Big Government Libertarians?

OK, this is kind of off topic for my usual posts, I admit it. But, I have noticed lots of Big Government Libertarians. That is an oxymoron, right? Well, any semi-intelligent person would think so; however it seems not to be the case lately.

Because of recent (if you consider everything since Nixon recent) political trends, lots of people that would otherwise be happily calling themselves Republicans have taken to calling themselves Libertarians. The ties to smaller government Republicans and Libertarians are pretty easy to trace. You remember, the Republicans that used to believe in freedom and less government, they used to “cross the line” on occasion and delve into the Libertarian arena, only to end up back where they belonged later on. Maybe once they logically followed libertarian thought to its conclusion it scared them, I don’t really know. And really, isn’t that the disconnect, even between libertarians and Libertarians? Yes, I used the big L and little L deal, sue me.

 

I believe that the market can do anything that the government can do and can do it more efficiently and effectively. But I have no problem with people that have a hard time accepting private arbitration and security. I think with the right intervention they can be saved. The Libertarian party has always been fairly accepting of libertarians and market anarchists, they are after all the ones that have developed the thinking and theories that for the most part dominate and lend credence to the principles of the party. Even if they are not one big happy family, at least they shared enough common traits to be civil.

 

Enter the Big Government Libertarians. They seem to have no problem with military intervention in the name of “security”. After all, a huge military is what has made the US a super-power. Add to that the newer disdain for all things immigration. Those “damn Mexicans” are stealing our jobs and our welfare. The fact that their position lends credibility to the welfare state doesn’t seem to faze them. Close those borders and save our country. Another biggie for them is abortion. The government should by all means step in and end this brutal practice. It’s like some twisted Oz like mantra, “Abortionists and terrorists and Mexicans, oh my”. It doesn’t stop there though.

 

Drug legalization? They can see their way to possibly legalize marijuana, but other drugs are a bane of a free society. Mandatory auto insurance (one of my biggest pet peeves) is necessary so that people can recoup their loses from irresponsible drivers. Gun control? Well who would argue that citizens shouldn’t be able to own any type of weapon they want, after all, we would have a bunch of wackos shooting up schools if people could get any weapon they wanted. And of course, their hero is the late great Ronald Reagan. Even suggest that he wasn’t the savior of freedom and they are libel to go into nuclear meltdown.

 

Do they all share these exact same views? Not always, but the majority of them do. Their current goals include changing the Libertarian Party to be “more election worthy”, which includes everything from changing the platform of the party to reaching out to decidedly non-libertarian candidates. They have taken the name “Libertarian” upon themselves and turned it into something that isn’t even recognizable as libertarian. To me the funniest part is to see them discussing their positions in a group of libertarians. When no one agrees with them, they claim the whole bunch of them are not libertarians, just damn anarchists. Point out that the Libertarian Platform, pre-coup attempt, and they accuse you of being a “purist” that is living in the past.

 

So why are these people flocking to the Libertarian Party? Obviously their ideas are unpopular in the Republican Party and big military is hard to sell to Democrats. The open style of the Libertarian Party makes a takeover seem not only likely, but pretty workable. I think the seed of the Big Government Libertarians takes their cues from the Neo-Con movement and its takeover of the Republican Party. A lot of their positions seem to be similar to me. They have killed off the smaller government Republican, now they have their sites on the very limited government Libertarians. They have no interest or time for libertarian thought. It runs counter to their goal of gathering political power. It isn’t that they want to be free from the chains of government; they just want to hold the whip for a while.

 

This coming year is going to be a telling year for the Libertarian Party. They are faced with a mass defection of support for a Republican candidate. They are faced with the Big Government Libertarians infiltrating the party. I hope they always remember that the libertarians are still out here and still sticking to the principles that have guided our thoughts and actions all along. Maybe they can convince the Big Government Libertarians to go back to being Small Government Republicans.

 

The No Name Group Project 

Published Wed, Nov 21 2007 10:15 AM by IrishOutlaw

Comments

# Anthony Burke said on 21 November, 2007 05:58 PM

I agree that neo-cons are trying to take over the LP.  I have thought this for awhile but many deny it and say these pro-war libertarians have always been lurking in the party.  I say let them have the LP.  I wish all those who truly favor liberty could stop thinking about party allegiance and jump over to the republican/Ron Paul ticket.  He may be our last hope for liberty in this country because if Hilary gets elected this country will colapse under its own weight.  If they (neocons) all join the LP and we can join and sway the republican primary I think liberty can be victorious.

# Brainpolice said on 21 November, 2007 07:58 PM

I'm sure you're refering to the constant banter over in the myspace libertarian party group, right? :P

# Lojikbom said on 21 November, 2007 09:12 PM

I thought you were going to talk more about people like Glen Beck and Bill Maher, who call themselves libertarian but obviously have no clue what the term means.  

Personally I don't have a problem with the Libertarian Reform Caucus (LRC) because I see most Libertarians as too idealistic, which is limiting.  Politics is a Machiavellian game and involves some give and take.  I'm actually hoping that when Paul takes office, he's not going to go in like a gang buster because it's going to take time to ween ppl off the teet of gov't.  

As for the Paul candidacy, I think an LP member can take solace in the fact that he's a lifetime LP member who has never renounced his membership.  I was at a talk in which someone asked him about his run in 1988 and he replied that he would prefer to run on both parties tickets (LP and GOP) if the state would allow it (which it should).  That and his platform has not changed appreciably since he ran on the LP ticket in 1988, so essentially we would be electing an LP member who's running under a different name.  It might not seem like the best alternative, but it's not that bad either.  

# IrishOutlaw said on 22 November, 2007 03:16 AM

For BP: In part from things in that group, but it is by no means isolated to that group or MySpace.

For L: And Boortz too, lol. Hell, even Newt Gingrich has taken to calling himself a Libertarian as of late. As for politics being give and take, I agree, but principles are unshakable. Without libertarian principles the best those people can hope for is to be small government Republicans, no principles needed for that. As far as Paul is concerned, more power to them. Plus, I don't think you can say anything negative about the man on the internet, I am pretty sure you are considered a "freedom hater" if you do.