Why isn't Libertarianism more popular?

Libertarianism lost it's popularity because of false libertarians like Glenn Beck, who spew complete idiocy......People think he's a real libertarian and it ruins it for the rest of us. This was the plan by fox news all along. They claim that Beck is a libertarian and let him act crazy, then they hold backj true libertarians, like Ron Paul. They hate Libertarianism because it's based on true freedom instead of hate and war mongering.

 

Because if it were workable, countries would try it. I mean, there's the Central African Republic and other countries that believe a centralized government is unnecessary. So you can go there and dump your toxic waste, shoot your neighbors and so on without all the pesky regulation and impingment on your personal liberties.
But the problem is, if there little or no centralized government, there is a power vacuum. It will be filled. Whether by warlords or corporations, someone will come and find a way to gain. There has never been a time or place in history when that hasn't been the case.

 

Wait, you support Ron Paul? Have you always because I remember your posts not being in favor of his ideology....could have been someone else.

 

I support some of his views, such as abolishing federal prohobiton and leaving drug laws up to the states.....but sometimes he gets a little nutty and I like to distance myself. He tends to get it in his head that the states can solve all issues and don't need the fed at all, and that is where we differ greatly.

 

You equate opportunities with freedom when they are simply not the same. Many of the suffering people in Africa aren't free because many of the governments over their are ridiculously authoritarian. However, in the event that this african is in a truly free society and he can't afford medical care and hydration, I would say that he is free, just in a really bad situation. No person is forcing him/her to do something he/she doesn't want to do. I feel that people should want to help the less fortunate, and many do, but we should not use force to take from some to provide opportunities for others.

I would appreciate some examples of these "structures" that limit peoples "choices," which again I still don't believe constitutes freedom as I mentioned above.

 

This is why

 

Because a lot of people are scared of 'Libertarian absolutism'. Libertarians are often quite principled and unwilling to compromise. A great deal of the nation's populace is too distrusting of their neighbors to allow a Libertarian inspired society to emerge.

Libertarians, IMO, have the right ideal as far as the 'perfect' society is concerned, but some of them fail to understand that their free society would be used and abused by others who would use their freedoms to oppress others.

Libertarians though, serve an important function in the American political landscape. They're the loudest voice in preservation of constitutional rights, and limitation of government. We need them. Without them, we'll experience '1984' first hand, because Republicans and Democrats alike are fine with an expansionist government, provided that government expands in their particular direction.

 

Of course, in the world known as reality, nearly 70% of Americans think the War on Drugs is a failure but that doesn't matter to the authoritarian drones that insist that we keep on waging that failure of a "War". I guess you just hate democracy?

Furthermore, the idea that something is right just because the mob supports it is juvenile thinking at its most prepubescent. The majority had no right to press its will upon black people when they kept them as slaves. Of course your argument would reason that the slaves didn't believe in democracy...

 

Just because you are not a slave does not make you free. Most americans are so deep in debt that they will die owing money. Are they free? They are unable to do anything but work their selves to death and will most likely never retire because they can't afford it.

 

Libertarianism must be outlawed. If you are strong and muscular you can easily knock down the other and your strength matters more than others. Clever people are looting the unintelligent. The strong is allowed to dry the spring from which the weak too has to have his water

 

First off, you do not provide the link or even a post #, which means I had to go fishing for it, which I will not do again.

As for your confusion, you omitted the preceding exchange:

You: You seem to believe that because something is legal, everyone will feel pressured to do it.

Me: That appearance is nothing but a figment of your imagination.​

It's not my job to account for your perceptual deficiences, sorry for any inconvenience.

Ask whoever said it - which obviously isn't me.

You certainly have a talent for twising things so subtly that most people don't pick up on it. Fortunately I am not most people.

That's a fact, not an assumption.

This is the weasel-wording people resort to when they can't find fault with what was actually said.

It doesn't matter whether it is or not, because drug abuse will perpetuate other evils regardless.

If there are any, of course not...but I'm not getting into that kind of minutiae.

