What Happened to Libertarianism?

I seemed to me that the Republicans had been on a roll for the last few years pushing their version of libertarianism. Notable Libertarians like the Koch's and their Tea Party Movement had made surprising gains in elective office and the direction of the GOP. Indeed the Clarian Call of the Republicans has been Obama's "unconstitutional" executive actions and a push to "downsize" government.

This cycle has seen the rise of Trump and a decidedly authoritarian bent. Banning Muslims, building walls, building up the military so "nobody will mess with us", all imply an extremely strong federal government and an Executive that borders on Fascism. This would appear to be exactly opposite of what the Republicans have stressed for the last 35 years.

Color me confused. Would one of you Trump supporters that had been a GOP libertarian please explain to me what is the attraction? And Far Left Liberals, isn't Trump's vision of strong government control of immigration, trade, military, and government support of American Business just what you have fought for since the Reagan Years? It seems to me if you like the principle of strong government intervention in American Life, you shouldn't be too picky about who exercises that power.

 

Libertarianism is an ideology that only exists on paper. It is impossible to put into practice in the real world which is why you have never seen a libertarian form of government anywhere at anytime throughout history.

John Locke said as much in his writings; that libertarianism is an ideal to live by, not a method of governing. As it turns out, libertarianism was replaced with the much more real world applications of those such as Hobbes who said that all power is derived by the state (people) and any significant changes must come from that.

 

On this rather rare occasion, I agree with you. But this does not explain how a majority of a major political party could swing from a libertarian bent towards this rather authoritarian candidate. Was the Tea Party a Tempest in a Teapot?

 

There is nothing authoritarian about keeping illegal immigrants on the other side of the border, and only letting in those that are of obvious benefit to the country. As for the military, it's a dangerous world out there, and protecting the country from that harsh world is the federal government's only job.

 

Ok, I'll bite. How?

 

How what?

 

How is a larger, more expensive military going to make you more safe? I always hear about a "stronger military" but nobody ever tells me what they want to do with the money. More tanks? More men? To do what? What do you wZnt to see stronger?

 

Libertarianism has always been a talking point and nothing more. Authoritarianism gets the votes because it's much easier to say "hey look at the bad guy, I'll deal with them" than to say "just ignore those guys, it's not a big deal". Look at the whole Ron Paul thing back in the day when they refused to acknowledge him despite his numbers. On a personal level you attract more people with honey than hate but for some reason on the political level it's the complete opposite. I guess when you don't have to deal with it personally it's a lot easier to say "use coercion and force against people who do things I don't agree with."

 

Not necessarily more expensive, but certainly stronger. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of hearing about these military excursions that never result in anything you could call a win. We should have won in Vietnam, we should have won in Korea, and we should have won in the middle east.

The fact is that we can't even beat a bunch of guys with AK 47s sitting in the back of a toyota hilux. That has got to stop.

 

Just what would you suggest? As far as I can remember, America hasn't lost a single combat engagement in 70 years. We bombed Hanoi and blockaded their harbor. We swept the field in both Gulf wars. We haven't taken a backwards step in Afganistain. Our firepower is overwhelming.

The only problem we have had is military victory is proving meaningless. I recall a famous interview with Ho Chi Minh conducted by the BBC in the late 60s. The interviewer said, "You have lost every single significant military battle, yet you say you will win the war. How can you still believe in a victory?" To which Minh answered, "They will kill many of us. We will kill a few of them. At some point they will get tired and go home. We will still be here."

I don't see how any amount of military spending will defeat that mind set without committing war crimes.

 

Why do conservatives always get it backwards?

Not necessarily more expensive, but certainly stronger

It's "not necessarily strong but certainly more expensive"

 

Actually no, but did you have a point?

 

Gotta agree with Flaming Moderate. Militarily we are an unstoppable power when it comes to the people we have been fighting. We win wars hands down. The thing is that occupation is difficult and expensive. You can't just change a culture over night and really, I don't think you can change it at all. The English learned this. They had an expansive empire, but they couldn't tame the people who lived in the nations they occupied. Hell they can't even tame their own island. Military force and the ability to change a nation are two different things.

