Walter Block says that in the sixties he knew all the libertarians in the world, since there were only him Rothbard and a few other fellows. Now there are tenths of millions who identify themselves as libertarians. Obviously a huge growth of the libertarian ideology occured. It looks like most of this growth happened after Ron Paul's campaign in 2008. Do you think that's correct? If not, then when did most of the growth occured, and why?
Thanks.
I think Google trends looks at searches.
Not to be a jerk, but Sarah Palin made you a conservative? Please tell me that before that you were either really young or completely politically ignorant/naive. Palin has never been more than a mainstream blowhard. Glad you're coming around though. Beef up on your knowledge of libertarian principles so you don't get fooled again like that. I suspect that's why you're here though.
I concur with LE. Especially on the last part :P
Well, there are many kinds of conservatives. They way I see it, they can be broken down to three basic types: economic conservatives, social conservatives, and nationlist conservatives. Though you do often find people overlapping in these categories. Unfortunately, it seems like the conversatives are mostly made up of just social and nationlist conservatives. However, I think those that are for smaller government and free markets are more inclined to listen to what Ron Paul has to say, and then once they start listening, I think it's pretty easy for them to make the switch.
@Eugene http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=liberalism%2Clibertarianism&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
gotlucky:Well, there are many kinds of conservatives. They way I see it, they can be broken down to three basic types: economic conservatives, social conservatives, and nationlist conservatives. Though you do often find people overlapping in these categories. Unfortunately, it seems like the conversatives are mostly made up of just social and nationlist conservatives. However, I think those that are for smaller government and free markets are more inclined to listen to what Ron Paul has to say, and then once they start listening, I think it's pretty easy for them to make the switch.
The problem with conservatives, as I see it, is their motivation for what they support. It's all subsumed under this notion of "national greatness". Economic conservatives think that free markets are (part of) what makes the US a "great country". Social conservatives think that "family values" are (part of) what makes the US a "great country". Nationalist conservatives think that independence, if not dominance, is (part of) what makes the US a "great country". Why does this notion of living in a "great country" matter? What does it even mean? I really have no idea.
Come to think of it, I see the same problem with liberals. They just think different things are (part of) what makes the US a "great country".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
That's exactly why this doesn't help. You see the graph actually declining in the 2000s which makes no sense.
LogisticEarth: In 2008 Obama made made me a Republican and Sarah Palin made me a conservative. In 2011 the Republicans made me sick and Ron Paul made me a libertarian. Not to be a jerk, but Sarah Palin made you a conservative? Please tell me that before that you were either really young or completely politically ignorant/naive. Palin has never been more than a mainstream blowhard. Glad you're coming around though. Beef up on your knowledge of libertarian principles so you don't get fooled again like that. I suspect that's why you're here though.
A person should take a moment and think about that election to understand what I said. Conservatives were in no mood to vote for John McCain for Vice President that year. Obama's nomination caught my attention, I was about 28 years old, and had a very elementary understanding of politics in terms of the differences between the two candidates. Obama motivated me to stand up for the Republicans and begin my own self education. At the time I wasn't too motivated by McCain either, until he chose Sarah Palin. Nobody had heard of her then and your opinion of her now, I suspect, is based on what she did after her resignation.
Since then I've studied her career up until her resignation, listened to her state of the State speeches, studied the ethics charges and debated her resignation against those who called her a quitter. Say what you will, she was a good leader before the nomination, and a good motivator afterwards.
Just the other day she stood up for Ron Paul and his supporters on Fox news.
This election the Republican establishment has given us John McCain Jr. and Rick "Legalize Morality" Santorum. It wasn't long ago that I realized legalizing morality at the Federal level was the wrong direction for social conservatives like Santorum. They are just as ignorant as the left in the sense that something being defined by the Federal government, such as abortion for conservatives and DOMA for liberals, is just stupid....for a lack of better words.
I am rather young in my libertarian life, but if I'm not mistaken, libertarians are not pigeonholed into any one particular belief. I've just started reading Bastiat's The Law, and although it's rather short, I get to study maybe a page or so a day. But after reading this:
"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."
I came to the conclusion, that an individual libertarian can be a social conservative....pro life, for instance. And several socially conservative libertarians can come togethor and be pro life. For instance, in this country, the people of Oklahoma can live togethor and for the most part be socially conservative libertarians and if you don't like it, move to a state that is more socially liberal.
But once the Federal government defines a position it makes it impossible for the rest of us to live our lives they way we see fit.
I don't think that abortion is a good litmus test for social conservatism. It's not a question of should rights be violated or not, but whether the party involved has rights. Prolifers think the fetus has rights, and the prochoicers think it does not. I don't have a stance on it either way, but it's not socially conservative to be pro-life. Social conservatism is the aim of molding of behavior by the state. Pro-lifeism is just an extension of the belief in the state's responsibility to protect individual rights, namely the fetus' rights.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Jargon: I don't think that abortion is a good litmus test for social conservatism. It's not a question of should rights be violated or not, but whether the party involved has rights. Prolifers think the fetus has rights, and the prochoicers think it does not. I don't have a stance on it either way, but it's not socially conservative to be pro-life. Social conservatism is the aim of molding of behavior by the state. Pro-lifeism is just an extension of the belief in the state's responsibility to protect individual rights, namely the fetus' rights.
