Libertarianism on the rise in the last three years

A recent CNN poll shows that libertarianism is on the rise in the last three years in the United States, more than at any point in the last two decades.

The poll, which CNN has conducted yearly since 1993, tracks the strength of social and economic libertarianism and reveals that both ideas are gaining popular support.

Sixty-three percent of respondents believe that government is doing too much, up from 52 percent in 2008. Half of all respondents said that government should not promote any set of traditional or moral values, up from 41 percent in 2008.

Libertarianism | CNN Poll | On The Rise | The Daily Caller

This sounds nice but my problem is that while people may look at those two questions and conclude that libertarianism is on the rise nowhere was the word "libertarian" used in the questioning. Just because you think the government is generally doing to much, and you don't think the government should promote any kind of values doesn't mean you're a libertarian. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the people polled would actually consider themselves libertarian.

I think what were seeing is a backlash against a two party system where its really just one party with two names.

People are tired of the BS were seeing with the federal Government. People want change they don't want radical extreme's of the current bunch of idiots that are "In Charge"

Our nation is being destroyed people understand this they also understand the current system is not working, in fact its the reason why our nation is in such distress.
 
Sadly the term is already being highjacked, liberal John McCain has already tried to label himself as one.


If you aren't a fiscal conservative, you don't follow a libertarian philosophy. McCain, Palin and the rest of the neocons don't fit the bill.

Also if you are pro on the US being the police force for the world you are not a Libertarian.
 
Sadly the term is already being highjacked, liberal John McCain has already tried to label himself as one.


If you aren't a fiscal conservative, you don't follow a libertarian philosophy. McCain, Palin and the rest of the neocons don't fit the bill.

Also if you are pro on the US being the police force for the world you are not a Libertarian.

Yeah the hall monitor thing stopped working when..............well it never worked to begin with.
 
If people truly understood the roots of narco-libertarianism they would burn them all at the stake.

I agree with you man.

The last narco-libertarian president incinerated 6,000,000 Jews.

Oooooooh, wait, Adolf, was a fascistic nazi, YOUR religion. So they should burn and your ilk at the stake.

Gee, hope you concur.

.
At least you admit the Holocaust actually happened. Unlike your ideological cell mates.

Of course , I believe it.

Government bureaucrats victimising their constituents has been going on for over 2000 years. Its all well documented in the Cato Letters.

I don't know who the fuck you are referring to as my "ideological cell mates" since all libertarians agree that government bureaucrats are scumbags who can not be trusted for a second , they can not be trusted as far as we can spit.

You fascists on the other hand are always looking to be dominated by those who wear brownshirts.

.
 
If people truly understood the roots of narco-libertarianism they would burn them all at the stake.

Let me guess, you're one of the Hitler was a Liberal gang aren't you?

Universal health care.
Gov't direction of private enterprise.
Intervention in foreign countries for "humanitarian" reasons.
Scapegoating others for gov't failures.
Using other people's money to achieve goals.
Subverting the constitution in the name of "higher" goals

If the shoe fits......
 
People think Libertarian=Free Sex and Pot.

Mostly they're right.

Dear Rabbi... You're confused. Just because I TOLERATE other people's choices, doesn't mean I condone them. In fact -- I reserve the right to be appalled by their abusive behaviours. Being pro-choice on EVERYTHING is just a coherent philosophy about trusting individuals and treating each one with respect. Not as an incompentent and untrustworthy child.

I find mainstream politics extremely INTOLERANT and INCOHERENT. That would keep me up at night.

You can trust whatever you want. But the fact is that a certain number of people are going to engage in destructive anti-social behavior. And the question is what to do about that.

Personally I find narco-libertarianism frightening in its child-like simplicity and lack of sophistication.

