More
8

What is Libertarianism? It's an ideology which someone is right wing fiscally, and socially on the left. Libertarianism is about being as free as possible.

Libertarians are really shitty at marketing. It's impossible to take them seriously because they fail to separate their political beliefs from action which is based on principle. They politically believe in being as free as possible and not harming anyone. They then make this belief a part of their personality and actions, and it makes them an utter joke. This can be seen from Gary Johnson sticking his tongue out, to James Weeks stripping at the Libertarian convention. They don't harm me, sure. It still puts Libertarians in a bad image. Why would the average person want to vote for a clown? This belief that you have to be Libertarian at everything you do is flatout silly. If Libertarians presented themselves as people who seemed intellectual and respectable, they would gain popularity as they would seem like a more viable respectable option. You could throw in a few extra things like them playing the saxophone like Bill Clinton to try make them seem even more likeable. Being respected, being moderately fun has worked for everyone else. Libertarians haven't embraced any of this, and it's one of the things that's hurt them badly.

Libertarians focus on issues that are irrelevant to the average person. Libertarians hate populism, but it would be an excellent tool for them to actually appeal to the working class. It worked for Trump in 2016, Obama in 2008 and FDR in the 30's. Populism is about making the concerns of the working class heard, and there's absolutely no reason why it can't be implemented into Libertarianism. If Libertarians were more tactical, they could embrace populism and integrate it using Libertarians. You could use populism to make the voices of the average person heard (the question), and then you could propose Libertarianism as the solution (the answer). This would be an extremely smart move for Libertarians and would make them liked among the working class. Libertarians still think populism is the second coming of Hitler. They think it's an extremely fascist tactic to use. The result is that you have Libertarians focusing on issues that nobody literally gives a fuck about? When was the last time the average person who lost their job cared about marijuana or selling heroine to a 5 year old? What you have now are Libertarians who are unpopulist (elitist) that focus on issues that are minuscule in the real world. The result off this is massive unpopularity. The fact that heroine being sold to a 5 year old is even being merely entertained shows how truly out of touch the Libertarians absolutely are.

Libertarianism has lost the voices of reason. You either now have Classically Liberal vs legalise marijuana ancaps. Both proclaim themselves to be Libertarian. I would say that Classical Liberalism is the true form of Libertarianism. Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. Nobody finds selling heroine to a 5 year old to be reasonable, except extremist ancaps. Nobody finds the privatisation of roads to be reasonable, except ancaps. Nobody finds the absolute gutting of environmental regulations to be reasonable. The only people that find these ideas feasible are lunatics who have never gone to the real world. They think everything is absolute, in black and white. Their own ideas are what making the Libertarians untenable. They don't understand that some sacrifices are going to be need to be made, but it's better to have those sacrifices than absolute freedom. Having government owned infrastructure (like roads) isn't the same as the holocaust. Having some (common sense) environment and workplace safety regulations isn't equivalent to Hitler gassing the Jews. Of course, reasonable Classical Liberals would understand this. Extremist ancaps would autistically screech about me even uttering those words and how they're the same as communism.

Before you go off about how third parties are rigged against, I would agree with that in a general sense. But it's not impossible for third parties to get ahead if they promote the right hours. In 1992, Ross Perot (an independent) got 20% of the vote. What did he do? He was a populist. He was respectable. He was reasonable. He was forced to dropout, but he clearly had an impact on that election. It's not impossible for Libertarians to get that percentage at the very least. But until they get their head out of their asses, they're going to continue to be losers and come to a realisation that they need to be adults, not petulant children, they will continue to only get meager results in election times and considered a "wasted vote".