I agree, it seems social conservatives tend to be more religious and base their pro life argument on religious grounds and not individual rights though. It just popped into my head, really one could probably rewrite that just using gay marriage. Ask the Federal government to define marriage between one man/one woman and eventually an administration will come along and in the name of civil rights change that definition to be any two human beings.
In the end, it's going to be defined in a way that one group of people is going to hate it and another group is going to be happy with it. Instead, just keep the government out of it and let each group confine themselves to their own devices.
Autolykos: The problem with conservatives, as I see it, is their motivation for what they support. It's all subsumed under this notion of "national greatness". Economic conservatives think that free markets are (part of) what makes the US a "great country". Social conservatives think that "family values" are (part of) what makes the US a "great country". Nationalist conservatives think that independence, if not dominance, is (part of) what makes the US a "great country". Why does this notion of living in a "great country" matter? What does it even mean? I really have no idea. Come to think of it, I see the same problem with liberals. They just think different things are (part of) what makes the US a "great country".
I think what you are seeing is that many conservatives fall into the nationalist camp and either economic or social as well. I think the ones that fall only into the economic conservative category are easiest to convert to libertarianism.
I'm moving this from a thread I made and will delete since the thread seems redundant upon reading this thread.
I've been thinking about the approach to spreading the message of liberty. There are a few archetypal voter bases that I've discerned, some of them with a greater "window" than others. I am going to generalize and I'm not entirely comfortable with it myself. If you don't like that, then that's fine. I'm describing groups from my personal experience and don't intend to blanket anyone who identifies with any of them. Tell me what you think and specifically what group you think would be easiest to inform/convert/brainwash. The Libertarian Right - These ones are easy and understand the hypocrisy of violence. The Conservative Right - This group of people has a dedication to lower taxes and gun rights. This is fine, but it seems to be only a residue of liberty resting on a foundation of nationalism, subservience, and xenophobia. Frequent references to Islamo-fascism. Almost an extension of the crusades into modern times. I don't think this group is the right one to approach because they don't have an innate passion for justice, but they do have a passion for patriotism. Explaining America's foreign policy for the past 60 years would only implicate yourself as a pinko anti-american. Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity types who think that Democrats want to shrink the military because they want to see America fall. They identify terrorists or criminals as the people with cops/soldiers bullets in their torsos. Generally not productive to try to change this person's opinion. Voting: Santorum, Bachmann, etc. The Boomer Right - This group of people lives in fear. They fear an Obama presidency, terrorist attacks, and tax hikes. They have a sense of national pride but perhaps not to the extent of the previous group. They will vote to try to keep lefties out. This means they will vote for whoever they think the biggest and most well funded Republican is i.e. the most corrupt undeserving Republican. This is important because it shows that they fundamentally do not honestly practice any principle as a citizen, they roll over quickly out of fear. They like a nice smile, a sharp joke, and a well-fitted suit. Trying to convince this person to vote for an underdog is ineffective because it does nothing to quell their fear. Voting: Romney, Gingrich, etc. The Boomer Left - I don't really understand this group. I think that they fancy the left fashionable. Out of some pity-bone deep down they think that the government must correct the unfairnesses inflicted on blacks, hispanics, homeless, single mothers, women, etc. Mostly I think they just like to think of themselves as 'sensible', 'balanced', or 'rational'. Much is assumed to these people, i.e. "Well of COURSE we should have the Federal Reserve! Who else would run the money? Greedy Wall Street guys? It would be chaos!" I'm kind of scraping the bottom of the barrell to write about this group and I'd appreciate some input from people who know better. Voting: Pelosi, Clinton, 'sensible' choices The Progressive Left - This group is key to me. Basically I think that they're all libertarians that don't understand economics or history. They understand how terrible the War on Terror is. They understand the increasing police/surveillance state, the Halliburtons and Bechtels always getting their way, the wanton bloodshed in the east, and the dangers those actions pose to themselves. They're definitely pretty focused on the "war for profit" aspect of it, but generally they understand the damned injustice of the whole thing. That's really what sets them apart, they have a feel for the injustice. Some of them may be unshakeable; Marxists who believe that equality is the final task of mankind. But some of them I think would readily become Libertarians if they understood a little bit about corporatism, free markets and environmentalism, how regulations effect small businesses and employers, etc. The essential seed of idealism, the drive for a better future is what distinguishes this group. I'm not sure why Rothbard gave up on the left and went to the right. Maybe it had to do with all the drugs that the lefties were into back then, I don't know. To get this group of people requires some education and motivation on the part of the progressive, but what group wouldn't require that. Something I think that's important is the disavowal of right-wing culture (christianity, homophobia, country music, etc.). Progressives think that libertarians are just tea-partiers that are even further right of the basic conservative block and it's just not true. Maybe showing them how their party contributes to corporatism would be a good idea as well (insurance mandate, FED, lightbulb mandate, etc.)
