Libertarianism is for white men: The ugly truth about the right’s favorite movement

[ismnotwasm]

Why are libertarians so overwhelmingly white and male? This is a question that Jeet Heer of The New Republic explored last Friday, after a new CNN poll found that presidential hopeful Rand Paul, who happens to be the favorite among libertarians, is very competitive in the primaries amongst male voters, but almost completely rejected by females. This is a problem that has long haunted conservatism, but it is even more drastic for ultra-right wing libertarianism.

In a 2014 Pew poll, it was found that about one in ten Americans describe themselves as libertarian, and men were more than twice as likely to be libertarians. In a 2013 Pew poll that Heer states in his article, it was found about two-thirds (68 percent) of American’s who identify as libertarians are men, and 94 percent are non-hispanic whites. Compare this to “steadfast conservatives,” who were found to be 59 percent male and 87 percent white, or “business conservatives,” found to be 62 percent male and 85 percent white, according to another survey done by Pew. Clearly, the entire conservative movement is dominated by white males, but libertarians are the most male-dominated.

Obviously this is a major problem for anyone who is hoping for libertarianism to take off in American politics. So why are libertarians mostly white guys? Heer points out a few different possibilities that some libertarian writers have offered. One of them being that libertarianism has attracted many male-dominated subcultures, like computer programming (think Silicon Valley), gaming, mens-rights activists, and organized humanism/Atheism, and another, argued by Katherine Mangu-Ward, that libertarianism has long been a fringe movement, and fringe movements tend to be dominated by men.

Okay, so libertarianism attracts nerdy white males, but surely these are not the only ones making up the dedicated crowd? While looking at the larger conservative movement, it becomes a bit more clear that the hostility towards government and collective movements in general tends to attract white males who want to preserve their dominance in a society where they are quickly becoming minorities.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/10/why_libertarianism_is_so_popular_on_the_right_its_the_last_bastion_of_white_male_dominance/

[Romulox]

1. "libertarian" (small "l") is a political tendency, not an absolute identity.

"Civil libertarianism" is a cornerstone of the traditional Left.

[ismnotwasm]

7. Oh, you

That's not what the article is about.

[Romulox]

8. The article seems to purposefully elide the small "l" and big "L" varieties.

Last edited Wed Jun 10, 2015, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

It's bad analysis.

[ismnotwasm]

9. I think it does generalize

I know a number of libertarians, a couple who have run for city council. The size of the letter after their name doesn't matter in that case. They all want deregulation and small government.

In actuality, big L libertarians are bigger nut jobs and more right wing-- is that what you mean?

[Romulox]

11. I am a "civil libertarian" (example: abortion rights, free speech, religion, anti war on drugs)

but I have virtually nothing in common with the Libertarian party (something that postdates "civil libertarianism" by several centuries.)

"libertarianism" is a political tendency, not an absolute identity.

[ismnotwasm]

13. Ok.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. Try telling a right-wing libertarian tea party type that Liberals can be libertarian too....

They'll claim you are "politically ignorant".

Monkey Pancakes.

[Romulox]

18. The same is true here at DU. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. Liberal Libertarians believe the government shouldn't be in the bedroom....

Conservative Libertarians believe the government shouldn't be in the boardroom.

[pnwmom]

47. And liberal and conservative libertarians share a right-wing economic policy.

So the term "liberal libertarian" is a contradiction in terms.

Liberal libertarians are only liberal concerning sex, drug use, etc. They do not espouse liberal economic policies.

[Romulox]

54. No. We're back off the rails again. nt

[m-lekktor]

163. completely off the rails. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

56. "So the term "liberal libertarian" is a contradiction in terms."

No, actually libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian.

You can have a left-wing libertarian or a right-wing libertarian and you can have a left-wing authoritarian or a right-wing authoritarian.

[Comrade Grumpy]

58. Not me. I'm a left libertarian.

I could say:

"I'm not a libertarian, just a libertine" or "I'm just half a libertarian."

I would be perfectly happy to greatly reduce corporate power. Hell, let's nationalize key industries. Starting with energy and pharmaceuticals. And while we're at it, let's reduce the police state, too.

[Warren DeMontague]

175. These threads are always so much fun.

"left-libertarian" = "doody face". You're just a big ol doody face, and you love Ayn Rand. Admit it!

libertarian! nyah, nyah.





It's fucking lame, but I guess it keeps some people busy, so there's at least that.

