both evil and corrupt to the core, vying to win and destroy your world even more, they always put forth the concept, you can't vote for a third green and inexperienced party.

Actually not only can you, but you must or you're a co-slaver, co-murderer, co-destroyer with them.

BY JOVE you've got it.

There is a reason we have (and will always have, until the electoral college changes) a two party system. All positions derive from one of two positions:
Either:

A) The government gets it's power from the people. (Right)
or
B) The people get their power from the government. (Left)

The two parties have melded together on the left. They both believe that the people get their power from the government. The Democrat thinks the people need the government to watch out for them (EPA, FDA, SS, ect.). The Republican thinks the people need the government to watch out for them (Military, Surveillance, etc.). While the Republicans fall much further to the right than the democrats, they're still to the left.

Then come the libertarians, conservatives (of classic liberalism), tea partiers et al. Obviously they believe the government gets it's power from the people, so they will poach from the Republican side come november, ensuring a democrat win. But the Republican party isn't stupid, they know this too. It's political science 101. So they'll add some planks to the platform to appease, add some candidates who are palatable to these groups and viola, the two party system stays intact. Not only that, they strengthen their base by adding libertarian candidates (and their voters) to it.

This is how parties change. They won't change without a fight, but as you see Rand Paul getting a ton of support from both traditional democrats and republicans, it's likely they'll embrace it to feed their power craving. It's a win all around.

And No, the libertarian movement isn't bad for America. It's not bad for the poor. Since the OP brought up Social Security, let me enlighten. I do this math all of the time (IDK why, it just pisses me off). I'm under 30, and have been saving for retirement for a few years. Currently I'm looking at retiring when I'm about 48-50 with a few million dollar nest egg (if inflation doesn't destroy that). If I was able to invest the other portion of my money, which the government steals from me and gives me a negative rate of return on, I would have well over five million by age 45 (an excess of over 2 million dollars).

So, at age 45, I retire from full time work and work on my own ventures (think engineering projects). This opens my previous, good paying job up to the upcoming generation. My money is invested diversely, providing operating cash for many businesses to employ more people. And being that I won't have a house payment I'll likely be able to live on about 1/5th of the returns I collect on my investments.

So I'll be well taken care of, without government intervention. But what about all of the other people!? The average payout of social security is $270k over the lifetime of payouts. So my excess two million (forget any more that I make by only living on about 1/5th of the interest I'll make at retirement) would have given full social security payments to 8.5 people, instead of one. So when I saw someone in need, I wouldn't have to think twice about really helping them out. What the government has done is given people an excuse not to care for their neighbors, because "there is a government program for that."

The problem with folks that think they know anything about true libertarians is just that. Assumptions. I read your post and realized I fit many of your "credentials."

I'm a "young" male of 30.
I'm married but with no children (one on the way)
I work a decent job.
I rented up till 3 years ago.

Having said that, I also found that some of your arguments are mainly judgments on yuppy idiots, which any political party has. I know what it is like to suffer and have difficulty. Some of my other qualifications:

I'm a former Marine. I've served my country with honor.
I married later than anyone else I've known and only now have a kid on the way after getting the selfish days out of the way.
I've had to work my butt off to get where I'm at, but still don't see the type of pay one would have seen years ago. I barely get by as an Electrical Engineering Technician.
My wife and I purchased a brand new house at the bottom of the market.
I've been technically homeless before when I was younger, and know what it's like to go hungry.
I am in fact healthy, because I choose a healthy lifestyle.

As a Libertarian, all I care about is a Constitutional Republic being restored. Taxes are necessary, but I think we can agree these are getting out of hand. Social Security is fair; to those who paid into it. I also wouldn't mind if the government let The People figure out what's best for themselves. I hate handouts, but a "hand up" is a community responsibility and shouldn't be forced on people who would help their fellow man anyway. There's plenty more, but I think I've made my point.

I'm not sure why the OP doesn't like the GOP?

The real problem in this country is that there has been a taken over of both parties by progressives. It started with FDR and its been leading us away from the rule of law ever since. Its why the criticism that there is really no difference between the GOP and the Dems rings true.

What you have is "fringe left/socialist", "progressive" and "fringe right/libertarian"
I only use the word fringe because that's how progressives view it and right now progressives are in control of the discourse. The OP is simply engaging in the false right left paradigm that is designed to direct the discourse towards axing social programs and saving social programs, or towards gun control and right to bear arms, or towards illegal immigration and racism or towards pro life and pro choice. These arguments are canned arguments that progressives keep behind the glass that reads "break glass in case of critical thought."

We see fringe left and fringe right coming to the fore front because progressives are screwing the country up. They refuse to follow the rule of law even if its a progressive law, they are printing too much money which is a tax on savings and engaging in crony capitalism to the point that we no longer have a capitalist market. What we have is a small oligarchical power and a parasitical wall street casino that is corrupted by banksters.

