This doesn’t have much to do with the topic of the thread, but I wish to point out that while the capital “L” Libertarians are similar to those described in this thread on most accounts, small "l’ libertarians are merely people who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I consider myself to be a left-leaning libertarian as I would say that I’m fiscally moderate while socially liberal, and I hate seeing the big-L Libertarians go off the deep end. If there was a rational libertarian party that got rid of all the nuts and acknowledged the proper role of government in society instead of wanting to demolish all of it, I would be potentially inclined to follow them, and I think a lot of other people would as well. Until then I will be forced to hold my nose and vote for Democrats who at least have my social policy beliefs and aren’t ridiculously conservative fiscally.
So I guess on the topic of the thread, there’s a lot of different kinds of libertarians, just as there are different kinds of people from every party. Each of them have different key issues that are important to them, and apparently for this guy Trump is right on those key issues even if his philosophy (what philosophy?) is not the same as his.
People of all sorts of actual views describe themselves as ‘libertarians’ but an actual libertarian would agree with Reaganite conservatives on smaller govt, constitutional originalism (as in gun rights, the President not running roughshod over Congress’ prerogatives, etc.), and as free as practical movement of goods, capital and labor, and minimal practical regulation. Libertarians would disagree with conservatives on any role for the state in promoting traditional values and morality (abortion, traditional definition of marriage etc), and on the tendency to hawkish foreign policy in Reaganism.
But since a) economic freedom is the most practically important, and b) the left in recent decades has shifted from a libertarian social view to one where anti-traditional social views are to promoted by govt and civil society (and you’re a ‘bigot’ to be silenced if you don’t toe the line), it’s pretty straight forward that libertarians who want a less anti-libertarian candidate who can win generally vote for Republicans not Democrats.
The twist with Trump is that he’s not really a conservative as it’s been generally understood in the US in recent decades. His instincts (his specific ‘policy positions’ are hard to hail down because he constantly changes them and is likely as not to contradict the policy papers written for him on his campaign website) are more pro-big govt, protectionist and generally authoritarian than a Reaganite’s. OTOH while he pays lip service to social conservatism few people believe his heart is in it. And he has attacked other Republicans and even Clinton as too interventionist. He’s in some ways less compatible with libertarianism than a conventional conservative Republican, in other ways more so.
But overall I think an actual libertarian who wanted the less anti-libertarian candidate between those who could win would vote for Trump in terms of general policy rather than Clinton. They might not if they view Trump as personally unfit for the office, just like some conservative Republicans can’t vote for Trump for the same reason.
Economic freedom for who? Libertarians are all about destroying the social safety net; the ones who think the private sector can replace it are delusional, and a lot simply don’t care because they honestly believe that hard work necessarily equals success. It’s the Just World Fallacy in action: Bad things happen to bad people, good things happen to good people, so go out there and be good and you’ll never need a helping hand. This, not incidentally, ties into certain kinds of Christian dogma, but Libertarians, as you say, don’t necessarily care much about that aspect.
No, their version of ‘economic freedom’ isn’t freedom unless you’re already quite rich and mainly need ‘freedom’ from paying taxes. For everyone else, it means being chained to jobs you can’t leave because you can’t afford to survive without a paycheck, no matter how meager, and you can’t afford to move, which is another Libertarian Cure-All.
The fact this is factually incorrect is, as you might imagine, somewhat secondary. They believe as an article of faith that the fact they can get called on their racist jokes now means the government has instituted an anti-racist-joke policy, not that social change since the Civil Rights Movement has emboldened the butts of said jokes to make enough noise for private-industry HR departments to want to clamp down on them entirely on their own accord.
They refuse to believe that the groups it was Politically Correct to malign in the 1950s who seemed so content back then were actually angry about it, and now have the tools to stand up and do something to end the bigotry. Nope, it’s all about those Northern Radicals coming down here to stir up trouble among our happy, content Nnnew voters.
Trump comes across as an egotist who doesn’t want to play by anybody else’s rules. And never having wielded power before, he has no history of having to enforce rules on you and me.
I suspect many libertarians sympathize with Donald’s appearance as a scofflaw, and furthermore assume that they’ll never be the target of any actual governing action by Trump. Although OP’s friend could have other reasons, of course.
