America's Libertarian Moment

[LowDown]

Libertarianism is on the march. From the rapid rise to prominence of first-term Senator Rand Paul to the state-level movements to legalize gay marriage and marijuana, the philosophy of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism, and restrained foreign policy seems to be gaining currency in American politics.

...There was a lot of whiplash among partisans over the big Court decisions -- progressives anguished about voting rights one day and thrilled about gay rights the next, and vice versa for conservatives. But from your point of view, a libertarian point of view, there was a consistency to be seen.

The Cato Istitute was for gay marriage, against extending pre-clearance on voting rights and against affirmative action, all cases in which they were on the winning side at the Supreme Court.

The rise of the Tea Party is seen as a sign of increased popularity of libertarian ideas. The Tea Party is about smaller government, lower taxes, and less government spending and does not really have a social agenda.

 

[Wiseone]

The Cato Istitute was for gay marriage, against extending pre-clearance on voting rights and against affirmative action, all cases in which they were on the winning side at the Supreme Court.

The rise of the Tea Party is seen as a sign of increased popularity of libertarian ideas. The Tea Party is about smaller government, lower taxes, and less government spending and does not really have a social agenda.

What? Really? OK I know that the Tea Party is a loose term that can mean lots of things, and there is no offical Tea Party platform that you can look up on a website like the Democrats or Republicans have. But still, really?

The Tea Party and Religion | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

On Social Issues, Tea Partiers Are Not Libertarians - Chris Good - The Atlantic

If I were to ask all the self-described tea partiers or tea party supports on this forum how they felt about, religion in politics, abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, Voter ID, etc, etc, how many them do you think would say "They don't have an opinion on that subject?"

Of course they have an opinion.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The Cato Istitute was for gay marriage, against extending pre-clearance on voting rights and against affirmative action, all cases in which they were on the winning side at the Supreme Court.

The rise of the Tea Party is seen as a sign of increased popularity of libertarian ideas. The Tea Party is about smaller government, lower taxes, and less government spending and does not really have a social agenda.

On what do you base this assertion? I have seen many that support the concept of "smaller gov't" but want nothing to do with any policy allowing SSM, legalization of recreational drugs or permitting legal abortion. Rand Paul is far from some Libertarian party platform positions, and is registered as a republicant.

As far as I know the Tea Party is simply a concept, not a political party in the traditional sense which has a party platform that its candidates support. The Tea Party is more like the congressional black caucus in that it has federal supporters (supportees?) but is not a separate political party.

 

[Paschendale]

The Tea Party, like a great many American libertarians, have no ideology except their own selfish gain. They want a government small enough to leave them alone, but one big enough to enforce the things they want, including their radical religious agendas. They want lower taxes for them, but they still want all the benefits. They just don't want to pay for any of it. Their platform is just "me me me" all the time.

 

[LowDown]

What? Really? OK I know that the Tea Party is a loose term that can mean lots of things, and there is no offical Tea Party platform that you can look up on a website like the Democrats or Republicans have. But still, really?

The Tea Party and Religion | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

On Social Issues, Tea Partiers Are Not Libertarians - Chris Good - The Atlantic

If I were to ask all the self-described tea partiers or tea party supports on this forum how they felt about, religion in politics, abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, Voter ID, etc, etc, how many them do you think would say "They don't have an opinion on that subject?"

Of course they have an opinion.

That Tea Party members have certain opinions on social issues doesn't mean the Tea Party is advocating those opinions or that it was formed to advocate them.

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates reducing the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes.

There's nothing in there about social issues.

Tea Party Patriots is an American political organization that promotes "fiscally responsible" activism as part of the Tea Party movement. Its mission is "to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets." The group is a strong opponent of excess government spending and debt

Nothing there about social issues, either.

Opponents of the Tea Party's agenda of fiscal responsiblity, AKA Takers, wish to misrepresent the Tea Party in order to limit their effectiveness.

 

[LowDown]

On what do you base this assertion? I have seen many that support the concept of "smaller gov't" but want nothing to do with any policy allowing SSM, legalization of recreational drugs or permitting legal abortion. Rand Paul is far from some Libertarian party platform positions, and is registered as a republicant.

As far as I know the Tea Party is simply a concept, not a political party in the traditional sense which has a party platform that its candidates support. The Tea Party is more like the congressional black caucus in that it has federal supporters (supportees?) but is not a separate political party.

I base it on what Tea Party organizations say about themselves. They are silent on social issues. That doesn't mean that the members agree with libertarians on the social issues.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The Cato Istitute was for gay marriage, against extending pre-clearance on voting rights and against affirmative action, all cases in which they were on the winning side at the Supreme Court.