What is Libertarianism? It's an ideology which someone is right wing fiscally, and socially on the left. Libertarianism is about being as free as possible. Libertarians are really shitty at marketing. It's impossible to take them seriously because they fail to separate their political beliefs from action which is based on principle. They politically believe in being as free as possible and not harming anyone. They then make this belief a part of their personality and actions, and it makes them an utter joke. This can be seen from Gary Johnson sticking his tongue out, to James Weeks stripping at the Libertarian convention. They don't harm me, sure. It still puts Libertarians in a bad image. Why would the average person want to vote for a clown? This belief that you have to be Libertarian at everything you do is flatout silly. If Libertarians presented themselves as people who seemed intellectual and respectable, they would gain popularity as they would seem like a more viable respectable option. You could throw in a few extra things like them playing the saxophone like Bill Clinton to try make them seem even more likeable. Being respected, being moderately fun has worked for everyone else. Libertarians haven't embraced any of this, and it's one of the things that's hurt them badly. Libertarians focus on issues that are irrelevant to the average person. Libertarians hate populism, but it would be an excellent tool for them to actually appeal to the working class. It worked for Trump in 2016, Obama in 2008 and FDR in the 30's. Populism is about making the concerns of the working class heard, and there's absolutely no reason why it can't be implemented into Libertarianism. If Libertarians were more tactical, they could embrace populism and integrate it using Libertarians. You could use populism to make the voices of the average person heard (the question), and then you could propose Libertarianism as the solution (the answer). This would be an extremely smart move for Libertarians and would make them liked among the working class. Libertarians still think populism is the second coming of Hitler. They think it's an extremely fascist tactic to use. The result is that you have Libertarians focusing on issues that nobody literally gives a fuck about? When was the last time the average person who lost their job cared about marijuana or selling heroine to a 5 year old? What you have now are Libertarians who are unpopulist (elitist) that focus on issues that are minuscule in the real world. The result off this is massive unpopularity. The fact that heroine being sold to a 5 year old is even being merely entertained shows how truly out of touch the Libertarians absolutely are. Libertarianism has lost the voices of reason. You either now have Classically Liberal vs legalise marijuana ancaps. Both proclaim themselves to be Libertarian. I would say that Classical Liberalism is the true form of Libertarianism. Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. Nobody finds selling heroine to a 5 year old to be reasonable, except extremist ancaps. Nobody finds the privatisation of roads to be reasonable, except ancaps. Nobody finds the absolute gutting of environmental regulations to be reasonable. The only people that find these ideas feasible are lunatics who have never gone to the real world. They think everything is absolute, in black and white. Their own ideas are what making the Libertarians untenable. They don't understand that some sacrifices are going to be need to be made, but it's better to have those sacrifices than absolute freedom. Having government owned infrastructure (like roads) isn't the same as the holocaust. Having some (common sense) environment and workplace safety regulations isn't equivalent to Hitler gassing the Jews. Of course, reasonable Classical Liberals would understand this. Extremist ancaps would autistically screech about me even uttering those words and how they're the same as communism. Before you go off about how third parties are rigged against, I would agree with that in a general sense. But it's not impossible for third parties to get ahead if they promote the right hours. In 1992, Ross Perot (an independent) got 20% of the vote. What did he do? He was a populist. He was respectable. He was reasonable. He was forced to dropout, but he clearly had an impact on that election. It's not impossible for Libertarians to get that percentage at the very least. But until they get their head out of their asses, they're going to continue to be losers and come to a realisation that they need to be adults, not petulant children, they will continue to only get meager results in election times and considered a "wasted vote".

5 comments

[–] Skyrock 1 points (+1|-0)

Libertarians can be libertines (and some also are simultanously), but they don't have to be. Libertarians can abstain and even protest libertine practices - they just can't advocate for the use of Force by the state to restrict libertines.

Walter Block has written a good essay on the relationship between libertarianism, libertinism and social conservatism that may be enlightening to you: https://mises.org/library/libertarianism-and-libertinism

As a political philosophy, libertarianism says nothing about culture, mores, morality, or ethics. To repeat: It asks only one question, and gives only one answer. It asks, "Does the act necessarily involve initiatory invasive violence?" If so, it is justified to use (legal) force to stop it or punish the act; if not, this is improper. Since none of the aforementioned activities [prostitution, pimping, and drugging] involves "border crossings," they may not be legally proscribed. And, as a practical matter, as I maintain in Defending the Undefendable, these prohibitions have all sorts of deleterious effects.

What is the view of libertarianism toward these activities, which I shall label "perverse"? Apart from advocating their legalization, the libertarian, qua libertarian, has absolutely no view of them at all. To the extent that he takes a position on them, he does so as a non-libertarian.

Just because a libertarian may refuse to incarcerate perverts, it does not mean he must remain morally neutral about such behavior. So, do we favor or oppose? Support or resist? Root for or against? In this dimension, I am a cultural conservative. This means that I abhor homosexuality, bestiality, and sado-masochism, as well as pimping, prostituting, drugging, and other such degenerate behavior.

I don't see libertarianism as an attack on custom and morality. I think the paleolibertarians have made an important point: just because we don't want to put the pornographer in jail doesn't mean that we have to like what he does. On the contrary, it is perfectly coherent to defend his right to engage in that profession and still detest him and his actions.

In order to better pinpoint this concept, let us inquire as to the relationship between a libertarian and a libertine. We have already defined the former term. For our purposes here, the latter may be defined as a person who loves, exults in, participates in, and/or advocates the morality of all sorts of perverse acts, but who at the same time eschews all acts of invasive violence. The libertine, then, will champion prostitution, drug addiction, sado-masochism, and the like, and maybe even indulge in these practices, but will not force anyone else to participate. Are libertarians libertines? Some clearly are. If a libertarian were a member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, he would qualify. Are all libertarians libertines? Certainly not. Most libertarians recoil in horror from such goings on.

What then is the precise relationship between the libertarian, qua libertarian, and the libertine? It is simply this. The libertarian is someone who thinks that the libertine should not be incarcerated. He may bitterly oppose libertinism, he can speak out against it, he can organize boycotts to reduce the incidence of such acts. There is only one thing he cannot do, and still remain a libertarian: He cannot advocate, or participate in, the use of force against these people. Why? Because whatever one thinks of their actions, they do not initiate physical force. Since none of these actions necessarily does so, the libertarian must, in some cases reluctantly, refrain from demanding the use of physical force against those who engage in perversions among consenting adults.
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae