or at least real economics? Or is libertarianism doomed to remain a small but energetic minority?
I had an argument with somebody who believes man is sociobiologically doomed to some form of statism/collectivism because the majority is weak-willed and fearful. Though intuitive, I am reluctant to believe in it until I find solid evidence or at least authoritative sources. I'd appreciate anyone who gives quotes and arguments on either side of the debate.
Freedom is a powerful philosophical force.
Political Atheists Blog
I have hope that it is possible. I was once on the left/liberal side of things. After listening to and understanding the arguments, libertarianism was the only thing that made sense. Many of the fellows at the Mises Institute came from ideologically divergent backgrounds, to a common understanding.
Do they have to?
They will accept libertarianism when the system collapses. And it will.
I was once on the left/liberal side of things. After listening to and understanding the arguments, libertarianism was the only thing that made sense.
Same here.
I doubt it.
Government has a vested interest in making themselves relevant. They will do whatever they can to maintain their power and employment. Libertarianism will spell doom for them and government will do anything to fight that idea off.
Ugolp, I think it's more likely the masses will accept communism once the whole system collapses.
I don't understand people's pessimism here. "The masses" don't need an intricate understanding of philosophy or economics to be for freedom. In fact, most libertarians and Ron Paul-type conservatives today do not have the slightest understanding of philosophy or economics. The greatest challenge that libertarians face is changing the general cultural beliefs of the majority away from interventionism, authoritarianism, and statism towards freedom, individual responsibility, and pride in oneself. We're fighting more of a cultural war than a political or philosophical one.
Freedom is a populist ideology.
Not in our lifetimes. Too many conflicting interests: Gov't workers, contractors, union workers, ignorent people, rich liberals, neocons, and hopeless conservatives are who vote, not libertarians. Rich oligarchs and corporate interests "donate" political contributions (bribe) to maintain control.
There are always doom 'n gloomers saying the system will crash and it never does. Sometimes their numbers grow like the past 2 years and in '87, etc. And it should crash, but the facts above supercede all rationality.
"The greatest challenge that libertarians face is changing the general cultural beliefs of the majority away from interventionism, authoritarianism, and statism towards freedom, individual responsibility, and pride in oneself."
Exactly.
Here's an interesting study:
"For more than a dozen years now, the Gallup poll has been using two broad questions to categorize respondents by ideology about economic and social freedom… Combining the responses to these two questions, Gallup consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents to be libertarian. In 2009 they found 23 percent libertarians, along with 18 percent liberals, 19 percent populists, and 31 percent conservatives (9 percent were unclassifiable).
Finally, we commissioned Zogby International to ask our three ANES questions to 1,012 actual (reported) voters in the 2006 election… We asked half the sample, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” We asked the other half of the respondents, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?”
The results surprised us. Fully 59 percent of the respondents said “yes” to the first question. That is, by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”
The addition of the word “libertarian” clearly made the question more challenging. What surprised us was how small the drop-off was. A healthy 44 percent of respondents answered “yes” to that question, accepting a self-description as “libertarian.”
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/22/how-many-libertarian-voters-are-there/
Now, how many true radicals would even agree with this definition? More importantly, how many of these self described "libertarians" would really support the kind of changes true radicals advocate?
My personal opinion is that when push comes to shove, most people won't follow through with their stated convictions. Because when it comes time to get rid of social programs, for instance, I'd bet most of these self described libertarians just won't be willing to pull the trigger.
EDIT: Even if we assume that the 20 percent number is accurate (because I think we can all agree the economic conservative social liberal stuff in nonsense), how many of those people would really support radical changes?
I find that the majority of 'masses' who accept the conservative/libertarian viewpoint are those who came and are coming from the old Soviet Union. They saw what happens what you let government get out of control. It's sad in the sense that their lives had to be ruined first before they could see how libertarianism works. Better late than never.
Brian: I find that the majority of 'masses' who accept the conservative/libertarian viewpoint Contrary to your beliefs, conservatives and libertarians don't have the same viewpoints. | Post Points: 5
I find that the majority of 'masses' who accept the conservative/libertarian viewpoint
The masses can absorb libertarian & real economic ideas but they will never be indoctrinated by them.
This is where AE fails & libertarian movements fail to attract individuals.
Corporatism is using state means to enhance market share and profitability of a few favored firms, at the expense of the citizen.
"The masses can absorb libertarian & real economic ideas but they will never be indoctrinated by them."
Why? They fall for things that make much less sense and with far worse rhetoric
TRUE. Yet we are told what we want to hear so they can do what they please.
Being lied to, manipulated and controlled is not the same as falling.
Also 100 % libertarianism at least would keep everything the same, most probable it would be worse for the majority of society.
The Late Andrew Ryan wrote the following post at Thu, Jul 15 2010 1:34 PM:
I think that calling ourselves libertarians has a way of scaring people off. People disgusted by the State are often also disgusted by political labels.
If you want to get the people who dislike government and politics, you don't want to describe them with a word ending with "-ism."
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Excellent observation and judgment. Could not agree more.
ama gi wrote the following post at Thu, Jul 15 2010 2:05 PM:
I think people calling themselves libertarians has a way of gaining admiration and respect. It shows that you stick to your principles and are possibly willing to go fight for a cause. People are drawn to that kind of positive attitude.
Contrary to your beliefs, conservatives and libertarians don't have the same viewpoints.
No need to be cranky. Contrary to your assumptions about my beliefs, conservatives/libertarians share many viewpoints. When I say 'conservative', I'm talking about old conservativism, which is basically libertarianism. More or less a DGAF attitude towards the government.
Of course not. People generally will never understand or accept the ideas of economics ... because they are not economists.
As for liberty, the problem is that nobody wants liberty... except for themselves. Liberty of others invariably means trampling of my interests. The freedom to party is the freedom to keep me up all night when I need to be to work by 5:30am. So, people are naturally opposed to the freedom of others exactly because they want to protect their own interests against potential infringement.
The real problem is not freedom per se or economics per se. The real problem is the moral/legal double-standard of the state order. Until this is confronted by the public-at-large (the "masses"), widespread freedom has very little prospects. If you want to be free, it's basically up to you to chisel out your own niche of freedom and try to protect yourself from the pilfering of envious friends, family and taxmen. It has always been this way to one degree or another but the state order makes it much riskier to be free, so you have to be more circumspect than at any other time in history.
Clayton -
krazy kaju: I don't understand people's pessimism here. "The masses" don't need an intricate understanding of philosophy or economics to be for freedom. In fact, most libertarians and Ron Paul-type conservatives today do not have the slightest understanding of philosophy or economics. The greatest challenge that libertarians face is changing the general cultural beliefs of the majority away from interventionism, authoritarianism, and statism towards freedom, individual responsibility, and pride in oneself. We're fighting more of a cultural war than a political or philosophical one. Freedom is a populist ideology. I am one of the pessimists. There are a number of reasons I am getting more and more pessimist by the day (apart from age, of course). The first reason is the entitlement mentality which is universal nowadays. There's no other way to put it: the masses want "free stuff" and they feel like they have some God-given right to it. As all addictions this is getting very serious very quick. The second reason is the deep-seated envy many persons have towards anyone who's better off than themselves. This envy is often coupled with the usual sentiment "you have more money than me so you must be cheating on your taxes, exploiting your employees, destroying the environment etc". The third reason is how easy is to scare the masses with immaginary hobgoblins. Think about the whole "War on Terror" saga. People are still buying into the whole "they hate us for our freedoms" and believe Afghanistan and/or Iran harbor the turban-wearing equivalent of Fu Manchu. They buy even more that "speculators" and "tax evaders" are the cause of all our problems. The fourth reason is some sort of childish belief in State authority as a panacea for all troubles. The histeria (I cannot call it another way) which surrounded the election of President Obama is only one of the most recent example. This is coupled with another similar belief that you should vote one party just to avoid the other going into power: this is particularly strong among baby boomers. The usual example "if you don't vote for candidate X the Reds will win and turn this place into a Soviet regime". After the election you are usually left to wonder why candidate X's politics are usually the same as the ones proposed by the Reds if not even more left-leaning. The only thing we can do is explain our reasons but we should be ready to accept the fact that people will never "snap out of it". I think we should take the same approach used to cure drug addiction. Short of sending people off to rehab clinics we should warn them of the long-term risks associated with their condition. Of course most addicts won't give a damn but when faced with the risks their own children, whose future is being mortgaged on a daily basis, many will at least listen for a few minutes. Together we go unsung... together we go down with our people | Post Points: 5
@Brian, I think the word you're looking for as "paleo-conservatism". This philosophy is very close to (minarchist-)libertarianism. Conservativism today usually means "neo-conservatism".
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
I think the word you're looking for as "paleo-conservatism"
I was never really sure what that meant. But I just looked it up and you're right, haha. I'll start using that instead so people don't get confused and I think I'm talking about neo-con.
Individual liberty is an all important value. Never was, never will be. So I doubt it.
I think Bastiat had it right when he said:
"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."
I thnk because of the State controlling what people know, they have really lost their moral sense.
but you could also use classical liberal. Thats really where the ideas that resemble modern libertarian ideas come from; liberalism, not conservatism.
Politically, in history you could have been a Bourbon Democrat or a member of the 'Old Right' and had more or less the same libertarianish views.