Wednesday, November 26, 2014

The Children's Wing of the Libertarian Party

I am a libertarian.  And like most libertarians, I'm too lazy and into my own life to bother running for politics or "doing anything about it."  If I'd partake in a libertarian meeting it would be to find like-minded fellows and enjoy interesting and engaging conversation.

But while I believe there is a silent majority of libertarians who are basically socially liberal conservatives, there's a loud, vocal minority within the libertarian party.  And they're getting annoying.

Unlike the real libertarians, this vocal minority is more of the crusaderist variety.  More focused on "protesting" and being part of some underdog crusade against "the man."  This results in them voicing protests that are no different than what comes from leftists and socialists.

Hyperbole over police brutality.
All war is evil.
Soldiers are murderers.
It's all about oil.
The Illuminati.
The legalization of pot
"It's the corporations MAAAAAN!!!!"
They even have a god damned Wikipedia entry for "libertarian socialism" which is the epitome of contradiction.

In short, they really aren't libertarians as much as they are college kids who maybe read a pamphlet and now deem themselves "libertarians" since it's "cool" and "edgy."  You might as well lump them in with the token high school "anarchist" or "marxist," both parodies of themselves as they Venn diagram with "emo" and "wears mascara."

Now if it were just faux intellectual kids choosing to be different instead of displaying genuine intellect, I'd be fine with that.  Pat them on the head.  "Yeah, man, 'socialist libertarianism.'  What evs" as the youth like to say.  But they can't just "be" libertarians.  No, their egos get in the way.

No, they go the pastoral route and become the self-declared "majority whip" of the libertarian party, proselytizing, lecturing, and berating the majority of libertarians for their sins of (GASP!)

being OK with legitimate war
liking cops
having beers with soldiers
not believing in conspiracy theories
pro-corporation/business
and thinking pot is stupid

And so I think it's about time to slap them down.

I'm henceforth calling these type of crusaderist libertarians the "Children's Wing of the Libertarian Party."  They like to make noise, view themselves in a self-aggrandizing and holy way, they're typically younger and inexperienced, and like children, should be seen and not heard.  Perhaps if I ever do attend a meeting and join, I could make a motion for them to have their own little "Kiddies Table" at libertarian conventions where we can give them mascara and nylon and trench coats as well as copies of Das Kapital and a couple bags of pot.  And when they get real nice and high, and think they have the solutions to the world's problems (not to mention the political platform of the libertarian party) we'll give them crayons and some paper and maybe they can spell it out, signing it at the bottom with their name and age.

Then I'll take it home, put it up on my fridge and my girlfriend will ask,

"What's that dear?"

And I'll say,

"Nothing dear.  Literally nothing."

17 comments:

Karl said...

I just started a slow clap in your honor, Captain.

Anonymous said...

Libertarian does not mean socially liberal conservative. It just doesn’t. There is a substantial overlap of thought but, at the end of the day, conservative and libertarian views are incompatible.

Pot and the police are great examples. A socially liberal conservative may be agreeable to drug legalization for pragmatic reasons. Libertarians want to end the war on drugs because they think it is immoral, and hence have a problem with its enforcers. Both get to the same place but the reasoning really isn’t compatible.

Libertarians are the middle ground between anarchists and statists. Any form of conservatism, is to some degree, statist.

Nothing wrong with being a socially liberal conservative or a libertarian leaning conservative, or a mild statist. but, you aren't libertarian.

Goober said...

Yeah, you get people thinking "libertarian" means "anarchist" and you get them thinking it means "wants to smoke lots of pot."

It also comes with some nasty connotations associated with law enforcement. Not that I'm against calling them out hwen they fuck up, but come on, people. You give a guy a gun and say "I'm going to stick you in the nastiest, most dangerous, charged situations our society has to offer, and then expect you to never, ever do anything in a split second that I wouldn't have done after hours of deliberation". It's bullshit.

Libertarians are not anarchists. We don't all smoke pot. We don't all hate the police.

My definition of "libertarian" is someone that looks at all proposed laws and changes to society from the perspective of maximizing individual liberty, and minimizing the amount that we must tread on that liberty, in order to make our society work.

In other words, I'm okay with you making me pay for roads, because collective road ownership is probably a good thing for all of us (and anyone that doesn't want to pay for roads will still benefit greatly from them).

I'm NOT okay with you making me pay for Peggy Sue's abortion. She can pay for that herself, and I would as soon not be enslaved by Peggy Sue for whatever time it takes me to work off the debt she incurred for me.

Pax Empyrean said...

Ah, yes. The Crazies.

http://paxempyrean.blogspot.com/2014/03/neopolitan-libertarianism.html

Anonymous said...

While you might support the objectives of a "legitimate war" I can tell you all war is expensive and very few libertarians are confident in any administration's ability to pursue those objectives to achieve a sufficient cost/benefit ratio. This is not a socialist position.