[Romulox]

61. The tragi/comedy aspect of this is that "liberal economics" traditionally means laissez-faire.

I know that's not what you mean, but I still find the situation a bit ironic.

Economic liberalism is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals and not by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, such as freedom of movement, but it is always based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. However, economic liberalism may accept government intervention in order to remove private monopoly, as this is considered to limit the decision power of some individuals. While economic liberalism favors markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods.[2]

Economic liberalism is often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital goods, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism or mixed economies. Economic liberalism also contrasts with protectionism because of its support for free trade and open markets. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to mercantilism and feudalism. Today, economic liberalism is also generally considered to be opposed to non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism, market socialism and planned economies.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

[Spitfire of ATJ]

68. "and not by collective institutions or organizations" These days add "Wall Street".

[m-lekktor]

162. Noam Chomsky considers himself a left libertarian.

You and many others have the definition all wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

[Romulox]

55. Great summary. It doesn't sink in with some, though. nt

[hifiguy]

127. Well played.

I consider myself to be a left-libertarian. A democratic socialist economically and a hands-off libertarian on whatever consenting adults want to do in the bedroom, in the bong room or wherever. And I am about as absolutist as anyone can be on free speech.

[HughBeaumont]

87. And if it was JUST about those issues, I'd likely be more receptive to the Libertarians.

Unfortunately, their economics take the position that America isn't right wing enough and being hyper-right wing is the answer.

[Romulox]

90. You're confusing small "l" libertarianism with big "L" again.

There is a Libertarian Party. It's the home of the rightwing economic ideology you describe. "Civil libertarianism" doesn't have anything to do with the Libertarian Party.

[Orrex]

121. As a term, small-"l" libertarianism is obsolete.

Outside of academic circles, it's been completely overtaken by the far-right cesspit now commonly known as Libertarianism. This is a fact, and self-described "small-l libertarians" of whatever stripe would be better served by accepting this fact than by insisting (correctly, but futilely) that they were here first.

If you're having a 20 minute discussion about your political views, would you rather spend 19:30 explaining the difference between libertarianism and Libertarianism, or would you rather discuss the real issues at hand?

If you're content with the former, then by all means continue to demand that people recognize the distinction, but at best you'll demonstrate that you're more concerned about the title than the subject. Since I have literally never known a Right-Libertarian who wasn't a grade-A asshole, I'd say that it's in your interest to distance yourself from that association, even if you lose some of the perceived historical cachet of the lowercase "l."

[Romulox]

123. That's simply not true. It's as relevant as ever--e.g. in the NSA spying debate. nt

[Orrex]

128. You're confusing the word with the subject

The subject is front-and-center daily, but the term is obsolete.

You can either accept this, or you can accept that people will inevitably associate you with Rand Paul, especially when you dig in your heels and insist that you are a true libertarian.

[SidDithers]

2. DU rec...

thanks for posting.

Sid

[ismnotwasm]

4. You're most welcome

[Hekate]

119. Well hello Sid

[SidDithers]

136. ...

Sid

[tymorial]

3. I am not a libertarian by any means but "ultra right wing?"

Fiscally, libertarians may sit solidly within the right on the political spectrum but the libertarians I know would laugh at the notion their social and cultural views are "ultra right wing."

[ismnotwasm]

5. My brother is a Right Wing Libertarian

I've had to listen to libertarian shit for years. Finally stopped him with asking how the free market is going to control water "rights"

[hueymahl]

50. Would have loved to hear that conversation

I've also got my share of "right wing" libertarians in the family. What they don't realize is that they are just conservatives, plain and simple, just perhaps with more moderate (but still mostly right wing) social mores.

Civil libertarians, like referenced above, are really just liberals in the classical sense. I had a law professor drive that point home in a class one time. His position, which I ultimately came to understand and agree with, is that every educated person is "liberal" in the classic sense - they are the product of a liberal education and society that created the schools they attend and the intellectual freedom they enjoy. Politics has perverted the term, creating a meaning for liberal that is new.

Libertarian, big or small "L" is a political term from the beginning. Saying one is libertarian does not necessarily tell me what your core beliefs are, as the politics of it is as varied as politics itself, and libertarianism is more a political movement than a philosophy. In its purest form, it approaches anarchism, which is mostly a pure philosophy, but where you draw the line on which issues will land you sometimes on the liberal side of the coin, sometimes on the conservative side and sometimes right smack in the middle.