I think you must be right here. I hope he’s taking a “hold your nose and vote for the less odious” approach, rather than actually liking Trump. I can start to see that. Still, there’s this clashing dissonance…
Grin! Having lived all my life in San Diego County, a highly red enclave in that blue state, I sympathize with anyone who is in a pronounced minority. There was one year when, for my Congressman, I had the choice between Duncan Hunter (one of the most conservative of Reagan-era conservatives) and a Libertarian (who ended up with less than five per cent of the vote.) I held my nose and voted for the Libertarian, because (as above) I felt him to be the less hellaciously abominable of the two.
(I’m having such joy with California’s Senate race this time! Two liberal Democratic women! I like them both! Oh, bliss!)
Let’s not forget that Trump wants to go, “Much stronger than waterboarding”. That sort of human rights violation -of highly dubious effectiveness- poses a character test for the voter. You can blather on about freedom. But if you support torture explicitly, we know that such words are highly misleading. Freedom is not that voter’s concern.
This is redefining ‘freedom’, which just causes confusion. I don’t reject a welfare state in some form, I’m not anywhere near an extreme libertarian on that, or maybe much of one at all according to them. But I reject the idea of redefining ‘freedom’ as compelling some people to give to other people. Having no welfare state might not be good, but it wouldn’t be a reduction in freedom.
The left wants less economic freedom, albeit for reasons they think are good ones. Conservative and libertarians want more. And actually you didn’t challenge that point except with the attempt to redefine the word ‘freedom’. You mainly just tried to argue for the left’s position. That’s fine, but doesn’t contradict the fact that libertarians and conservatives have this in common, and your vehemence underlines the fact that this common theme of libertarians and conservatives in favor of more economic freedom is an important one relative to their differences.
I agree it’s secondary (my claim that the left has tended to be more culturally authoritarian in recent times), but I believe it has reduced the relative conflict between conservatives and libertarians.
This is probably a matter of perspective. From a communist or Islamist theocratic POV American liberals and conservatives aren’t far from each other either. But Trump is seriously different from conservatives from a conservative’s POV. It’s nothing to do with absolving any ‘sins’.
The fact you want a system where people are compelled to work in horrible conditions simply to survive and don’t have the freedom to change jobs is a redefinition of freedom as well.
Further, in the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.” Property laws are granted by society, and serve society’s ends; they are not natural, and they are not utterly inviolable, and changing them somewhat to save society from outright decay and destruction is not a reduction of freedom.
You keep trying to smuggle this in here, as if everyone agreed that a reduction of the social safety net and a consolidation of property in the hands of the richest due to a reduction in taxes was equivalent to economic freedom. I’m not going to let you get away with it.
Economic freedom means an increase in social mobility, both from a guaranteed standard of living and a tax system which makes it impossible to just sit on investments and let wealth accumulate passively. I agree that money in investment accounts isn’t literally sitting in a vault, but at the same time it isn’t very high-velocity, and high-velocity money is needed by society for economic reasons as well as social ones, especially in recessionary times. Money is a social invention, and a social construct, and changing the laws surrounding it isn’t a reduction of freedom.
You mutilated my quote and only responded to the least important fragment of it. Therefore, this part doesn’t merit a serious response.
Eh, you just don’t want to admit that the “punish women for having abortions” position is at the heart of Republican dogma. Take their anti-choice position, their anti-HPV-vaccine position, and their anti-Planned-Parenthood position in toto and the “kill the sluts” message is just painfully clear. Trump’s only sin was saying it out loud.
Besides, I’m not that far from you, politically. I’m still a Capitalist and I’m still a Liberal in the sense I’m opposed to things like Democratic Centralism and Theocracy. I just think that Capitalism is a tool a society uses to achieve an end, not an end in itself, and that we’ve learned how to manage it better over the centuries. Perhaps my greatest sin is that I’m no longer a Utopian, like the doctrinaire Libertarians are, in that I don’t think I have The Plan To Save The World. All I have are ideas founded on my understanding of the facts, which would improve things and which can be changed as needed based on observations. It isn’t as simple as having the one doctrine which will work no matter what, but it’s more likely to work in the real world.
It’s actually a rather important point that libertarians tend to gloss over. When we hear economic libertarians speaking about economic freedom, it is indeed appropriate and necessary to ask the question ‘for whom?’ If you have coal miners working in mine shafts 12-14 hours per day and can’t afford housing except apartments or dorms provided by the employer, you have a situation in which there is no freedom for the worker. The laborer is completely dependent upon the employer for his survival and that of his family. In fact one of the most frequent pro-slavery arguments from Southern plantation owners of the 1850s was that Union industrialists had no grounds to criticize human bondage as they were hypocritically implementing their own crueler form of slavery in which laborers weren’t even provided housing and food for basic sustenance. It’s fair to conclude that when economic libertarians promote the idea of liberty, what they’re really promoting is the freedom of corporations to do whatever they want, even if it means essentially depriving labor of their own basic liberties as people.