Your 1st paragraph is irrefutable, but it damages your anti-narco-libertarian stand. The 2nd is just opinion. Want to know what "child-like simplicity" and ineffectiveness looks like? It's the War on Drugs. Innocent people are gunned down in their homes every week due to "bad tips", bad warrants, bad execution by an increasingly militiarized police force. THAT is a much bigger problem (in sheer numbers) than innocents on death row. Our legal system has suffered greatly (more than due to the Patriot Act). Asset forfeiture was invented as a conflict of interest to provide profit motive to the enforcers. It's anything BUT child-like to insist that this is a medical and social treatment problem and we should remove the thugs and cartels from the mix.

You know Rabbi -- I've defended people of faith for most of my life from the godless hordes who attack them for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the radical Muslims terrorists hiding behind established govt power. In EVERY CASE i can find -- these abuses took place when religious leaders co-opted the power of govt to FORCE moral/social change. Couldn't have happened based on religious practice alone. Is THAT why you want to continue using an army to stop "destructive self behaviour"? Makes it real hard to rush to your defense when you insist on making the same historical mistakes over and over again..
 
Last edited:
Dear Rabbi... You're confused. Just because I TOLERATE other people's choices, doesn't mean I condone them. In fact -- I reserve the right to be appalled by their abusive behaviours. Being pro-choice on EVERYTHING is just a coherent philosophy about trusting individuals and treating each one with respect. Not as an incompentent and untrustworthy child.

I find mainstream politics extremely INTOLERANT and INCOHERENT. That would keep me up at night.

You can trust whatever you want. But the fact is that a certain number of people are going to engage in destructive anti-social behavior. And the question is what to do about that.

Personally I find narco-libertarianism frightening in its child-like simplicity and lack of sophistication.

Your 1st paragraph is irrefutable, but doesn't help your anti-narco-libertarian stand. The 2nd is just opinion. Want to know what "child-like simplicity" and ineffectiveness looks like? It's the War on Drugs. Innocent people are gunned down in their homes every week due to "bad tips", bad warrants, bad execution by an increasingly militiarized police force. Our legal system has suffered greatly (more than due to the Patriot Act). Asset forfeiture was invented as a conflict of interest to provide profit motive to the enforcers. It's anything BUT child-like to insist that this is a medical and social treatment problem and we should remove the thugs and cartels from the mix.

You know Rabbi -- I've defended people of faith for most of my life from the godless hordes who attack them for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the radical Muslims terrorists hiding behind established govt power. In EVERY CASE i can find -- these abuses took place when religious leaders co-opted the power of govt to FORCE moral/social change. Couldn't have happened based on religious practice alone. Is THAT why you want to continue using an army to stop "destructive self behaviour"? Makes it real hard to rush to your defense when you insist on making the same historical mistakes over and over again..

Changing the subject and ranting is easier than engaging the argument.
 
If people truly understood the roots of narco-libertarianism they would burn them all at the stake.

Let me guess, you're one of the Hitler was a Liberal gang aren't you?

Universal health care.
Gov't direction of private enterprise.
Intervention in foreign countries for "humanitarian" reasons.
Scapegoating others for gov't failures.
Using other people's money to achieve goals.
Subverting the constitution in the name of "higher" goals

If the shoe fits......

Nixon was the first US President to advocate for Universal Health Care. I don't think German Jews or other "Mud" people were included.

You refer to WWII as an intervention. Haha.

Major failure. The Nazi were fascist.
 
A recent CNN poll shows that libertarianism is on the rise in the last three years in the United States, more than at any point in the last two decades.

The poll, which CNN has conducted yearly since 1993, tracks the strength of social and economic libertarianism and reveals that both ideas are gaining popular support.

Sixty-three percent of respondents believe that government is doing too much, up from 52 percent in 2008. Half of all respondents said that government should not promote any set of traditional or moral values, up from 41 percent in 2008.

Libertarianism | CNN Poll | On The Rise | The Daily Caller

This sounds nice but my problem is that while people may look at those two questions and conclude that libertarianism is on the rise nowhere was the word "libertarian" used in the questioning. Just because you think the government is generally doing to much, and you don't think the government should promote any kind of values doesn't mean you're a libertarian. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the people polled would actually consider themselves libertarian.