[ismnotwasm]

64. He's a pure free market deregulation libertarian

He explained the big L vs. little L to me years ago. I used to ask him about things like meat inspection. "Market forces will take care of quality" he's a bit of a wing nut, as most libertarians are.

[NCTraveler]

15. They might not consider themselves to be.

But one cannot be as fiscally right on the spectrum as they are and still promote any form of social or cultural advancement. The two concepts completely contradict one and other. It is the reason so many young white men are attracted to it. They believe it is fiscally the right thing to do and that is also gives them the ability to represent themselves the way they want on social issues. Fact is that is a lie. One cannot hold fiscal libertarian positions and support social justice.

[pscot]

21. The libertarians I've encountered tend toward social Darwinism

Free markets first and let the disadvantaged fall where they may.

[ismnotwasm]

24. That's my experience

It's not a workable political ideology whatsoever.

[NCTraveler]

27. That is what many I have met believe.

Some of my younger friends have a different view. They love their free market thought, and say things about social issues that would be accepted here. By myself as well. To be clear, that is simply a basic talk about social issues, not the big picture and how it would come to be. Yet the two cannot coexist anywhere outside of their own minds.

[Nay]

28. Yep, and the social Darwinism includes putting women back into 2nd or 3rd

class status by simply not hiring them, not serving them in stores, etc., if that's what it takes to put them back into the home. There will be no affirmative action or any shit like that.

[The2ndWheel]

63. Must one size fit all?

[daleanime]

48. +1

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. +1. Libertarians "left" or "right" are just Republicans who want to smoke dope and get laid.

"Civil" libertarian is a distinction without a difference.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. So you support the drug war, then? You don't think terminally ill people should be able to choose

to die as pain-free as possible, on their own terms, if that's what they want?

You don't support equal rights for LGBT people?

These are ALL left-libertarian positions. Deal with it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

181. Libertarians can lay no such claim to those issues. Deal with that.

[Warren DeMontague]

184. It's a label, and. You're deliberately conflating the big-L Libertarian party with, among other

Things, left libertarianism, which has been patiently exwplained to you and others throuout this thread.

If the purpose of this thread is to actually discuss underlying issues- hey, great! Again, I would ask - like I did elsewhere- if "liberal" is synonymous with ending the drug war, legalizing marijuana, protecting the 4th amendment from the various encroachments it has suffered in recent decades, giving the terminally ill the right to make their own end of life decisions, keeping government out of the bedrooms, bodies, and personal choices of consenting adults, etc...

If it is, great! Again, in places where "liberal" and, more specifically the State Democratic Party DOES mean and stand up for these things, we seem to usually win! Great!

But if the purpose of this thread is to sit around and go "libertarian! Ewwwww!" To people you (presumably- you never answered the question, didja) agree with on underlying issues like ending the drug war, what is that supposed to achieve?

[Tarheel_Dem]

187. If I gave a f**k about the distinctions between Libertarians, I'd name my dog Ayn Rand.

But since I don't give a shit......



Libertarians Suck!

[Warren DeMontague]

191. ...exactly. Thanks for proving my point.

So, you support the drug war, then?


Also, it's "you're".

[Tarheel_Dem]

193. Glad I could help. Oh, and "you're"? I didn't make the sign. Take it up with Google.

[Warren DeMontague]

196. It's emblematic of the high intellectual level of discussion, embodied in this thread.

[Tarheel_Dem]

203. I'm glad to see you acknowledge the "level" of your contribution. I wasn't gonna say anything.

[Warren DeMontague]

204. Verily I am rubber and thou art glue.

So, as entertaining as I'm sure this is for people who don't have other hobbies.... gonna answer the question about whether or not you support the drug war? Citizens' right to privacy or the status of the 4th Amendment?

The right of the terminally ill not to have to die in screaming agony because "God" wants them to?

Eh, probably not, huh.

[LakeVermilion]

205. Not true

Libertarians on the left are called Anarchists. Famous anarchists include Ghandi and the Dalai Lama.

Source: http://www.politicalcompass.org

[Matrosov]

51. When you're fine with people dying of hunger or disease...

...I'd say that qualifies as "ultra right wing."

Yes, I've had more than a few libertarians explain to me that if someone doesn't have enough money, and they don't have enough friends and family to help take care of them either, then we just need to let nature take it's course, because those people shouldn't be the responsibility of the tax payers.