The rise of the Tea Party is seen as a sign of increased popularity of libertarian ideas. The Tea Party is about smaller government, lower taxes, and less government spending and does not really have a social agenda.

Please do not associate libertarians or the libertarian party with the tea party. Thank you.

 

[Gipper]

This thread is one big ball of dumb. If you're not a libertarian, just shut the hell up. Odds are incredibly likely that you don't know a damn thing about libertarians.

Also, anyone who thinks Tea Party = libertarians needs to be slapped repeatedly.

 

[LowDown]

Please do not associate libertarians or the libertarian party with the tea party. Thank you.

That was the Cato Institute person saying that.

 

[LowDown]

This thread is one big ball of dumb. If you're not a libertarian, just shut the hell up. Odds are incredibly likely that you don't know a damn thing about libertarians.

Also, anyone who thinks Tea Party = libertarians needs to be slapped repeatedly.

So, the Cato Institute knows nothing about libertarians.

Who the hell do you people think you are? What about advocating small government, lower taxes and less government spending is not libertarian?

How can people who want to enforce a "libertarian" orthodoxy by slapping people around possibly be libertarian? Just dumb and mean is what they are.

 

[brothern]

The rise of the Tea Party is seen as a sign of increased popularity of libertarian ideas. The Tea Party is about smaller government, lower taxes, and less government spending and does not really have a social agenda.

It's one of those things that's a mixed bag. The Tea Party originated from libertarian ideals, but quickly moved rightward along the social political spectrum as conservatives jumped on board. By the first anniversary of the Tea Party, I was watching pastors giving key note speeches at rallies. I stopped supporting them.

 

[Mach]

59 percent, according to one poll -- would tell you they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and that's a real loose definition of libertarian

Not sure how accurate this poll or the interpretation is, but it's what I've always felt in terms of characterizing libertarianism as related to repub/dem.

 

[Gipper]

It's one of those things that's a mixed bag. The Tea Party originated from libertarian ideals, but quickly moved rightward along the social political spectrum as conservatives jumped on board. By the first anniversary of the Tea Party, I was watching pastors giving key note speeches at rallies. I stopped supporting them.

This is what I'm talking about. The Tea Party thing originally started off as libertarian, but the fringe right overhauled it. You can basically follow the timeline through Glenn Beck, and his various stages of "selling out". He was always with the Tea Party. He was libertarian for a while, and slowly evolved to just another Republican Bible-thumper. The movement followed him...or vice versa.

 

[calamity]

The Tea Party is pro-Gay Rights and marijuana legalization? That's Newz to me. :roll:

 

[RabidAlpaca]

So, the Cato Institute knows nothing about libertarians.

Who the hell do you people think you are? What about advocating small government, lower taxes and less government spending is not libertarian?

How can people who want to enforce a "libertarian" orthodoxy by slapping people around possibly be libertarian? Just dumb and mean is what they are.

The Cato Institute was trying to broaden the libertarian base by associating with politically similar groups like the tea party. I believe this is a bad strategy, however, because the Tea Party has mega-morphed into a religiously charged bigoted organization.

The tea party is the militant wing of the republican party.

 

[JayDubya]

The Tea Party Movement has decidedly pushed the GOP into a more rightist stance in terms of economics, spending, and taxation, and that's a positive thing.

The movement is all about spending and taxation and the size and scope of government; it has nothing to do with social issues.


Are there social conservatives who appeal strongly to voters that care predominantly about fiscal / economic matters? Sure.

 

[cabse5]

The Tea Party, like a great many American libertarians, have no ideology except their own selfish gain. They want a government small enough to leave them alone, but one big enough to enforce the things they want, including their radical religious agendas. They want lower taxes for them, but they still want all the benefits. They just don't want to pay for any of it. Their platform is just "me me me" all the time.

While I agree with this quote describing Libertarians, I'd also like to point out Paschendale, as a socialist, should just change the me.. me. to we.. we..., and renounce any religion (unless atheism is a religion), and his post would pertain to him being a socialist, as well.

 

[Paschendale]

While I agree with this quote describing Libertarians, I'd also like to point out Paschendale, as a socialist, should just change the me.. me. to we.. we..., and renounce any religion (unless atheism is a religion), and his post would pertain to him being a socialist, as well.

Are you really suggesting that selfishness is morally equivalent to sharing and cooperation? I get that you're trying to draw some kind of false equivalence between philosophies, but this doesn't even make sense. Socialism and atheism are only tangentially related, and that's mainly a historical coincidence due to Marx. Neither demands the other. You're really not making much sense.