And on the flip-side, there are many here that do consider themselves libertarian who implicitly and repeatedly answer no to both questions by way of their stances on the actual issues.
 
Avg-Joe:

I wish Obama had had the political stones to call on The People to form a human shield between Congress and 'K' Street before the healthcare law was written, but wishes are for little girls and Sunday afternoons. It's Tuesday.... We need to find a candidate who walks the talk.

Here's the interesting dilemma in special influence. When Govt INSISTs that it has the mandate to meddle in lightbulbs, toilets and every other aspect of our lives. Do you really want bureaucrats making ALL these decisions while business is muzzled and neutered? I WANT energy producers INVOLVED in energy policy. I WANT politicians to be informed as to what's in the R&D labs of the companies they're about to dictate to.. By the very definitiion of asserting a regulatory or funding role, the govt CAUSES the collusion. And if they INSIST on meddling -- It STUPID to muzzle the Millions of people who are experts on how stuff works.

So -- libertarians like me have come to conclusion that the proximate cause of corp/govt collusion is that govt is OVER-REACHING in it's ambition to centrally plan every aspect of our economy. And if that sphere of influence was cut back -- Industry would leave a lot of vacant properties on K Street..
 
People think Libertarian=Free Sex and Pot.

Mostly they're right.

Dear Rabbi... You're confused. Just because I TOLERATE other people's choices, doesn't mean I condone them. In fact -- I reserve the right to be appalled by their abusive behaviours. Being pro-choice on EVERYTHING is just a coherent philosophy about trusting individuals and treating each one with respect. Not as an incompentent and untrustworthy child.

I find mainstream politics extremely INTOLERANT and INCOHERENT. That would keep me up at night.

You can trust whatever you want. But the fact is that a certain number of people are going to engage in destructive anti-social behavior. And the question is what to do about that.

Personally I find narco-libertarianism frightening in its child-like simplicity and lack of sophistication.

And some people are going to engage in moronic self righteous behavior, but I don't see anyone trying to muzzle you. :eusa_whistle:
 
C'mon Rabbi:

My response was DIRECT and informed... You a FAN of warrants being issued on the advice of some drugged out street pimp? Got an opinion on govt FORCE to end the narco problem? Are you aware of the 7,000 military guns our BATF just put into the hands of REAL NARCO-Terrorists? Tell me how you defend this idiocy???
 
You can trust whatever you want. But the fact is that a certain number of people are going to engage in destructive anti-social behavior. And the question is what to do about that.

Personally I find narco-libertarianism frightening in its child-like simplicity and lack of sophistication.

Your 1st paragraph is irrefutable, but doesn't help your anti-narco-libertarian stand. The 2nd is just opinion. Want to know what "child-like simplicity" and ineffectiveness looks like? It's the War on Drugs. Innocent people are gunned down in their homes every week due to "bad tips", bad warrants, bad execution by an increasingly militiarized police force. Our legal system has suffered greatly (more than due to the Patriot Act). Asset forfeiture was invented as a conflict of interest to provide profit motive to the enforcers. It's anything BUT child-like to insist that this is a medical and social treatment problem and we should remove the thugs and cartels from the mix.

You know Rabbi -- I've defended people of faith for most of my life from the godless hordes who attack them for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the radical Muslims terrorists hiding behind established govt power. In EVERY CASE i can find -- these abuses took place when religious leaders co-opted the power of govt to FORCE moral/social change. Couldn't have happened based on religious practice alone. Is THAT why you want to continue using an army to stop "destructive self behaviour"? Makes it real hard to rush to your defense when you insist on making the same historical mistakes over and over again..

Changing the subject and ranting is easier than engaging the argument.

Interpreted - I got my ass handed to me again and I ain't got nothing.
 
Libertarians are the modern, more well to do, spoiled version of the hippies. Now instead of dropping out and free love, they want to drop into investment banking and free love.

