Plan B mentioned something in this thread that I’ve wondered about for some time, the libertarian wing of the Republican party.
While I like to think I have a basic understanding of libertarian philosophy, my understanding makes me wonder why there is such a trend. While I don’t think true libertarians would find either party to be a match, it seems like they’d be a lot closer to the dems as opposed to the pubs. In theory, they should be closer to the pubs fiscally, but the dems socially, so it seems a wash, and since the pubs have shown that their fiscal policy is little more than campaign talk, I don’t understand why almost all libertarians gravitate to the republican party, if they are truly libertarian in their social principles.
Care to enlighten me?
Note: I’m not in any way trying to say they should vote for democrats, as I’m a fan of people voting for whoever they truly want (I don’t blame Naderites for Gore’s loss, for instance), so they should vote libertarian if they like that candidate. I’m just wondering why they almost universally choose the Republican party when they choose between the big two.
Well, there are different types of Libertarians. But if you consider that libertarianism is about being left alone in your own business & property, the GOP is a better fit.
The more idealistic-authoritarian sectors of the Religious Right are the real misfits in the GOP.
Police & government types have their vices, too. Authority is corruptible & can often be bought off.
The tax-cutting attitude of the GOP reflects the fact that much of the traditional GOP is actually deeply libertarian anyway–at least when it comes to “people like us”; they just throw a little red meat, preferably black, “foreign,” or “deviant,” at the law & order, white power, & Jesus Freak crowds for votes.
A few serious ideological libertarians see through this, & have decided that liberty should be for everyone, not just the rich, so deplore the corruption of the GOP. But in a sample of those who seriously buy into a laissez-faire economic model, relatively few are savvy enough to make this distinction (or, you know, they wouldn’t be laissez-faire). And, especially if you are a) white, b) rich, or c) relatively culturally conservative in your own life or able to appear as such, it can be easy to ignore the abuses & vote for a party that won’t throw you in jail for your opiate use, won’t rape & kill you on the streets of New York like their cops do black immigrants, & will lower your taxes even if the country’s basic civil capital goes to hell–which is all some libertarians think they want. So they turn a blind eye. It’s all so easy.
Libertarianism, the laissez-faire kind, is bloody selfish, & either corrupt or naive. The GOP is bloody selfish. The GOP is libertarian.
Yeah, because wanting people to be free from coercion is so selfish. We should just tax everyone and give their money away to those who didn’t earn it. That’s much better. :rolleyes:
The reason Libertarians identify more closely with the Republicans is because a lot of people join the libertarian party because when presented with “lower taxes” they’ll answer “sign me up.” A lot fewer people hear “legal heroin?” and follow with that same answer.
Law is coercion. Discipline is coercion. Without law, we would be coerced by mobsters. We cannot create a society without coercion, period. What you say is nonsense.
That’s not primarily what the government does, though. It taxes you to provide security for people’s life, liberty, & property–including those yet unborn: courts, police, Coast Guard, environmental protections, regulations of various useful kinds–yet the stupid Libertarians & the stupid GOP run around complaining that government itself is evil, that we should cut it all down to nothing. They’re cut from the same cloth. The difference is that there are actually people in the GOP who think, hey, having soldiers & courts & cops is important!
I was raised in the libertarian GOP tradition; they’re stinking madmen, the lot of them.
So if I held you up at gunpoint to mostly feed orphans but partially buy porn (but only a little), I would be justified, because I was mostly altruistic?
I’m OK with those things. But I recognize that someone else might not be, and should be able to decide to opt out of that without being put in jail.
Libertarianism does not eschew the police. You’re referring to anarcho-capitalism. You are painting with an awfully broad brush and coming close to offending a large number of people. You wouldn’t call all fat people lazy, would you?
Sorry for the hijack, OP. There are a lot of people with an axe to grind against the libertarian party and will take any opportunity to let you know just what they think of us, and the libertarians always have to defend themselves.
I’ll repeat my answer to your question: The reason Libertarians identify more closely with the Republicans is because a lot of people join the libertarian party because when presented with “lower taxes” they’ll answer “sign me up.” A lot fewer people hear “legal heroin?” and follow with that same answer.
“Legal heroin” is a silly example, since Democrats aren’t calling for that. “Protecting civil rights” (not conducting warrantless wire taps, for example) would be the equivalent Democratic position. Why aren’t Democratic positions on civil rights a draw for more Libertarians?
Incidentally, I notice you don’t always capitalize Libertarians. I try to do so when talking about the American party, since it defines Libertarianism so differently from how the term is used in other countries (where it’s often more synonymous with socialist anarchism).
I certainly think so. While a few stated positions of the old Republican party and a few stated positions of the Democratic party kind of align with my flavor of libertarianism, neither party is really all that close (and Dubya & Co. are closer to communism than libertarianism)
Yes. But lots of Republicans will sign up for Libertarianism based solely on their platform of greatly reduced taxes without giving thought to the socially liberal aspects. The abolishment of welfare and most public services and the reduced taxes which come are the most extreme financial positions Libertarians hold, which are attractive to rich people who just like the sound of lowered taxes (i.e. some republicans). The extreme social position of libertarianism, which includes the legalization of drugs, is something a lot of the socially liberal party (democrats) won’t accept.
So my ultimate point is, the conservatives are more willing to accept the extreme financial conservatism of the Libertarian party more than the liberals are willing to accept the extreme social ones, and that is why we find more Republicans willing to listen to Libertarians than Democrats.
No, but a large amount of democrats are calling for legalized marijuana, another drug. In the same vein, republicans aren’t calling for the abolishment of public schooling. See above point.
That’s right, and it’s not on purpose. I’m not entirely familiar with the rules of capitalization for political parties. And sometimes I just forget that there’s even a rule. So sometimes you get a big L, sometimes you don’t.