The libertarian motto is: "Forget you, as long as I got mine."

[appalachiablue]

6. K & R. It also exists in the finance sector.

[stonecutter357]

10. K&R!

[tjwash]

12. They just want it like it was back in the old days again

You know - no rules, no laws, survival of the fittest, the biggest and strongest get to survive. Basically a perfect libertarian is a huge psychopath with a club saying "I'm having rape and murder for dinner tonight"

[ismnotwasm]

14. Exactly

Toss in a side of objectivism and watch dystopia happen before your very eyes

[The2ndWheel]

29. It can also be the quickest

or smartest, or smallest, or sometimes even the weakest. Depends on the circumstance. That's the beauty of evolution; it has no direction or goal.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. Except, of course, most of them are not 'the fittest, the biggest and strongest'.

They're just got lots of firepower.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. It's that "rugged individualism" thing.....

Who needs government when you feel like the guy on the Brawny paper towels?

[Starry Messenger]

19. But oh so mockable

Snerk.

[ismnotwasm]

20. Heh!

[OneGrassRoot]

22. K&R n/t

[drm604]

23. It's certainly not for this white man.

But yeah, Libertarians do seem to be overwhelmingly white and male.

I think it's people who are both overly self-centered and part of a privileged group. In this society the most privileged group is white males, so the selfish segment (which exists in any group) are attracted to Libertarianism.

[Coventina]

30. I just have to post the "auto removed" post above for comedy value

Good job, MIRT!

It is natural - and desirable for all - for white males to be the dominant group on our planet. That is what nature intended. If you have a problem with that, then YOU are the problem. The jealous little pissants who can't compete with us on a level playing field can just go to hell. I make no apologies for the fact that we are superior.

This anti-white bullshit ends now. I'd appreciate an apology. Thanks.

[ismnotwasm]

32. Oh DU's favorite troll again

Some threads act like flypaper to him, I wonder if this will be one?

[Coventina]

33. Well, I hope you're busy writing your apology!!

Geez, what a loser!

[cyberswede]

39. Must lead a pretty pitiful existence...

to get his jollies this way.

[ismnotwasm]

66. I'm sorry he's a disturbed wing nut

I guess. I like that he kicks threads though..

[cyberswede]

109. He posted you a love song.

creepy.

[ismnotwasm]

112. Um yes indeed

Wow.

[NuclearDem]

36. The fuck?

[noiretextatique]

37. of course he is a white male

white male hegemony is a natural state to people like this, not the unnatural oppression of other groups to maintain privilege. and of course, he would have a fit about the word privilege, but it drips from every word in his moronic statement.

[cyberswede]

137. LOL - Nerve: struck

poor widdle troll.

[noiretextatique]

139. it sucks to be right

not really

[hifiguy]

125. That is almost making it too easy for MIRT.

They can hit a troll between the eyes at a couple of miles. This one held up a banner emblazoned "I AM WALT STARR!!"

MIRT HQ: "Target Acquired." "Fire now!" (off camera)

[Hekate]

155. Oh come on, why not post their name, as long as you're quoting? Lol; doesn't count as a callout

Oh my oh my

[treestar]

209. Oh FFS

One who is obvious about it.

[Dustlawyer]

34. Most self proclaimed Libertarians have no real idea

of what it is really about. The Kochs are doing everything they can to promote Libertarian policy and government and have acheived a great deal. We must oppose these old men at every turn!
True Libertarianism is the dumbest idea ever. The rich that support this have not thought things through. They would need an army around at all times!

[YoungDemCA]

40. K&R. From the article:

Libertarianism is inherently opposed to collective movements, and collective movements have long fought to achieve equal rights for women, minorities, workers, etc. Is it any surprise that libertarianism attracts white (and generally privileged) men? If we take a look at the larger conservative movement, a similar story presents itself.

Last year, a study at Northwestern University found that white, independent-minded American’s tended to shift towards conservatism when they found out that demographic changes would be making them minorities. “Perceived group-status threat, triggered by exposure to majority-minority shift, increases Whites’ endorsement of conservative political ideology and policy positions,” wrote the researchers, Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson. This study seems to confirm that conservatism, for many white Americans, is the last bastion of hope against the inevitable decline of white dominance.

(bolding mine).

Don't be fooled, DU'ers. These people are not allies of the progressive Left.

[Bad Thoughts]

44. Basically, it is about atomizing the opposition ...

... by attempting to discredit collective action and organization.