The current US military is not economically sustainable and is a major contributor to our debt and deficit problems. It also empowers Democrats to insist on vast welfare spending in exchange for their willingness to support military spending, a deal most elected Republicans have taken.

You can think cannabis is stupid; I personally hate the taste of beer. However you wouldn't like it very much if I called you a leftist for opposing alcohol prohibition.

Besides, the drug war cops spend most of their time interfering with my driving and that of other motorists. As such, I don't like cops and it is in my political interest to attack them at every opportunity. I don't particularly care if you like them or not, but you shouldn't expect many people who value freedom to travel to agree with you.

Anonymous said...

That was a good description of what a libertarian is. I am a libertarian leaning conservative but I often casually call my self a libertarian because I socially don't align with most conservatives, and it's too complicated to explain to the uninformed how I'm different.

However, I don't think the so called "socially liberal" conservatives or libertarians are liberal at all. If anything, conservatives are socially libertarian (or at least from a classical liberal tradition) and libertarian are socially voluntarists.

Liberals want the government to coerce people into accepting social issues which makes their ideology not from a classical liberal tradition but from a collectivist position. This makes liberals socially communists.

I applaud Cappy for calling out these posers because they makes us all look stupid. But Cappy is not socially liberal, which really means socially communist... Or progressive... or socialist... Or Democrat. I would consider him socially libertarian even if it is for pragmatic and not moral reasons.

Anonymous said...

Libertarianism committed suicide when it went along with no-fault divorce, the ultimate in breaking contracts. After that, there was no reason to ever trust that ideology again.

Conservatism built on religion, on the other hand, avoids the "liberty for now, tyranny for later" problem that ruins single-generation movements. It's how every republic missing its king eventually falls into anarchy.

evilwhitemalempire said...

On the issue of pot and other drugs.

I personally wish the blue states (but only blue states) would legalize all the drugs.

Reason: You can't straighten any of them out but you MIGHT be able to screw them up badly enough to render them useless as a voting bloc.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget how many are cultural Marxists who think letting anyone in to the country is good. They only look at from a economic perspective, which completely ignores cultural, ethnic, and religious differences between the native people and the immigrants which cause numerable problems.

Looking at things from a economic perspective can always give valuable information, but you need to realize when you are comparing apples to oranges.

Atham Aldecua said...

A lot of people that smoke pot want to ban guns... Meh, "Libertarians" suuuuure...

heresolong said...

Anon @11:38 Any reason you make a big deal about how conservative can't be libertarian but ignore the fact that progressives are basically 100% in opposition to libertarianism EXCEPT for the drug issue. Progressives are the definition of nanny state. I would say that libertarianism leans far more towards the anarchist position than the statist position. Definitely not a "middle" ground.

Evil: Legalize drugs everywhere. I don't take them but the drug war has two results. One, government interference in every aspect of everyone's life and two, government interference in... Wait I already said that. The government has no business making moral decisions for you in anything.

Glen Filthie said...

You've got that one exactly backward, IMO Cap.

The libertarians that I see pushing gay marriage, legalization of pot, vilification of the police and military - and all the other leftwing sacred cows...are grown men and women. Usually they have been raised by the contemptible hippies and beatniks of the 50's and 60's and are old enough to know better. And - there are far more of them than guys like you in the libertarian movement.
It's sad because I would really, really like to like those people...but if they are going to act like f-skulled lefties I will damn well treat them that way.

Anonymous said...

I'm really pleased I was too lazy to be an activist at 20, they have the attitude that everything sucks so being a non conformist is uber cool.

A truly prosperous libertarian society would require a universal conformity to empathy, ethics and rationality to name a few qualities.

Maybe I'm ignorant of US history being Australian but weren't your founding fathers libertarian after all?

It is hard to define what would be a legitimate war though because they should not really be considered stand alone conflicts. Each war was caused by the previous one and then sets the stage for the next. Maybe wars of independence could be considered legitimate.

Can't blame the soldiers though they are just kids. The politicians should have learnt from history by now, either they are completely stupid or evil. You get the leadership you deserve though don't you ?

akatsukami said...

IIRC, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, slavery was legal in 11 of 13 states, and two had established churches. "Incorporation" (the notion that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as to the Federal government) wasn't an accepted doctrine until the early 20th century. So, no, the Founding Fathers cannot be said to have been "libertarian" in any meaningful sense.

Kristophr said...

Libertarians with brains join the Republican Party, or just quit politics.

At this rate, there will just be crazies left in my old party. Screw them.

You can advocate social AND fiscal liberty without being a crazy hippie.

Anonymous said...

Pot-smoking, eh?

Can someone tell me what the libertarian basis is for allowing citizens to band together to use the coercive power of the state to dictate what plants other citizens are allowed to farm, trade and smoke?

-Red Knight

Anonymous said...

War is the Health of the State.
War is a Racket.