8

Why Libertarianism Fails (Opinion)

posted by ohphukimintrouble on politics

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

[–] Phukadoodledo 1 points (+1|-0)

I don't believe Libertarianism can be in line with the NAP because it still gives the ability to certain people to make on behalf of others.

Correct me if I'm wrong if limited government is only the position held by the Libertarian Party.

[–] AlkaiserSoze 1 points (+1|-0)

That's one reason why I don't believe Libertarianism is workable in execution. I feel it's a very good idealogy, however, which should have a better foundation in the principles America pursues. From a conceptual standpoint, NAP and limited government can still function without conflict but it's such a narrow line that it's practically unfeasible. It would also rely on literally every single person not being a dick and respecting each other. That just isn't going to happen unless someone starts handing out free lobotomies.

My view is that the Libertarian Party should return to the NAP as the basis for its principles, compromise to some degree on limited government (such as providing more freedom to States rather than to the Federal infrastructure), and ride the wave of populism. Limitation of welfare would be a positive thing as it seems the public wants more frugal spending. Limitation of immigration could conceivably be managed as that's less about deciding for citizens and more about deciding for prospective citizens. Is it a fine line and is it not entirely Libertarian? Yes. But as I previously mentioned, I don't think the original full concept of Libertarianism is reasonable in modern society but those original principles could pivot into something better than what we have today.

In addition, I'd say keep the feds out of the drug trade. This War on Drugs has obviously hurt more than it has helped and ultimately leads to money for the private prison industry, big pharma, and funding for the DEA. Lord knows that the DEA hasn't been using their money wisely in recent history, so it would make more sense to let people keep that cash for themselves. Again, this is a point which the LP could conceivably own their opponents on.

All in all, this is just my two cents. It's not a perfect system but frankly, I consider it a better option than the current state of affairs in the LP.