[italic]All the re-brands and disguises in the world cannot obscure what this "new" ideology is really about [/italic]
Question: What is a libertarian populist? Answer: A libertarian in disguise.
That is my conclusion, after perusing much of the recent discussion of whether a new “libertarian populism” (or “populist libertarianism”) could prove to be a winning formula for the exhausted and discredited American right.
At first glance, creating a common ideology to unite the libertarian and populist wings of today’s right must be an appealing idea for GOP strategists. But to succeed, both parents would have to contribute to the genetic makeup of the libertarian populist baby. The leading advocates of libertarian populism, however, look very much like run-of-the-mill libertarians to me.
Ben Domenech, for example, tries to define libertarian populism by arguing that it takes “a few of its aims from the Rand Paul approach – a balanced budget amendment, flatter and simpler taxes, and more – but there is also a stronger focus on issues which cut across party lines, including reform of higher education, prison and justice systems, civil liberty protections, and an assault on D.C. cronyism from green energy to Big Banks.” But all of this is standard-issue libertarianism, including libertarian critiques of “prison and justice systems” and “civil liberty protections.” Nothing new here, folks, move along.
What Domenech and others mean by “populist” appears to be “popular.” They want a popular libertarianism, a libertarianism that majorities of Americans might vote for, not a movement that has anything to do with actual historic populism in the United States, which has generally been, to coin a phrase, illibertarian.
(more at the link)
Libertarianism is freedom for the rich and powerful, slavery for everyone else. Always has been, always will be.
It's an oxymoron.
Michael Lind has proven over and over that he really just doesn't understand libertarianism. This is just his latest tour de folie. The poor guy can't even understand that Ayn Rand has nothing to do libertarianism.
But dataloungers will lap it up because he says what you're all eager to hear.
[quote]The poor guy can't even understand that Ayn Rand has nothing to do libertarianism.
You don't even understand your own party.
You think "Libertarians" are still "Classical Libertarians". No. You're living in the past (like WAY past).
You're living in denial of reality. Typical of a libertarian of any sort, actually.
Libertarians cannot and never will be populist. A libertarian is basically someone rich who wants to do what he wants, ie pay no taxes, sleep with who he wants, take whatever drugs he wants etc. By definition that excludes anyone who uses government services, healthcare, education, housing, welfare etc as well as the religious, the police etc. A libertarian is basically the polar opposite of a left-wing populist movement like 'Occupy Wall Street' or populist presidential campaigns by the likes of Dean or Edwards or a right-wing populist movement like the religious right and Pat Buchanan's 1992 'culture war' or Santorum or Huckabee's campaigns.
What R3 said. And R6.
libertarians will always be greedy fucks.
Just because someone is greedy doesn't mean they want everyone else to starve. In my experience, libertarians are keener on the latter than just on amassing money for themselves.
You can't polish a turd.
Any time I hear a Libertarian, whether of old OR "new" stripe, I hear that Dave Chappelle character describing a pimp's suit:
[quote]what can I say about that suit that hasn't already been said about Afganistan? It looks bombed out and depleted.
As does hoary old Libertarianism.
Yeah, it's beyond selfish self-absorption... it's got a thick layer of petty vindictiveness on top.
There is something so completely immature, childish, adolescent about the libertarian world-view...
Well, your children will not be drafted and die under Libertarianism, but they sure as hell will be under the Democrats or Republicans.
I don't care that you don't like Libertarianism, but I want you to know that your vote for any Democrat or Republican is a vote for murder, war, starvation and torture.
Children are being bombed in their sleep by drones in Pakistan via Democrat War Monger Obama. I bet you voted for him, twice, right?
Third Parties must really, really scare you all, because that would be real "hope and change," now wouldn't it?
WW3 is now starting and thanks for your votes, you asshole Democrats and Republican supporters.
A big fucking THANK YOU for supporting, year and fucking year, the same globalist war criminals that are bankrupting our country and making it hell for us all.
Thank you, so much, for mocking third parties like the anti-war Libertarians, Green Party, Peace and Freedom Party, and any other group that wants to stop the slaughter of innocents.
