Classical Liberalism

[theVOID]

Alright. I think I see the problem we are having with this discussion. You are talking libertarians "in general", where I am talking about libertarians "in America".

You aren't even that close, most of the American Libertarian party and other Libertarians in the country are fully appropriate in the use of the term, it's not under that context that the word "libertarian" means something else, it's amongst the masses who just think it means "tea party" or Neo-con or Fascist, the term has been polluted by people just like you and min who couldn't care less about what the people in the tea party define themselves as (the vast majority as "small government conservatives" and NOT "Libertarians") but instead just throw around terms in the name of your little whipping boy "tea party" straw man.

The vast majority of those who claimed they are libertarian that I have met have openly bragged about how they have voted for Palin (not McCain), and how they dont waste their vote on people in their own party.

Sure, that is for the same reason as the alliance of small government conservatives and Libertarians in the tea party, the economic issues take precedent. These people who want to sort of the debt and deficit would be wasting their votes on the Libertarian party, so, the small-government conservatives, for all their many many flaws, are a fucking mile better than the GOP and Dems on that issue and when you have people following Austrian Economics who simply do not buy the bullshit being funneled down their throats by Obama and Bernanke about the economy it's really no surprise that their best option is the tea party - The imminent economic threats are, rightly so, far more serious than civil liberties at this time.

I'm sure if they actually expected the Dems to give a shit about social liberties and do something other than their complete sham of "supporting gay rights" and "right to choose" that they campaigned on and have absolutely no intention of actually doing things might be somewhat different, but when you have people like Palin who is a bit of a fucking nutter and a social conservative but who will genuinely decrease the size of government and might just bring your country back from an economic disaster it's pretty easy to see why they think that is their most effective vote - And that "Palin support" is hardly the case anyway, of all of the tea party voters, both Libertarian and small government conservatives, about 1/3 were pro-pail, 1/3 didn't care and 1/3 were "Hostile" towards here - No prizes for guessing what portion of the tea party are anti-Palin.

Not only that, but they actually have a damn good chance to get some far more "libertarian" candidates in the mix, they got Rand Paul amongst others in the house and senate, a decent victory for libertarians.

Your GOP and Dems are NOT going to solve the economic issues or decrease government, and the civil rights issues are much less important right now to anybody who isn't swallowing the Keynesian jizz.

Like the editor of reason magazine said when investigating the tea party in an article called 'Who are the tea party?': "They just aren't talking about the social issues" Suppose this economic crisis gets resolved, do you think this "tea party" alliance of "libertarians" and "small government conservatives" will continue? Fuck no, at least nowhere near the same.

Many of them are very vocal about how, even though they like social libertarianism, they do not see it taking effect in America.. so they focus on the economic libertarianism. They vote their economic side every time.

Not "every time", just "right now" and because your country is on the brink of a fucking disaster! Yeah, economics is more important right now. Once there is a genuine resolution to the economic problems an not a pathetic $39 billion reduction in the rate of increase then things will change and the Libertarians will become more distinct, hell, if the Dems actually keep to their fucking word about social liberties you might even see some Libertarian support going in that direction, but saving the dollar from doom is more important.

You think you're helping the poor and needy? Wait until that happens and then come back and tell me all your keynesian bullshit was the right move.

So obviously you are posting from ideological purity, I am posting on what I have seen and heard from most American Libertarians.

No, I was arguing the specifics of the Ideology, the one you keep fucking straw manning and labeling "geedy" and "corporatists" as if you don't even give a shit about understanding it. You want to talk about pragmatism then I might have to throw it in with the camp who want to prevent your country from imploding, as much as I despise social conservatism I gota say fixing the fucking disastrous economy is more important than social issues - that is a sentiment shared by the Libertarians in the tea party.

Let me make it clear once again, the Libertarians are in the tea party because of an economic alliance, saving the fucking borrow and spend government that is going to bankrupt your country - To go from that to what you and Min have been wanking on about, "libertarian == tea party" however shows either 1. Complete cluelessness OR 2. Intellectual bankruptcy.

I have also posted several times that it is not the social libertarianism that I oppose, but it economic aspects, and that its economic aspects I was trying to focus on discussion.

You barely grasp the fundamentals of economics, some of those "basics" you don't even get right, so the chances of you understanding Free Markets is nil, which perfectly explains why your criticism have been straw-men, red hearings, "slavery" and blaming greed on Libertarianism.

They do not focus on the social aspects, and dont even try. I have seen American Libertarians fool people by talking about the pure ideology, lose the election, then switch their ticket to "conservative Republican" and win.

It's not just one fucking battle, some moves can secure more of the ideals than others, who cares if they have to go under the GOP banner to get more influence and ultimately further the cause? Ron Paul has created huge influence by joining the republicans, he's making real progress towards Libertarianism, that he had to join the GOP to do so is completely besides the point. He's not only making the republicans "better" from a social and Libertarian viewpoint, he's making Libertarian ideals more prominent.

Many local's do that in the southern states. some of the republicans and even some of the Democrats talk the "Libertarian crap" (as I have come to call it..and this is what Min is talking about as well..he has seen it just as much, I am sure). We dont find "true" libertarians around here in America. As I have said MANY times before, their economic beliefs eclipse their social beliefs. Even Reagan said we cant take in the entirety of the Libertarian party, as they are not socially moral. THAT rings very true within the American libertarian ranks.

Socially immoral according to who? You? The guy who thinks he can take whatever the fuck he likes in the name of enforcing his values? The guy who thinks he can tell other people what price they can sell their own stuff for if he doesn't like the price? You're the one who's immoral - Closet authoritarian. And now Reagan is the arbiter of morality? Give me a fucking break - Reagan was a Mercantilist, no wonder he didn't like Libertarians.

Economics only eclipses social issues in SOME circumstances, like the ones facing the world at present, at it's core the two are inseparable because they stem from the same core principle, Individualism. So what if you have to make some concessions along the way? Name me one fucking political ideology that has NOT made concessions on the path to establishing it's principles!

Now coming from your end, I can see where some, or most of what I have posted sounds absolutely wrong, or at least half assed wrong. Its missing something. Its missing the anti-authoritarianism. I know this. I am posting about AMERICAN LIBERTARIANS.

No, you are addressing your shitty straw man. It's not the Libertarians who have the wrong terms, it's YOU and your buddies who think ANYTHING small government is Libertarian. Don't blame them for being "American Libertarians" it's YOU who has it ass-backwards.

Go back and read my posts again, but this time instead of thinking "pure libertarian ideology" you should think in "turbulent and divided American Politics". If you use the second as opposed to the first, the posts I made will make MUCH MORE SENSE. In America, the Libertarians have added to the mess. In America, we have 3 types of political groups, and a minority fourth.

How about you just stop calling everything "Libertarian" even when you know it is not, it's not my fucking job to decipher when you are talking about "Libertarians" on one hand and when you are talking about "Libertarians" on the other.