I would say the majority of Libertarians hold that private property ownership extends past a governing body. Thus, if you want to remain on your private land and forgo the protection of that government’s police force, then that’s your right.
To expand upon my point of the opt-in government, if I’m remembering correctly, it comes from the idea of the consent of the governed, and the primary difference being that all current democratic states rely upon a majority, while a Libertarian state requires 100% consent.
As a Libertarian, the reason I side with conservatives instead of Liberals is that Liberals tend to be far more authoritarian and controlling. The left is constantly campaigning for government intrusions in numerous affairs. I despise the class warfare, ‘rich is evil’ nonsense you hear from so many of them, and in general they tend to stand for a lot of things I oppose.
The right has problems in this regard with social conservatism, but I don’t find it as dangerous, and their goals are much more modest. But the average Republican believs in less government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations. They’re just a closer fit. Here in Canada, it’s the same with the Conservatives. I dislike a number of their social policies. But I simply can’t stand the Liberals.
Were a closer fit. Right now, we have the dangerous equivalent of a Joe Lieberman in power. He wants government control of everything. Ignoring the neocon movement, though, and the last 10 years, and things make more sense. Republicans used to be about smaller government, fewer regulations, less intrusion in people’s home lives.
Now, I can’t say so much, until the damage George has done to the Republican party shakes off. It may be that the Dems and Pubs have switched positions… but you honestly can’t tell yet.
Lot depends on if Hillary wins or loses. Hillary is Ms. Nanny State herself.
In some respects it does…but over all (and, importantly, in theory), the Republican’s are closer to what most libertarian types want than the Dems are. Why? Well, both parties are far from ideal from a libertarian’s perspective, but economically (and again, in theory), the Republican’s are way out in front of the Dem’s from a fiscal perspective (present econimic liberal Republican aside ). In addition, while its true that the Dem’s SOCIAL liberalism appeals to many libertarian’s, their proclivity to want to ban and control things is a serious turn off…and they are more EFFECTIVE at getting things banned and controlled than the Pub’s are. And many of their ‘nanny state’ type programs set libertarian’s teeth on edge.
Conversely, when you look at the Pub’s things that set libertarian’s teeth on edge you find…they aren’t very effect at getting them actually implimented. While its true that the right wing religious wack job faction of the Pub’s is completely against what most libertarian’s stand for, a close examination seems to indicate that the Pub’s mostly pay lip service to them…i.e. not much ACTUALLY gets done. As an example, compare something like the banning and control of fire arms with, say, abortion. How effective have the Pub’s REALLY been at getting abortion to be illegal? Banning porn? Prayer in school?
Neither party is really close to what libertarian’s are, by and large, looking for. Thats why I don’t vote for either anymore myself. However, if one were going to hold one’s nose and take the lesser of two weevils, then the Pub’s are probably the closer of the two parties…at least theoretically. However, after the Bush administration this really isn’t as true as it once was…from a fiscal perspective, Bush et al is little different than a tax and spend liberal of the worst kind. From a nanny state perspective he’s worse in some respects than most Dems. AND he has all those bad religious nutball vices too boot!
Whats a libertarian to do? Well…my advice is to state ‘a pox on both your houses’ and either get really drunk, or vote Libertarian (or both ).
As a small “l” libertarian, it’s getting tougher and tougher to identify with either party. But I think many libertarians put financial issues ahead of other issues for 2 reasons:
A smaller government can’t do very much even if it wants to, and the more of your own money you get to keep, the more you can ignore or work around the parts of government you don’t like.
While most libertarians are firm believers in a discrimination-free government, they are perfectly OK with private discrimination. Civil rights laws are a duel edged sword for libertarians: we like them when the force the government to treat everyone the same, but we abhor them when they intrude into our private lives.
A generation or so ago, it was much easier for me to identify with the Republican party, but lately I’ve been identifying more with the Democrats-- especially since many Democrats seem finally to “get” the whole free market thing.
This seems to make the most sense to me based on the various directions the parties have taken. A while back it would have seemed a no-brainer for a Libertarian to fairly closely align with the Republican party, but today, it seems like they align somewhat closer (but not nearly as closely as they formerly did with the Republicans, at least in theory) to the Democratic party. I’m starting to think that the libertarians that still align with the Republicans today aren’t libertarians at all. That makes me wonder why they don’t just acknowledge that they are Republicans.
I know of self-proclaimed Libertarians that want closed-borders, subsidies for corporations, gay-marriage outlawed, and suspicious Muslims put on watch lists. While those stances certainly align with the Republican party of today, I’m having trouble finding the libertarian philosophy behind them. Why wouldn’t these people just register/vote Republican and stop with the charade (I’ve asked, and they just give non-answers)?
This may sound like the no-true-Scotsman fallacy, but no true libertarian would go for subsidies to corporations or watch lists for Muslims. The closed border thing is a bit more complicated (libertarians wouldn’t want open borders unless there were no government services for immigrants, and no minimum wage) and I’m not too sure about SSM-- libertarians would generally be against state sponsored marriage of any type, but wouldn’t single out SSM for a ban.
I’d say those people have distorted the meaning of libertarianism to the point of making it not mean anything at all.
I’ve noticed this quite a bit on this board. IRL I don’t discuss politics beyond nodding at whoever is babbling, so I don’t know if it’s this place in particular or a general view of libertarianism.
). In addition, while its true that the Dem’s SOCIAL liberalism appeals to many libertarian’s, their proclivity to want to ban and control things is a serious turn off…and they are more EFFECTIVE at getting things banned and controlled than the Pub’s are. And many of their ‘nanny state’ type programs set libertarian’s teeth on edge.