R9 To be fair most libertarians would argue welfare, public housing, medicare/Medicaid etc should be replaced by charity. Although clearly charity is something that may not always be able to be relied upon (although to be fair if you have exhausted your time limited welfare benefits now in the US you are largely reliant on charity anyway)
this is why I am not a Libertarian in the modern sense because most charities are religious organizations.
I don't trust religious groups though, which makes me closer to being a Libertarian.
I guess I would be a Libertarians that would support most government programs but not war funding, if that type still even exists. It used to, in fact, that is what is called classical, progressive Libertarianism.
Maybe we can revive that type of Libertarianism and create a real movement.
[quote]Just because someone is greedy doesn't mean they want everyone else to starve
look up the word greed, it means taking from others
Oh no, R15. Thank [bold]YOU[/bold]. Your endlessly repetitive incoherent horseshit guarantees that Libertarians will never, ever be seriously considered for public office in the United States.
[quote]Third Parties must really, really scare you all, because that would be real "hope and change," now wouldn't it?
third parties don't scare me, LIBERTARIANS do. I'd happily vote in a viable green candidate. I'd NEVER vote libertarian under ANY circumstance.
[quote]I guess I would be a Libertarians that would support most government programs but not war funding, if that type still even exists.
no, it doesn't exist.
Please stop your addiction to "labels". I realize that it sounds funny since this is a gay gossip site but it's a destructive trend among gays.
It's twisted if you think the Patriot Act isn't that bad just because Libertarian Ron Paul is opposed to it.
It also makes gays seem incredibly dumb.
R16 - That is more the definition of a liberal than a libertarian
soooo, you wouldn't vote for a Libertarian, who promised no further wars and a draft, over a war mongering Democrat or Republican???!!!
You know what, we're spoiled in this country, We have never really been hit, hard, for a lengthy period, by war. We have had terrible terrorist attacks but war hasn't come to American shores for long time.
Wait 'til it does. What will you do when there is no food in the stores? No clean water?
What will you do when you are conscripted (draft) and forced to leave your computers?
How will you waddle your way through basic training?
For somebody who claims they're not a Libertarian, you get awfully butthurt whenever the term is maligned, R24.
R24, you dumbass, we have a defense department so we don't have wars coming to our shores.
I will concede precisely one point.
Under a Libertarian president, the United States would never again start any wars.
Because a Libertarian president would sell our entire nuclear arsenal to the Russian mafia, who would be our de facto rulers.
We'd also be forced into bartering for survival, but that's another point.
Your fantasy libertarians sure do sound like assholes, R27.
A Libertarian in office would never be swayed by the other legislators and populace to not go to war? Fantasy.
you forgot about 911. It did come to our shores. And our defense was ordered to stay down.
R28: I get on my knees every morning and say a prayer of thanks that real libertarians aren't in power.
R30, that sucker punch from 12 years ago was not warfare in a sense recognized at the time.
R15 is utterly delusional. It's almost cute how cluelessly deluded he is.
[quote]It's twisted if you think the Patriot Act isn't that bad just because Libertarian Ron Paul is opposed to it.
Ron Paul has absolutely zilch to do with my opinion of the Patriot Act. I hated it under Bush, and I still hate it under Obama.
You assume/presume too much. Like most 'libertarians'.
OMG, I have since r15's post so many times on DL I think I have it memorized. Do you have it stored in a word document and just copy and paste it whenever you figure out how to post on DL again after being banned?
End all wars and bring all troops home from +100 countries.
End all subsidies to the banks, the mega companies, the big farm corps, the media, the automakers, and the underwriters.
Why is this wrong?
libertarianism = greedy cunts cunting
petulant, selfish children.
How profound! You're the new Leni Reifensthal!
[quote]End all wars and bring all troops home from +100 countries.
Who can disagree?
[quote]End all subsidies to the banks, the mega companies, the big farm corps, the media, the automakers, and the underwriters.
Once again, who can disagree?
Libertarians are the only people who seem to care about civil rights. Poseurs like the faux liberal cunts that post hosannas to Obama can't see the light.
R36, everything you mention is correct and would be a good idea, however the society that should replace what you're describing would best be a socialist, participatory, proportional democracy. NOT a right-wing corporate dictatorship based on property rights. Fuck the libertarians and all the predators and delusional wanna-be predators.