I've been thinking about the approach to spreading the message of liberty. There are a few archetypal voter bases that I've discerned, some of them with a greater "window" than others. I am going to generalize and I'm not entirely comfortable with it myself. If you don't like that, then that's fine. I'm describing groups from my personal experience and don't intend to blanket anyone who identifies with any of them. Tell me what you think and specifically what group you think would be easiest to inform/convert/brainwash.
The Libertarian Right - These ones are easy and understand the hypocrisy of violence.
The Conservative Right - This group of people has a dedication to lower taxes and gun rights. This is fine, but it seems to be only a residue of liberty resting on a foundation of nationalism, subservience, and xenophobia. Frequent references to Islamo-fascism. Almost an extension of the crusades into modern times. I don't think this group is the right one to approach because they don't have an innate passion for justice, but they do have a passion for patriotism. Explaining America's foreign policy for the past 60 years would only implicate yourself as a pinko anti-american. Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity types who think that Democrats want to shrink the military because they want to see America fall. They identify terrorists or criminals as the people with cops/soldiers bullets in their torsos. Generally not productive to try to change this person's opinion. Voting: Santorum, Bachmann, etc.
The Boomer Right - This group of people lives in fear. They fear an Obama presidency, terrorist attacks, and tax hikes. They have a sense of national pride but perhaps not to the extent of the previous group. They will vote to try to keep lefties out. This means they will vote for whoever they think the biggest and most well funded Republican is i.e. the most corrupt undeserving Republican. This is important because it shows that they fundamentally do not honestly practice any principle as a citizen, they roll over quickly out of fear. They like a nice smile, a sharp joke, and a well-fitted suit. Trying to convince this person to vote for an underdog is ineffective because it does nothing to quell their fear. Voting: Romney, Gingrich, etc.
The Boomer Left - I don't really understand this group. I think that they fancy the left fashionable. Out of some pity-bone deep down they think that the government must correct the unfairnesses inflicted on blacks, hispanics, homeless, single mothers, women, etc. Mostly I think they just like to think of themselves as 'sensible', 'balanced', or 'rational'. Much is assumed to these people, i.e. "Well of COURSE we should have the Federal Reserve! Who else would run the money? Greedy Wall Street guys? It would be chaos!" I'm kind of scraping the bottom of the barrell to write about this group and I'd appreciate some input from people who know better. Voting: Pelosi, Clinton, 'sensible' choices
The Progressive Left - This group is key to me. Basically I think that they're all libertarians that don't understand economics or history. They understand how terrible the War on Terror is. They understand the increasing police/surveillance state, the Halliburtons and Bechtels always getting their way, the wanton bloodshed in the east, and the dangers those actions pose to themselves. They're definitely pretty focused on the "war for profit" aspect of it, but generally they understand the damned injustice of the whole thing. That's really what sets them apart, they have a feel for the injustice. Some of them may be unshakeable; Marxists who believe that equality is the final task of mankind. But some of them I think would readily become Libertarians if they understood a little bit about corporatism, free markets and environmentalism, how regulations effect small businesses and employers, etc. The essential seed of idealism, the drive for a better future is what distinguishes this group. I'm not sure why Rothbard gave up on the left and went to the right. Maybe it had to do with all the drugs that the lefties were into back then, I don't know. To get this group of people requires some education and motivation on the part of the progressive, but what group wouldn't require that. Something I think that's important is the disavowal of right-wing culture (christianity, homophobia, country music, etc.). Progressives think that libertarians are just tea-partiers that are even further right of the basic conservative block and it's just not true. Maybe showing them how their party contributes to corporatism would be a good idea as well (insurance mandate, FED, lightbulb mandate, etc.)
I'd like to point out that it should be clear at least to a libertarian that there are no "social" and "economic" rights but just "property" rights. Social issues such as evolution, gay marriage, and affirmative action are all poorly-understood variants on property rights. Making a distinction between the two allows for people to selectively choose when it is favorable for them to allow others to exercise their property rights. All the issues (except for abortion) go away fairly quickly once property rights are understood. Abortion takes a little more insight to understand because it deals with personhood.
You are right that there are only property rights, not social and economic. However, that does not change the fact that conservatives in America can be separated into those categories. It is important to recognize this because I think "economic conservatives" can be lead to libertarianism much more easily than "social conservatives". The key difference between them is that social conservatives want to get in your business and have the state tell you what you can and cannot do, while economic conservatives want to be left alone.
Autolykos pointed out earlier the problem of conservatives who fall very strongly in the nationalist branch though. Economic nationalist conservatives are a little nutty. They are more like mercantalists than small government economic conservatives.