It will take the libertarian movement a long time to live down the Paul campaign

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Barack Obama, Christopher Hitchens, and Arianna Huffington are also on the list for killing American enemies, supporting the Iraq War, and for marrying a gay millionaire or something.

Made you look!

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

And Ron Paul’s extremnism comes from the fact that his support base is ideologically diverse but largely from the extremes of American politics-theonomists, leftist pacifists, paleoconservatives, neo-Nazis, and anarcho capitalists. If Gary Johnson does decently well he might help form a nucleus of a more coherent and less nuttier Libertarian movement.

OK, I’ll bite, why would one libertarian have a different support base from another’s?

And how is the Libertarian Party’s candidate relevant to anything about the prospects of libertarianism here? He never was relevant to it in any election before, still less so this year when there’s a sort-of-libertarian people have actually heard of in the race.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

Libertarianism might be wrong but it is far more realistic, moral, and sensible than Marxism and Marxism obviously has had a long shelf life among intellectuals and college students even after the Holodomor, the purges, the Cold War, the Great Leap Backward, the Cultural Revolution, the Killing Fields, and the fall of the USSR. Better Rand than Red.

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Libertarianism might be wrong but it is far more realistic, moral, and sensible than Marxism and Marxism obviously has had a long shelf life among intellectuals and college students even after the Holodomor, the purges, the Cold War, the Great Leap Backward, the Cultural Revolution, the Killing Fields, and the fall of the USSR. Better Rand than Red.

So, you’re saying libertarianism could have an even longer shelf life among intellectuals, etc.?

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

And how is the Libertarian Party’s candidate relevant to anything about the prospects of libertarianism here? He never was relevant to it in any election before, still less so this year when there’s a sort-of-libertarian people have actually heard of in the race.

. . . Unless . . . After August . . . Gary Johnson taps Ron Paul for his running mate, or even yields the top ticket to him . . .

[BrainGlutton]

@John_Mace

If anything, Ron Paul well expand the Libertarian Party. When you only get typically .3% of the vote in presidential elections, it only takes a few people to generate a large increase. If the LP got only 10% or Ron Paul supporters, it would probably triple in size, at least.

Oh, no doubt. But the LP as an organization has never mattered much. What matters is that Paul is associated with the word, and he has, I believe, in the public mind, tainted the libertarian brand for some time to come – whatever party-banner it runs under. When people hear those quotes from the Cato Institute, maybe they won’t take them quite as seriously as before. (Assuming they understand what the Cato Institute is.)

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@BrainGlutton

Made you look!

OK, I’ll bite, why would one libertarian have a different support base from another’s?

Because libertarians can be ideologically diverse. For example a Libertarian who argued that individual rights trumps any “states’ rights” would probably lose much of the paleocon and racist vote but be more amenable to progressives and moderates.

And how is the Libertarian Party’s candidate relevant to anything about the prospects of libertarianism here? He never was relevant to it in any election before, still less so this year when there’s a sort-of-libertarian people have actually heard of in the race.

I don’t mean relevant as in doing very well but as in doing well enough to get noticed. And Ron Paul is not going to win the GOP nomination obviously and he’s not going to mount a third party run (even if to just stop the GOP from jumping on his son) so he’s probably going to endorse Gary Johnson.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@BrainGlutton

So, you’re saying libertarianism could have an even longer shelf life among intellectuals, etc.?

Libertarianism isn’t seriously considered by most intellectuals currently, I think if anything it has a tremendous potential for growth.

[Pleonast]

@BobLibDem

Libertarianism isn’t scary or threatening, it’s just stupid. It’s a pseudo-intellectual skirt for people who really really hate taxes to hide behind. It’s a place for Republicans who don’t want the responsibility for, you know, actually running anything.

Sounds like all Republicans. :dubious:

Apparently it’s not possible to have a conversation about political parties without trashtalk from partisans.

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Libertarianism isn’t seriously considered by most intellectuals currently, I think if anything it has a tremendous potential for growth.

Well, libertarianism and Objectivism certainly have received more public attention than usual these past few years. If that doesn’t make their presence and respectability in intellectual and academic circles grow, nothing will.

It is entirely possible that nothing will.

[BrainGlutton]

@Pleonast

Sounds like all Republicans. :dubious:

Apparently it’s not possible to have a conversation about political parties without trashtalk from partisans.

C’mon! Deal with it! Politics is not pretty! And we can still use reason ‘n’ shit, too. It’s more fun being able to use (and answer) more things, isn’t it?

[CJJ]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Because libertarians can be ideologically diverse. For example a Libertarian who argued that individual rights trumps any “states’ rights” would probably lose much of the paleocon and racist vote but be more amenable to progressives and moderates.

As long as I can remember (this is going back to Dick Randolph), I’ve associated libertarians with the political right. While Ron Paul’s candidacy proves a few leftists will hop on the bandwagon, can anyone give an example of a real left-wing libertarian? I’m sure they’re out there…

[XT]

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Libertarianism isn’t scary or threatening, it’s just stupid. It’s a pseudo-intellectual skirt for people who really really hate taxes to hide behind. It’s a place for Republicans who don’t want the responsibility for, you know, actually running anything.
[/QUOTE]

Based on the amount of screeching alone on this board concerning them, it’s scary and threatening to some.

