Thursday, June 7, 2012

I can't identify with the Libertarian movement anymore.

Now this isn't to say I don't agree with some aspects of Libertarianism and some of my libertarian friends. Let's just say, I publicly choose to distance myself from the umbrella term "Libertarian" for quite a few reasons.

To name a few...

-I believe in Ronald Reagan's peace through strength approach.
-I understand and acknowledge the global threat of Islam; militarily and demographically.
-I am against legalizing drugs.
-I am turned off to mainstream libertarian behavior.

Let me just emphasize on each of those for a second.

First, I am pro defense. I am a firm believer in the United States having a powerful military force to protect and defend our interests. I believe in having a military so strong no adversary would think to challenge it. That said, I am adamantly against intervening anywhere on the globe unless there is a clear cut national security risk. We can't and shouldn't be the world's policeman, but we should be ready to defend our interests and our allies from potential harm by questionable nations. That includes Israel.

I understand and accept the threat Islam poses not just to our country, but the world. While Islamic terror groups operate and kill in almost every nation, Muslim immigrants are also outbreeding native Europeans at an astounding rate and predictions have the European continent as majority Muslim by the year 2050. By then, everyone in America will be a neocon. You can look the other way for now, but by the time our democratic European allies start becoming Islamic members of a new Islamic caliphate, you will realize that 9/11 represented a whole lot more than just "terrorism". Mark Steyn has a whole lot more to say about this in his book, 'America Alone.'

I am against legalizing drugs. It seems the libertarian movement is dead set on this one, so that automatically disqualifies me. Pure freedom does not mean legalizing everything just because some people desire it. That's pure anarchy. And comparing meth to sugar is just stupid.

Finally, the point I've been itching to talk about most. Libertarian behavior. This is something I've seen really develop this year. The more Ron Paul loses, the crazier they become it seems. The more I've evolved politically (I still don't support gay marriage) over the past year the more clear I've been able to see how closely libertarians and liberals behave. It's like they speak the same dialect half the time in their continual bashing of Republicans and conservatives. They use the exact same attack lines.

"You're just another neocon!"

"Quit watching Faux News!"

"You Christians want a theocracy!"

Their mutual dislike for Christianity, Israel, Republicans, and any and all wars has helped me connect the dots. And now that I have seen a clearer picture of who most libertarians really are, I am ashamed I ever labeled myself one. I think it all hinges on the monumental defeat of Ron Paul, and ironically, his inability to garner national support can also be attributed to this type of behavior. Conspiracies also run rampant in the libertarian ranks. Birthers, Truthers, and all forms of Alex Jones kookdom thrive and flourish within libertarian circles. While some of these theories may have merit, I feel it is not constructive to dwell on them. The anti-war, drug embracing, hippie culture shared by liberals and libertarians is also something I just can't stomach. It is one in the same. Regarding the threat of Islam on all fronts, something I have seen with my own two eyes and studied extensively, libertarians have no freaking clue. Any attempt to have a dialogue on Islamic demographics in Europe or Islamic terrorist activities in virtually every corner of the world is countered with the ole' "You're a neocon" line. I've heard libertarians use the old "Neocon" swipe at virtually every single conservative leader you can imagine. Sean Hannity. Mark Levin. Micheal Savage. Herman Cain. Rush Limbaugh. Paul Ryan. Marco Rubio. Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck. Allen West. And yes, even Ronald Reagan. All neocons and "dirty CONservatives". Or "Repugs". Are these libertarians or liberals I am speaking with? Lately, I cannot tell. I think this is what has ultimately turned me off to libertarians the most. They spend more time attacking fellow conservatives than they do big government Democrats.

I have already lost half of my regular readership this year by bashing Ron Paul so I don't see much harm in posting this one. Make no mistake, the conservative Tea Party is not the libertarian movement. It's plain as day.


Fuzzy Slippers said...

Wonderful analysis. I agree completely with every single point. I'm a TEA Party conservative. Period. Definitely not a libertarian, and I'd actually be insulted if someone called me one or lumped me in with them (though I do know some very "normal" libertarians, the majority seem to be deluded and/or mind-numbingly ignorant lunatics).

Silverfiddle said...

"Conspiracies also run rampant in the libertarian ranks. Birthers, Truthers, and all forms of Alex Jones kookdom thrive and flourish within libertarian circles."

That is the thing I find most disturbing as well. Ron Paul attracted a lot of leftwing nuts.

You've laid it out quite well and I pretty much agree, but I still call myself a somewhat libertarian.

Like any ideology, libertarianism covers a broad spectrum. I hate the Lew Rockwell/Anarcho-Capitalist wing, but I love Reason Magazine and CATO, which I consider to be the sane side of libertarianism.

