CDZ A divided house of Libertarians can not stand

[Toronado3800]

To be as equally offensive as possible (and I'm in a hurry)

Since the rise of the Tea Party I've had this strange thought in my head about the economic(and now gun rights hippies) fighting the human rights hippies.

Worded another way, it seems the group of voters who are against the Patriot Act and government intrusion into our wombs and personal lives have been skillfully separated from the group of voters who want to keep the government our of their gun safes and wallets.

The new Libertarian gun rights crowd generally fears registration and hates taxes while wanting to take away your right to have an abortion and they allow the government to register every financial transaction they make (have you made a deposit for your company lately?).

The hippie crowd wants big government to take away your guns but quit watching whatever you do online.

It seems to me the two need to recognize the simple "Left vs Right" economic analogy is a lost one and just accept they share common ground. Difficult to do though when so many are entrenched in their worship of the two political teams.

Any thoughts or revisions or?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Any thoughts or revisions or?

Not so much revision as adding precision, something of which there's not nearly enough of on USMB.

​

Note: In the table above, "liberalism" does not mean Democrats and conservatism does not mean Republicans.

 

[flacaltenn]

Any thoughts or revisions or?

Not so much revision as adding precision, something of which there's not nearly enough of on USMB.

​

Note: In the table above, "liberalism" does not mean Democrats and conservatism does not mean Republicans.

THanks for that. Although I take issue with the fact that neither your 1st chart or the table acknowledges the BULK of power/control in the current Dem Party. Unless you want to call it "National Socialism".. And I don't think you want to do that ----

It's getting harder and harder to explain to folks that principles matter. Since both Brand Name parties are now just competing for the burgeoning statist power that they both crave. Don't NEED consistency, when being total hypocrites about political values and morals is so accepted these days.

We have about 2 or 4 more election cycles to get folks to stop rewarding parties and candidates without a philosophical spine. After that, terms like traditional Liberal or Conservative won't matter. It will clash to win and retain the awesome power of the Govt and use it against the other team..

The bar is set so low now for ethics, morals, substance that you need a mining team to find it..

 

[flacaltenn]

This chart is a great concept. Except it needs to locate folks like Kamala Harris, Tom Perez, Bernie Sanders and DJ Trump, Ted Cruz, and Louie Gohmert in order to give the FULL picture of where we're at.

It is shocking how much actual distance there is between between Bill Clinton and that crowd I mentioned. Or Ronald Reagan the matching wingnuts on the Repub side.

 

[BlackSand]

...

It's getting harder and harder to explain to folks that principles matter. Since both Brand Name parties are now just competing for the burgeoning statist power that they both crave. Don't NEED consistency, when being total hypocrites about political values and morals is so accepted these days.

...

It isn't always hypocrisy either ... Even when involving principles.
Some principles cross lines far more than simply plotting a point on a graph.

A conservative can have some libertarian principles that better suit the conservative's core principles.

.

 

[fncceo]

Libertarianism is, by definition, a belief that encompasses a certain amount of fundamentalism. The belief in minimal government interference in private lives will always conflict with any existing government -- how much government is too much government?

So, it stands to reason, that Libertarians will always be a house divided.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Libertarianism is, by definition, a belief that encompasses a certain amount of fundamentalism. The belief in minimal government interference in private lives will always conflict with any existing government -- how much government is too much government?

So, it stands to reason, that Libertarians will always be a house divided.

Excellent point. They remain divided because their trepidation has stifled their ability to take their core values to their logical conclusion. As long as ANY sword of power dangles amidst grasping hands, there will be division (i.e. chaos), because it flies in the face of the reality of man's natural autonomy. Nature, to be commanded, must first be obeyed; so any system that attempts to regulate society by external control is doomed to unending chaos. The only social structure that has the faintest chance of bringing harmony and lasting order is full-on voluntary anarchy, i.e. self-regulation.

Though of course, this (like any human endeavor) can never succeed in excess of the summated morality of its participants. Short cuts make for long delays, to be sure, but the difficult work of fostering a thorough understanding of basic non-aggression morality across a serviceable majority is a tall order -- one that exceeds the imaginative capacity of most people. In turn, they succumb to the temptation of external control. However, it is necessity that births invention, and we will never know what solutions may be devised until we develop the courage to actually embrace the challenge.