 

[Federalist]

Are you really suggesting that selfishness is morally equivalent to sharing and cooperation?

Actually, I think you've got it backwards. Libertarians, as advocates of the non-aggression principal, hold that the ONLY legitimate form of interaction is cooperation. It is the non-libertarians who consider violence to be the legitimate means to accomplish the ends they consider important.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

The Tea Party has it's purpose. I completely support their way of calling our government to task. I support their desire for smaller government. I support their desire for less taxation (and the governmental waste it buys). Contrary to popular leftist beliefs, they hold many of their Republican officials to task (who holds the Democrats to task? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?).

However that's where the link between the Tea Party and Libertarianism ends. Libertarians don't care about gay rights. People should be held to the same rights, regardless of sexual orientation. Libertarians don't care about abortion. Rape 'em and scrape 'em, as far as we care. Abortion should be a choice, and not a dictated decision. Libertarians respect religious people, but do not want those folks to impress their beliefs on us. Let us decide if we believe or not.

See the common denominator here? It's about personal choice, and not one group of people forcing their opinion on others. It's about taking care of ourselves, and not relying on the nanny state (or allowing the nanny state to steal our money to give to society's parasites).

It's about being free to do what you want, when you want...as long as the freedoms of others are not impeded upon. ObamaCare is not freedom. It's slavery. Wealth redistribution is not freedom. It's raping one group, while pandering to another. Theocratical mandate is not freedom if non-believers are forced to adhere to the laws of the believers.

 

[Paschendale]

Actually, I think you've got it backwards. Libertarians, as advocates of the non-aggression principal, hold that the ONLY legitimate form of interaction is cooperation. It is the non-libertarians who consider violence to be the legitimate means to accomplish the ends they consider important.

Very few people who claim the title of libertarian actually adhere to such a belief. Certainty not the Tea Partiers. Certainly not the Ron/Rand Paul types who are entirely alright with force against a lot of people, especially those with a different religion. And pretty much all versions of libertarianism are alright with using force against poor people to keep them poor. Even if they're starving and freezing. In practice, almost no libertarians really adhere to this non-aggression ideology.

 

[Federalist]

Very few people who claim the title of libertarian actually adhere to such a belief. Certainty not the Tea Partiers. Certainly not the Ron/Rand Paul types who are entirely alright with force against a lot of people, especially those with a different religion. And pretty much all versions of libertarianism are alright with using force against poor people to keep them poor. Even if they're starving and freezing. In practice, almost no libertarians really adhere to this non-aggression ideology.

The world is full of posers, and it's not my job to defend those individuals. It's my job to defend my principals. To those who follow the non-aggression principal the ONLY legitimate form of interaction is cooperation. Non-libertarians consider violence to be a useful tool, and are happy to initiate violence against people who have harmed no one and who have not trespassed upon, damaged, or stolen anything owned by others, if that violence furthers the ends they consider important.

 

[LowDown]

The Cato Institute was trying to broaden the libertarian base by associating with politically similar groups like the tea party. I believe this is a bad strategy, however, because the Tea Party has mega-morphed into a religiously charged bigoted organization.

The tea party is the militant wing of the republican party.

Where do you see this religiosity and bigotry in the Tea Party?

 

[Paschendale]

The world is full of posers, and it's not my job to defend those individuals. It's my job to defend my principals. To those who follow the non-aggression principal the ONLY legitimate form of interaction is cooperation. Non-libertarians consider violence to be a useful tool, and are happy to initiate violence against people who have harmed no one and who have not trespassed upon, damaged, or stolen anything owned by others, if that violence furthers the ends they consider important.

So what does your philosophy say if I have food and you're starving? Or if you have cancer and I own the hospitals and won't let you get treatment unless you pay me a whole lot of money that you don't have? In actual practice, the "non-aggression" bit mostly ends up as people who were lucky enough to be born into a comfortable life defending the status quo so they can keep that comfort. Meanwhile, everyone born without it still doesn't get it.

 

[Federalist]

So what does your philosophy say if I have food and you're starving? Or if you have cancer and I own the hospitals and won't let you get treatment unless you pay me a whole lot of money that you don't have? In actual practice, the "non-aggression" bit mostly ends up as people who were lucky enough to be born into a comfortable life defending the status quo so they can keep that comfort. Meanwhile, everyone born without it still doesn't get it.

The non-aggression principle merely says that the initiation of violence is ethically unjustified. It doesn't forbid you from giving a starving person food or from treating sick people.