Adrienne said...

In order to be hardcore Libertarian, one must deny the nature of man. Libertarianism would only work if man was perfect.

And double on what the brilliant Fuzzy said...

Republican Mother said...

I consider myself a libertarian after spending many years as the type of Republican you describe yourself as.

This transformation came about through three simple words: follow the money.

By doing so, I found that those making our foreign policy decisions aka determining the "threats" are very much tied into the defense contracting companies. They stand to make tons of money with every defense operation.

Ditto this for the drug war. Jerome Corsi reports that Eric Holder is working on BEHALF of drug cartels. There is billions of dollars of drug money coming across that border. It's all going to the bailout banks. The bailout banks fund the big foundations that pay for the big social engineering programs (aka liberalism) that conservative claim to hate so much.

As a KJV reading Baptist, I can say I've interacted with the hardest core Christians I've ever come across in the liberty movement.

Since I've come out as a libertarian, I've been maligned as a druggie, dirty or stupid. I'm neither of those things, I am a homeschooling mother of five, a chemical engineering graduate, and a free-thinker.

blackjohnx said...

While I consider myself a libertarian politically (minimal government intervention at every level of civic life), I support the tea party and agree completely with your position on national defense and the incivility shown by those doctrinaire folks who condemn all who do not agree with them. The hard left and the Pualistas share an evangelical ferver which has more in common with religion than politics. I differ with your positions on drugs and gay marriage for what I consider pragmatic reasons. On drugs: the ongoing 50 or 60 year effort (if not longer) to combat drug trafficking in the US has proven to be a complete bust (pun intended). Prisons full to overflowing, continuing proliferation of drugs and drug users, and police forces becoming less focused on peace keeping and more and more militaristic (I am retired from both the army and municipal policing so have some insight into both approaches to problem solving). We have too many laws and regulations constraining every aspect of our lives. On gay marriage or civil unions: Gays are. If they chose to indenture themselves to one another legally - let them suffer the consequences (divorce, court battles, custody fights). Were it not again for an intrusive government which has tied marriage - an essentially religious rite - to laws involving health care, insurance, pensions benefits (private and public), there would only be the moral aspect to debate - no pleas in the courts for equal treatment, no restrictions on various religious denominations to discriminate in whatever manner they chose. I'm new to your blog via Instapundit. Maybe others such as myself will make up for the readership which has left in a huff. Keep up the good work.

AnonRambler said...

The problem with you and everyone else is you made a decision of what your stance is before you even come to an issue.

I am Libertarian. Under the pretence that Libertarianism is as Follows.

Federal Government has 2 Jobs, Maintain a National Defence and To Protect the people from unconstitutional laws.

now the problem i am havig with Libertarianism is it has engulfed Anarcho-Capitalism. Which is Vary Dangerous.

As a Libertarian, I am one because Libertarian Ideals are what will keep us from moving to world government. However Anarcho-Capitalism removes those checks and balances.

1. Anarcho-Capitalism rejects proof of citizenship. This is dangerous because this erodes at National sovereignty in a big way

2. Anarcho-Capitalism rejects Patriotism. They call it a disease and one of 3 things that also erodes national sovereignty.

3. Anarcho-Capitalism Reject Patriotism for the reason that Boarders are simply lines and indoctrinates people into thinking that if you recognize those line and are proud and patriotic of those lines then you somehow believe you are better then someone else in another country because you where born in the one you love.

I reject these Anarcho-Capitalists ideals whole heartedly

What ia gree with are the Following.

and they are all backed with objective evidence, you can say i am a nut but that doesn't mean you're right.

Centralized Banks and they're owners are corrupt to the core and are pretty much the puppeteers and orchestrate pretty much everything. They have to go, Only gold and Silver can be Currency.

War on Drugs gives power to drug cartels.

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. Also Guns protect from tyranny in government.

No federal Laws or Regulations. Each state is quite capable of doing that themselves.

The fact that Capitalism has been regulated so bad that we no longer have it.

You cannot legislate people into your own views of morality. its none of the states business who gets married. Although Homosexuals will have a hard time finding a Christian church to marry them. They can still find a New Age Priestess or whatever to do it.
My views on that are its not good and evil, that will be between them and God, And Not for you or I to legislate against.

What people put into their own bodies is none of our or the states business. The second you legislate pot smokers as criminals you give power to the government to regulate ANYTHING we put into our bodies. And there for the power to shut down good farms because its not "up to par" with state regulation.

these are just a few. But i would like to close this comment to say. The left and the right are both insane.

here is why.

The Left Creates Bigger Government under the cloak of all the hippy make everyone happy bullshit (for lack of a better word)

While the Right makes bigger Government under the cloak of Defence and protecting "the moral majority"