Yeah, pretty much. You can draw a Venn diagram to see this. Make a big rectangle. Label it “Stupid Motherfuckers”. Draw a large circle inside the rectangle. Label it “Libertarians”. Draw another large circle inside the rectangle with a healthy intersection with the other circle. Label it “Trump Voters”. There is a lot of overlap. There are Libertarians who don’t support Trump and Trump supporters who aren’t Libertarians. They are all stupid motherfuckers, though.
What Libertarians can’t understand is that in society we are naturally co-dependent on each other and that government regulations are essential to maintain a functioning society. Their silly focus on individual freedoms and lack of strong government are of theoretical interest to a few but of no practical value. Trump voters are just idiots, that some also drink the Libertarian koolaid is a coincidence.
What the hell is left to demolish after Clinton I and Obama took all the guns, shut down all the ammo factories and made lead and copper illegal to own?
Honestly, I think the only way you’ll get an answer is just to casually say something to the guy. Say “Huh. I’m surprised. I think of Trump as not being very libertarian. What are the things you support that Trump also supports?”
As you (OP) brought up that he thinks the South should have won, he may be the type who is libertarian at least in part due to their neutral position on racism.
Of course I would expect a thread with “libertarian” in the title to first attract all of those whose understanding of libertarianism is entirely buttressed by Salon articles, that guy in college, and Rachel Maddow DVRs but I wasn’t expecting a shit-show like this.
I’m a libertarian who does not support Trump, but there are a few reasons I can think of why a hardcore plumb-line libertarian (an anarchist that leans neither right nor left) might support Trump.
1- Trump is a threat to the state apparatus. Electing Trump could shred the ideological veil that democracy has cast onto state action. Once the masses realize that democracy is a sham, they will no longer view the central government as legitimate.
2- Trump could mean a chance at peace. Everyone knows Clinton is going to start a conflict needlessly. She shows no inclination towards peace whatsoever. There is a non-zero chance of Trump being more peaceful than Clinton.
3- Trump is a builder of wealth, Clinton has been a parasite upon wealth for nearly her entire life.
My opinion of these:
pie in the sky. Trump has already been co-opted similar to how Reagan was.
Yeah but Trump has surrounded himself with the most vile warmongers known to man. He’s no Pat Buchanan. He is sound on Russia, however. Also he has made the most courageous anti-war statements of this election season. Plus General Allen screaming at me was scary.
Trump has used illegitimate means such as declaring bankruptcy to build his wealth.
There are plenty of libertarians I respect who have shown support for Trump. I respect them less now, but their contributions vastly outweigh this fault.
As far as I can tell, all the rules Trump is in favor of just require pointing guns at people and making threats. Perhaps that’s seen by some an, er, distilled Libertarianism. No law, just the reality of you and me and who can make the other do what he wants done.
I would, but we have a non-aggression pact. (We’ve agreed not to talk politics; the differences are simply too vast to bridge. He’s one of those who uses Ayn Rand’s private dictionary, so even the very basic terms are defined differently between us.)
Thank you! The list was interesting. I don’t know which of the reasons pertains in the case of my friend, but you have, in fact, opened my eyes to some of the possible reasoning. His beliefs seem a little less glaringly contradictory in this light.
This makes the most sense, given the near-anarchist views of the individual in question. He may be “voting for Trump” in roughly the sense of throwing a hand-grenade in through the doorway.
(I agree with your dismissal of this idea: Trump is a big-government politician, just without personal respect for checks and balances. Even if he wins, this position loses, as it could lead to a massive pendulum-swing to Clinton-Obama style liberal policies…and maybe even Johnson-Humphrey style liberal views. But, oh, what a ghastly four years it would be till that happened!)
I hold with Isaac Asimov: someone is going to be putting a gun in my face. It will either be the distant bureaucrat or the local bully, and of the two, I prefer the distant bureaucrat, who might not find me. The local bully certainly will.
This, I think, is essentially why my friend veered off from anarchism and embraced limited statism. He saw that some group of people with guns was absolutely going to be around, telling him what he can and cannot do, and it is better (if still not good, in his eyes) that it be a group who makes pretend to obey laws.