On the contrary, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and to pass all laws necessary and proper for such regulation, the purpose of which is to ensure maximum prosperity for the United States and the states individually. Since commerce in debilitating substances intended for human consumption is detrimental to that end, Congress has authority to make all laws necessary to minimize such commerce; and since no one's unalienable rights are infringed by the restriction of access to such substances, the propriety of such laws is not reasonably questioned.

Of course I won't, since I never said that.

Yes, you're very trying.

This is not a discourse. This is you propounding absurdities and distortions and me exposing them for what they are.

It never had that, because you don't have that.

And it's impossible to debate with someone who demonstrates intellectual dishonesty at practically every turn, which is why I'm not trying to.

Ain't no way to clarify mud, pilgrim...and that's all you got.

 

But again the problem is, if there little or no centralized government, there is a power vacuum. It will be filled. Whether by warlords or corporations, someone will come and find a way to gain. There has never been a time or place in history when that hasn't been the case. Thus Libertarianism will never work. It's like Communism. It sounds lovely on paper but some pigs end up "more equal" than others.

 

I was very interested and supportive of libertarians when it first started. The first candidate I heard speak was MacBride and I was very impressed. I liked what I heard from him, he handled a very hostile college crowd superbly, and I like their platform. Then, in the state I live in, they were taken over by junkies who wanted all drugs legalized and gun nuts who wanted to have all weapons the military has. It certainly wasn't a home for me.

It is a dilemna in that the party is so small the drug and gun nuts have disproportionate power and relatively normal people don't want to fight with them.

 

I agree with a lot of the concepts of Libertarianism, however, I view it just like Communism. If instituted, the human element would flaw the concept irreparably. In my opinion, the closest analog of a truly Libertarian society was 1880-1905 USA. Most industries were no different than English feudal societies with kings and peasants. Government regulation is a good thing if kept in check with Libertarian principles.

 

"The mortality decline in the U.S. occurred during the latter 19th century and marked a shift from pandemics of infection to degenerative and man-made diseases. The transition favored children more than the old, females more than males, and whites more than nonwhites. Mortality decline in 19th century U.S. owed little to medical progress, sanitation measures, or organized health services. More important determinants were improvements in living standards, personal hygiene, nutrition, housing, and ecologic recession of certain diseases. Fertility in the U.S. started to decline toward the end of the 19th century, a decline that was primarily socially determined. In recent decades, however, the organized element has become visible."

source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0091743577900032. I'll get the full text tomorrow at my university, it seems interesting.

Anyway, just like in feudal Europe, where people died from hunger all the time. All the US problems today is the fault of those evil rich people back in the late 19th century.

 

No, they uphold the rights of all individuals consistently. If children are being victimized, then direct intervention is justified. You are just conflating drug use and the like with victimizing children. One can consume drugs without victimizing other people. It happens all the time.

 

"Recreational drugs" consists of any drug taken for personal enjoyment or pleasure instead of "medicinal" purposes. If someone took aspirin for enjoyment or pleasure, that would be "recreational" drug use, but obviously aspirin can be used "responsibly", much like any drug.

 

Libertarianism assumes the best in human nature. It assumes the majority of people will do the right thing without laws to force them (it assumes free market pressures will work better than law). Beyond that it is mostly media slant, from the left and the right, which has painted it as a quixotic political anomaly. People wont even bother to investigate an idea that has been written off as a joke by popular opinion.

 

Then the OP is not a libertarian.

That may be your definition, but it isn't mine.

 

Well let's all get on the same page then. What is your definition of "recreational drug"?

 

A substance produced and marketed for the sole purpose of helping the user escape his or her conscience.

 

LOL "Self-reliance" - what a quaint notion. Once upon a time, Americans actually valued it...

 

Ah. So you're referring to alcohol then. Okay.

 

That argument goes back to the founding of our country. The earliest, and easily the nastiest political battles in our nation's history was over whether the federal government should be strong enough to enforce it's will on the populations, and the arguments have largely stayed the same. Back then they argued whether or not the federal government had the right to force people to pay other peoples debts. They saw the unbridled passion of individual liberty turn ugly in the French revolution, and there were still many who believed that ordinary people were not capable of governing themselves. The constitution was the compromise that arose, and almost as soon as it was created it was accused by some of being violated by an over reaching federal government.

 

I suppose I should expect dullards to think so.