[ismnotwasm]

67. Thank you!

[Flatulo]

41. Unless and until more women and minorities join

the ranks of scientists and engineers, white males, even though they may become a numerical minority, will continue to be the dominant technology implementors in the world.

37 years in engineering, and I only knew a few women and people of color. That's shameful.

I know women now outnumber men overall in college enrollment, but they don't seem to be drawn to the engineering sciences in equal numbers yet. It's better than when I was at WPI (4 women in a graduating class of 400) but it's still mostly a white boys club, although Asian men are widely represented as well.

[ismnotwasm]

81. Very good point

I'm a nurse, but you need a basic science degree to start out. I love science and I keep an eye on trends for women and POC in those fields. We are making headway in a lot of areas.

OT--Interesting thing about nursing and the ACA, is nurses organizations see it as an opportunity to place more nurses in decision and policy making decisions. There's a big push for more education for nurses, as well as more Nurse practioners. There is a big nursing and physician shortage projected according to some studies. Nursing organizations want nurses to step up. Interesting times for a 'tradional' female career, one that more and more men are drawn to.

[Flatulo]

108. Yeah, back in the day nursing was a three year (very grueling) program,

but today you actually need a masters, isn't that so? That would make nurses about as well-educated as doctors. Around here, nurses make well into six figures, as do engineers.

Both very lucrative fields.

Similar trend exists with lawyers and paralegals. The paralegal can do 80% of the work of a lawyer, with only 50% of the training. Hence demand is way up for paralegals. My son just got a terrific job in Boston as a paralegal in an IP firm.

[ismnotwasm]

138. No you need a bachelors, at least to work in the better hospitals.

There is now a Doctorate in nursing as well. It's an interesting trend, given the cost of education.

[Flatulo]

157. I expect the trend for higher degree requirements to continue. I got my B.S. In 1977, but I

wouldn't make it into the lobby of the companies I worked for these days. M.S. is the new sweet spot for engineers.

It's really kind of odd, as most professionals' actual job duties fall somewhere between the Associates and Bachelors level, unless you're doing cutting edge work for a R&D firm.

I used to shake my head at the Ph.D level people we'd bring in and promptly put to work shuffling paper. Most of the non-intuitive stuff I did I learned on the job.

[Cryptoad]

42. Salon is a Right wing media incognito !

[LanternWaste]

43. Ayn Rand pulled the wool over the eyes of a lot of irrational nitwits

Ayn Rand pulled the wool over the eyes of a lot of irrational nitwits with self-esteem and identity issues. In doing so though, she also gave credibility to the adult world rationalizing greed as the righteous standard of man.

[hifiguy]

148. Oh, how you uit that nail on the head

and drove it through the two-by-four.

“There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kid’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.” – “The Value of Nothing” by Raj Pate

"Atlas Shrugged" is Conan the Barbarian for nerds who want to live in a technological world rather than an ancient one.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. So... I'm confused. Do white men suck because they're libertarians?

Or do libertarians suck because they're white men?

Your subject suggests that it's the latter; "You think libertarian philosophy is bad? OMG, it's even worse! It's mostly white men!!"

The fact that white men generally don't vote with us is a problem to be solved, not a validation to be celebrated.

[noamnety]

62. Libertarians suck

because their philosophy is one that upholds a system of institutionalized sexism and racism, which, unsurprisingly attracts those who benefit most from that system.

Also, people (of any sort) who benefit from those systems and can't or won't acknowledge it, and fight to retain those benefits at the expense of others, suck.

(I know you were basically just trolling but I figured I'd answer anyway. )

[geek tragedy]

75. libertarians suck because their entire agenda is to benefit those who enjoy societal privileges

white people
men
rich people

if you're poor, black and a woman, Libertarians think the government should do nothing to help you. But if you dare disrespect PRIVATE PROPERTY they're all in favor of being able to shoot you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. Do we want white men to change the way they vote? n/t

[geek tragedy]

105. Yes. The key to that is education and persuasion, not throwing women, immigrants, and

racial minorities under the bus.

[lumberjack_jeff]

141. In what way does criticizing libertarianism by associating it with white men...

... protect women, racial minorities and immigrants?

Women and racial minorities are not helped by encouraging white men to vote for Republicans.

[geek tragedy]

145. the point is that it's an exclusive club that only cares about white men. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. Then in what way is the revelation that white men identify with it "an ugly truth"?