"The origins, background, values, effects, and defects of libertarianism. Some sections are unavoidably abstract, but at the end some irreducible value conflicts are clearly stated. Note that this is not intended as a formal argument with libertarians: as explained below, there are no shared premises for such an argument. If you are a libertarian, it is pointless for you to read this: go somewhere else." Why is libertarianism wrong?

"There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties—I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism—enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before." The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right


"Where libertarianism crosses this chasm is when it passes from selfishness to enlightened self-interest. A human being who owns the Pennekamp coral reef in Key Largo is entitled to break up the reefs and sell the pieces to gift shops (in the absence of a government expressing the will of the majority and telling him he can't.) He ought to realize that there is more gain in selling tickets to Pennekamp over many generations--that way, it will support his children and grandchildren as well. But most human beings, left in complete freedom to act, will select the short-term gain. This is what the Prisoner's Dilemma teaches: we will select betrayal over cooperation because it grants an immediate benefit more tangible to us than the repetitive, long-term benefits of cooperation." Why I Am Not a Libertarian


"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" Noam Chomsky
 
Libertarians are the modern, more well to do, spoiled version of the hippies. Now instead of dropping out and free love, they want to drop into investment banking and free love.

"The origins, background, values, effects, and defects of libertarianism. Some sections are unavoidably abstract, but at the end some irreducible value conflicts are clearly stated. Note that this is not intended as a formal argument with libertarians: as explained below, there are no shared premises for such an argument. If you are a libertarian, it is pointless for you to read this: go somewhere else." Why is libertarianism wrong?

"There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties—I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism—enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before." The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right


"Where libertarianism crosses this chasm is when it passes from selfishness to enlightened self-interest. A human being who owns the Pennekamp coral reef in Key Largo is entitled to break up the reefs and sell the pieces to gift shops (in the absence of a government expressing the will of the majority and telling him he can't.) He ought to realize that there is more gain in selling tickets to Pennekamp over many generations--that way, it will support his children and grandchildren as well. But most human beings, left in complete freedom to act, will select the short-term gain. This is what the Prisoner's Dilemma teaches: we will select betrayal over cooperation because it grants an immediate benefit more tangible to us than the repetitive, long-term benefits of cooperation." Why I Am Not a Libertarian


"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" Noam Chomsky

Great quotes, Noam Chomsky is who I would turn to for an unbiased opinion on libertarianism.

How can libertarianism be labeled selfish when we want EVERYONE to have low taxes and government out of their lives? Middle class democrats aren't being selfish for wanting taxes raised on rich people?
 
Libertarians are the modern, more well to do, spoiled version of the hippies. Now instead of dropping out and free love, they want to drop into investment banking and free love.

"The origins, background, values, effects, and defects of libertarianism. Some sections are unavoidably abstract, but at the end some irreducible value conflicts are clearly stated. Note that this is not intended as a formal argument with libertarians: as explained below, there are no shared premises for such an argument. If you are a libertarian, it is pointless for you to read this: go somewhere else." Why is libertarianism wrong?

Nice. I've read this page before. In fact, I think it was you who posted it. It doesn't so much address libertarian ideology, as present a caricature of its proponents - and then point and laugh. Whatever.

You have any of your own thoughts, midcan? Besides the 'spoiled hippie' slur?
 
C'mon Rabbi:

My response was DIRECT and informed... You a FAN of warrants being issued on the advice of some drugged out street pimp? Got an opinion on govt FORCE to end the narco problem? Are you aware of the 7,000 military guns our BATF just put into the hands of REAL NARCO-Terrorists? Tell me how you defend this idiocy???

They were neither direct nor informed. You take a large agency with a long history and focus on the one or two failures and generalize from that.
 
The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny.

HUH?

WTF?

Ohhhhhhhh, you be using Orwellian doublespeak........"unaccountable private tyranny".

I gather that you prefer ."unaccountable public tyranny"....right?

.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top