People are entertaining ideas from the fringe because they see where progressives are leading us. The best case scenario now for the United States is an inflationary depression and the worse case scenario is the dissolution of the United States in some sort of North American Union. Of course the absolute worst case scenario is that these progressives try to hold onto power too long, turn the US into a gestapo state and then finally start an all out nuclear war. Its the nuclear war scenario that scares me the most because we are headed towards a new maunder minimum and a nuclear winter on top of that would kill billions and maybe cause out extinction. Makes my think that our leaders belong to a death cult.

But you know libertarians and their calls to follow the constitution as it is written and for following the rule of law, yah that's true evil /sarcasm.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I think that's a fair bit misguided.

the left belives that, because the government gets its power from the people, it should work in the interests of the people. This means to some degree restrictions on liberties, (like driving drunk, or running a ponzi scheme, or selling securities backed by high-risk morgages, or misleading advertising and false claims).


American Libertarianism, for all its hype, is the marxism of the right-wing.
www.theamericanconservative.com...
unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com...

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

...so I'm Marxist because I like the government out of my "bidness." The things you described happen anyway, even with all the laws meant to curb them. You can't just make laws to stop things you don't like. It doesn't work that way.
Remember the old adage: "you can't cure stupid." We don't need laws to protect us from ourselves. We need personal responsibility to return. Again, people will do really dumb stuff regardless if it's illegal. Liberty is indeed a two edged sword when you look at it like that.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: Dfairlite

I think that's a fair bit misguided.

the left belives that, because the government gets its power from the people, it should work in the interests of the people. This means to some degree restrictions on liberties, (like driving drunk, or running a ponzi scheme, or selling securities backed by high-risk morgages, or misleading advertising and false claims).


American Libertarianism, for all its hype, is the marxism of the right-wing.
www.theamericanconservative.com...
unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com...

You'll find that the majority of libertarians are against drunk driving, ponzi schemes, and false advertising. There are varying ways they look at curbing those things, but they are against them. But not against the selling securities backed by high risk mortgages. That's just fine, as long as no one bails them out when it all comes crashing down.

No, the left does not believe that they get their power from the people. The left believes that the people get their power from the government. They give lip-service to the idea that it's the other way around, but look through a list of some of their top beliefs.

Health care for all (of course provided by whom? the government)
Retirement for all (again provided by whom? the government)
A living wage for all (because you aren't capable of negotiating a fair wage for your skills, at least not without government)
Gun bans (because you just can't let people have weapons, the government needs to decide what ones you can have)
Student loans (because no one could pay for college unless the government guaranteed their loans)

They all have one thing in common, the government is the arbiter of your power and rights.

Now let's look at those same issues from the libertarian standpoint:

Healthcare - People should be free to buy healthcare as they need and choose (no government necessary)
Living wage - People should be free to negotiate a wage suitable to their skills (again, the people have the power, no government necessary)
Gun bans - People should have the right to decide how to defend themselves, government regulations on buying weapons presumes guilt of those buying. (no government intervention necessary)
Student loans - if you can't afford it, save for it. OR if you have the credit, get a loan. (no government guarantee necessary)

Notice the common theme is empowering people on the libertarian side and empowering government on the leftist side?

Now, in one respect you're correct, both democrats and republicans recognize that our system is set up in a fashion that only allows them to get power from the people. Which inherently means they know where it comes from. They play that tune all day long, that they're "for the people". But really, the leftist politician doesn't believe that, they know that they're for the government (AKA themselves).

LEFT: The people can achieve nothing without the government
RIGHT: The people can achieve anything with minimal government

One more thing
Libertarians believe the role of government is to always protect the populace and their freedoms.
Democrats believe the role of government is to administer power appropriately to the populace, and maybe protect them from outside attack.
Republicans believe the role of government is to always protect the populace and sometimes their freedoms, if possible and convenient.

(Disclaimer: not every single person who identifies as one or the other believes the same as those they identify with. This statement is just based on the party platforms.)

a reply to: CB328

Libertarians are right wing because the right believes in small government, the smaller the government the more personal liberty. They believe in the free market which will give the best opportunity for the little guys to be successful.

The left believes in big government e.g. socialism, central planning by a few political billionaire elites who wants all the wealth to themselves so they use government to regulate competition out of business. Bush is a moderates which today would fall under big government. That's how far left his country has become when the middle means big govenrment. U obviously don't know anything about Libertarians.

I've not been on this site for quite a while and the facil arguments I've seen displayed don't make me regret it. Small government? This is a talking point for the children on FOXnews. We have no option for small government anymore. We live in the 21st century and our basic groundwork is laid out before us. Work with what you have, not the silly intangibles that you just wish for.

a reply to: Dfairlite

If only more people could think like you!!

It's no coincidence that nations around the entire world grew and prospered the most during their most libertarian periods.

America's first 150years were defined by an extreme degree of personal freedom, and look at what we built. It's mostly been crumbling since then, with small flashes of hope here and there.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

Thank you 8675309jenny.

a reply to: JackSparrow17

no I never meant to say you were a marxist literally,

marxists are to the left as libertarians are to conservatives;

oddly the only thing I think ayn rand might have been right about in her rambling, was that libertarians were "conservative hippies"