I think it uncontroversial that libertarianism doesn't do enough for vulnerable populations.

The OP chose to not say that. The op uses libertarian association with white men as an aggravating circumstance. "White men" means exactly the same thing to progressives that "cooties" means to the average five year old.

[hifiguy]

149. For the real Ayn Randite hardcore purists

money trumps everything else. If you can steal enough it doesn't really matter whether your black or white, straight or gay, male or female. It's pure law of the jungle for them, and anyone who can crush enough peasants is welcome in the club.

[YoungDemCA]

166. ....

*WHOOSH*

[lumberjack_jeff]

171. True enough. Is it "libertarianism makes white men bad" or "white men make libertarianism bad"?

I get that they're both totally bad, but I wish she'd be clearer about cause and effect.

[Comrade Grumpy]

46. Yet a lot of non-white people would benefit from some libertarian policies.

It's not white men who fill the drug war's prisons.

It's not white men who directly benefit from abortion rights. (To be honest, I don't know how involved libertarians have been in abortion politics, but keeping the government out of your womb is a libertarian position.)

Left and right libertarians have been pushing for asset forfeiture reform. That, too, benefits people of all colors.

And then there's that whole foreign wars thing.

[geek tragedy]

74. those are ancillary issues for libertarians.

what they really care about is privatizing all of the functions of the state, elevating the wealthy to positions of societal dominance, slashing taxes, and ending any role for the government in remedying societal problems.

[ismnotwasm]

97. Exactly

Unworkable and inherently cruel.

[Comrade Grumpy]

111. Survey data, please. Probably true for some, but not all.

Sweeping generalizations are not that useful. Like any political philosophy, libertarianism has its variations. You describe a Koch Brothers variety that is undoubtedly popular, but not the only kind.

Libertarians can be allies on some issues, but bitter foes on others.

Nuance is good.

[ismnotwasm]

114. Are you a Libertarian?

Or a Democrat?

[Comrade Grumpy]

140. I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, or the Democratic Party for that matter.

I'm an independent.

I consider myself a left libertarian. Not a Koch Brothers libertarian.

I'm not against the state, just the oppressive state. I oppose the war on drugs, I think we are way over-policed and over-surveilled, and I'm not a big fan of foreign wars. I believe in Social Security, universal health care, and public schools.

I would be pleased as punch to see major sectors of the economy nationalized (or otherwise democratized) and corporate power greatly reduced.

Maybe I'm not a libertarian, just a libertine.

Oh, and I'm also a civil libertarian. Like the ACLU. I am a member of that. That also impacts my position on DU's endless speech controversies.

[ismnotwasm]

159. I get it

I think that's what a couple of others are trying to say as well.

[hifiguy]

160. I think you are a democratic socialist

but don't know it.

Agree with you right down the line.

[Comrade Grumpy]

164. Or maybe an anarcho-socialist. Labels are hard.

[geek tragedy]

117. The mothership for Libertarian publications--the Cato Institute--is owned by the Koch Brothers.

The most prominent Libertarian politicians--Ron and Rand Paul, are anti-choice, anti-marriage equality.

Libertarianism's motive is hostility towards the government. Not terribly hard to see which party that aligns them with.

[Comrade Grumpy]

142. Yes, I am aware of that. Those same Cato bad boys also do some excellent work on policing issues.

Radley Balko, for example, has a horrid rightist background, but has also done the premier expose of SWAT abuses and drug raids.

Cato and other libertarian-leaning groups have also done excellent work around civil asset forfeiture reform.

It's not all black and white.

I understand libertarianism's motive, but I'll still work with them to get certain laws changed.

As for the Pauls being anti-choice and anti-marriage equality, I would say that's not a libertarian position and they are pandering to social conservatives.

[geek tragedy]

143. if someone's right on a certain issue, certainly work with them.

but keep in mind what their larger goal is.

Americans for Prosperity isn't targeting politicians because they're drug warriors.

[Prism]

52. It's a masturbatory philosophy for privileged people

Libertarians often like to think they've succeeded in life all on their own, not recognizing how the social, economic, and government systems have favored them over others nearly every step of the way. So they have the luxury of an illusory vision of self-reliance and all the anachronistic "masculine" virtues they associate with it in their inner fantasy lives.

It's a shame libertarianism is filled with these jack-asses, because it has its good points. Civil liberties, anti-drug war, pro-choice, a more limited view of foreign policy and war. All good things, but they are overshadowed by the economic hell that would rain down should their policies ever actually be put into practice.