IF Ron Paul has shown racist tendencies? He doesn’t taint anything. He’s no more racist than Santorum or Gingrich. The Republican Party teems with racists. Paul is just a bit more overt than say Gingrich, who blows dog whistles such as “food stamp president”.

My point was to avoid the whole ‘he IS a racist’…‘no, he ISN’T’ debate. The point I WAS making is that one person doesn’t taint an entire movement, merely taints his or herself. You seem to want to paint all Republicans with the racist broad brush, so saying Libertarians are as well based on some tenuous connection with Ron merely widens the brush stroke. It’s a pretty ridiculous position, so in a backhanded sort of way it makes my point for me…only someone wanting to paint with really broad strokes is going to make such a correlation. The OP, for instance. Most reasonable people are going to simply paint the individual with any slime, not try and paint everyone associated with the same broad brush.

Will Ron Paul’s candidacy add more constituents to the LP? No. Most of his supporters are misled college students who haven’t researched his despicable history or looked into the folly that is libertarianism. Once he leaves the campaign trail, he’ll fade into the obscurity that he so richly deserves.

He probably will, but that’s not really the question the OP was asking, nor what I was responding to.

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@CJJ

As long as I can remember (this is going back to Dick Randolph), I’ve associated libertarians with the political right. While Ron Paul’s candidacy proves a few leftists will hop on the bandwagon, can anyone give an example of a real left-wing libertarian? I’m sure they’re out there…

Well, Noam Chomsky calls himself a libertarian socialist.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Oh, no doubt. But the LP as an organization has never mattered much. What matters is that Paul is associated with the word, and he has, I believe, in the public mind, tainted the libertarian brand for some time to come – whatever party-banner it runs under. When people hear those quotes from the Cato Institute, maybe they won’t take them quite as seriously as before. (Assuming they understand what the Cato Institute is.)

And you base this on what? Your own perspective? I’d say that’s hardly representative of the public at large. I’d like to see some actual evidence that Ron Paul has somehow tainted Libertarianism more than it already is.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@BobLibDem

Libertarianism isn’t scary or threatening, it’s just stupid.

All stupid movements are scary. At least they scare me.

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Libertarianism might be wrong but it is far more realistic, moral, and sensible than Marxism and Marxism obviously has had a long shelf life among intellectuals and college students even after the Holodomor, the purges, the Cold War, the Great Leap Backward, the Cultural Revolution, the Killing Fields, and the fall of the USSR. Better Rand than Red.

It’s fascinating to go back and see how much of libertarianism was a direct reaction to Marxism. Even before the horrors of the Soviet Union, libertarian thinkers were responding to Marxism by assuming that all government intervention would eventually become absolute.

Communism is not Marxism, no matter how much people want to merge them today. Marx has many sensible things to say about his contemporary world, economy, and society. They were mostly irrelevant by the 20th century, which is why Communism was never Marxism and Communism never got any traction in an America that had moved on and developed its own counters to those triggers. Socialism is neither, and most American leftist movements should be called socialist rather than communist.

I won’t defend anything about Communism. Never have. I’m irredeemably small-d democrat. But it’s intriguing that in its long history nobody has ever decided to fight and die for Libertarianism.

[WillFarnaby]

@BrainGlutton

Also, FWIW, the Pew Political Typlogy now considers “Libertarians” numerous enough to warrant their own typology category, comprising 9% of the general public and 10% of registered voters. But I suspect that includes a lot of people who find Paul as embarrassing as anyone else does.

That quiz is a joke. I took it once and was considered a libertarian. Switched my vote on the last question because I was conflicted, and was considered a post-modern

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@WillFarnaby

That quiz is a joke. I took it once and was considered a libertarian. Switched my vote on the last question because I was conflicted, and was considered a post-modern

I’m sure it’s been covered in many previous threads, but the online quiz is entertainment. The real quiz is much longer. All you have to do is search at the site to find that out.

[elucidator]

Libertarianism is hot-house flower. Its like political scientists took the science part too seriously and began to experiment. It shares that with Marxism and Objectivism, they are artificial intellectual constructs that have almost nothing to do with people. They are clean, shiny, bright and rational, precisely what people aren’t.

Besides, where is their plan, their agenda? Who speaks for them? And why don’t they get out of the park and the streets and quit being such a…oh, wait, them’s my people. Never mind.

[Askance]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

And Ron Paul’s extremnism comes from the fact that his support base is ideologically diverse but largely from the extremes of American politics-theonomists, leftist pacifists, paleoconservatives, neo-Nazis, and anarcho capitalists.

Wah?!? Are you really saying he and his positions are [now] defined by those of his support base? Does he not have his own positions, which would (logically) only then have attracted a support base? That is to say, his extremism must have come before extremists got attracted to it. Yes? No?

[WillFarnaby]

@Exapno_Mapcase

There never was an intellectually respectable libertarian movement, just a fringe of alienated egoists. They have been strengthened and validated by the attention and approval given to the Paul campaign. They will shrug off the accusations of racism just as the entire right-wing has and does, and argue that they are more even-handed in the way they apply their ideology equally to everyone.

Are they not even-handed? Libertarianism is gaining favor among younger voters in this election season. Do you consider that demographic to be more racist than average?