 

It's not meant to keep you safe. It's meant to enrich those who profit from government spending on the tools of war and on warfare.

 

Libertarians don't make any sense with their colorblind view of the world. They discriminate against their own supporters and favor flooding our countries with people who do not support libertarianism. That is why it will NEVER work and they will never have political control.

 

I consider myself a Goldwater conservative or more of a traditional conservative than a libertarian. But individual liberty and freedom are paramount. Trump doesn't offer that. You're right, he wants more government control over a citizens daily life as do progressives. One of the tenets of traditional conservatives is - Small Government - Keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. Neither party believes in this anymore. One party wants to control the social aspects of an individual's life while the other wants to control the fiscal portion and tell an individual what to do and think.

Neither party represents me, they disgust me. They want big government in my bedroom and wallet depending on the party.

 

We win battles, but not wars. We haven't won any wars since the pacific war (the european theatre was won by Russia).

 

Perhaps this suggests that Military Power is a necessary, but not sufficent tool of winning wars. That would imply further Military spending would not improve the outcome but something else, some other missing ingredient, would be a wiser path to achieve our goals.

 

No, it suggests that the united states is incapable of winning wars. Maybe if the military was told "do whatever needs to be done, but I want a victory!" then they could do it. However, the military is led by the president who is only affiliated with the military by law. Obama as a civilian would never be accepted into the military (probably due to the fact that the military employs IQ tests prior to accepting anybody into their illustrious ranks).

If your army of lions is led by a donkey, and you are facing an army of donkeys led by a lion, then you will lose.

 

Hmmm... I think you need to refresh your understanding of modern war...

http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/geneva-conventions/p8778

 

I just missed the good old days couple years ago where Libertarians were so adamant about hyperinflation, $5k gold, bitcoins, etc, etc. I tried to tell them they were crazy and had no clue what they were talking about but they refused to listen. I think the rest of the country saw how crazy they were too and now they are moving to someone like Donald Trump, lol. Couldn't write this if I tried.

 

I don't understand why you're conflating the Republican party and the tea party movement with libertarian ideology. Granted, there is some overlap on certain issues, but they are by no means the same thing. Libertarians shouldn't have to defend Trump anymore than they should have to defend Obama.

 

I doubt you could even define what libertarian ideology is. And if you could define it, it would probably be erroneous. In any case, libertarian ideology is put into practice millions of times every day, so the assertion that it "only exists on paper" is demonstrably false. The entire voluntary market economy that produces all the wealth in America is based on libertarian norms and principles.

Then what was the American revolution an example of? An anti-libertarian society?

Most people live according to that ideal. They don't go around murdering, stealing, assaulting, defrauding, or damaging property. They live their lives peacefully through means of voluntary association and trade, which is all that libertarian ideology necessitates in order to exist. It's the cynical Hobbesian statists who put themselves above the norms and customs that the majority of humanity is expected to abide by, and they have convinced themselves that their immoral, authoritarian conduct is synonymous with being practical.

 

The Republican party has never been libertarian. The tea party movement is not libertarian either. Just because they share some commonalities with libertarian ideology does not mean they are actually libertarian. Even the most aggressive statists in the Democrat party agree with libertarians on certain issues, but nobody would claim they are libertarians because of that.

 

When we went to war with Iraq we defeated their military and had control of their government in under a month. We won that war, by any definition. Iraq was ours. What we were unable to do was change the entire culture of Iraq before we withdrew our occupation. That was the goal, go "spread democracy", but it doesn't work like that. We do not need a stronger military nor do we need to forgo the rules of war. As a former infantryman who served in Iraq I will say the last thing I'd want would be for myself and others to be put in some of the insane positions people have suggested such as executing "terrorists" families or destroying villages. That kind of terroristic horse (*)(*)(*)(*) is unnecessary and should be beneath us, but then again we are a nation who uses torture and may elect a man who wants us to do it even more. Anyway I'm getting on a tanget. The problem isn't military strength it's realistic goals. You can't go over somewhere, blow up their government, and change their entire way of life in a decade.