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. Yup. Nerdy "priveleged" white guys.

[Romulox]

57. LOL. What a ridiculous post! nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

72. I posted it to piss off our resident daily paul regulars. Sorry you don't like it. I'll try to get

over it. Maybe there's a support group for people who have been scolded by Romulox so I can pick up the pieces of my shattered life and move on.

[ismnotwasm]

73. LOL!

[Romulox]

76. Right. Dragnet surveillance is OK. Because white dudes! nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

85. You seem to be taking this WAAAAAYYY too personally.

[Romulox]

86. You are using people's political ignorance to promote domestic spying. It's personal. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

91. Libertarians suck!

[Romulox]

94. Domestic spying is horrible, and no scapegoating will make it better. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

98. Libertarians still suck, be they "Civil" or otherwise.

[Romulox]

101. That's an ignorant statement, at best. Authoritarianism has lead to horror in living memory. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

103. Libertarians still suck! I don't know how many ways it can be said.

[Romulox]

104. It doesn't become more convincing by repeating it. It just becomes obvious that's all you got. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. Who's trying to "convince"? I think most people here already know Libertarians suck.

[Romulox]

116. Most people are instinctively repulsed by spies and spying. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

118. And most Americans think Edward Snowden sucks! What's your point?

[LanternWaste]

134. it seems simply repeating "it's wrong" over and over again easily convinces the irrational mind.

"It doesn't become more convincing by repeating it...."

Unless it's an unsourced opinion regarding photography in public places... then it seems simply repeating "it's wrong" over and over again easily convinces the irrational mind.

[Romulox]

135. So...this is an argument *in favor* of dragnet style surveillance, or...???? nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

144. The ACLU sucks? You know, the American Civil Liberties Union.

[Tarheel_Dem]

150. Libertarians, OF ALL STRIPES, suck!

[Comrade Grumpy]

151. You are making a fool of yourself. Got nothing more to say to you.

[Tarheel_Dem]

154. You mad? Well, don't go away mad Comrade. C'mon. Can't we rebuild? What will I do now?

[Comrade Grumpy]

156. Don't fret. I'm not going anywhere.

[Tarheel_Dem]

158. I knew you couldn't stay mad.

[betsuni]

188. I love you! This was so funny. The tables were turned! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

110. Democrats have lead the way on marijuana legalization and it's shitty of you to pain that

victory as a victory for libertarians or Republicans. Shitty. It's a Democratic issue outside the South.

[Romulox]

120. Actually, under the Obama adminstration, the Justice Dpt. continued prosecutions of dispensaries and

medical marijuana patients, in direct contravention to the President's earlier promises.

Amid an increased crackdown on medical marijuana producers across the nation, including a recent high-profile raid on a California training school, President Barack Obama faced questions in a new interview with Rolling Stone about the seeming disconnect between his 2008 campaign rhetoric and his administration's actions since he took office.

"I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]," Obama promised in 2008, according to an earlier Rolling Stone report. But Attorney General Eric Holder announced in 2010 that federal authorities would continue to prosecute individuals for marijuana possession, despite its legalized status in some states.

The Huffington Post's Lucia Graves reported recently on subsequent enforcement activity:

Since then, the administration has unleashed an interagency cannabis crackdown that goes beyond anything seen under the Bush administration, with more than 100 raids, primarily on California pot dispensaries, many of them operating in full compliance with state laws. Since October 2009, the Justice Department has conducted more than 170 aggressive SWAT-style raids in 9 medical marijuana states, resulting in at least 61 federal indictments, according to data compiled by Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/obama-marijuana-raids-rolling-stone_n_1451744.html

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

130. LOL

Oh, jesus, you are on a roll.....

[ismnotwasm]

69. That's one part of the article that doesn't jibe with my personal experience

The libertarians I know tend to be "macho" types, bikers, skilled labor. There are the rebublican-lite Libertarians that tend to be in the business field. Aside from my brother, who has done some political maturing, they're all kind of asshole.

[Bobbie Jo]

100. Yes

...they're all kind of asshole."

With a huge chip on their shoulder.

Intetesting OP, thanks for posting.

[YoungDemCA]

169. My view is that the caricature of Libertarians being young, middle-class white guys is accurate

For the most part.

It especially applies to the hardcore Randians, the pseudo-intellectual arrogant blowhards, and the ones who are basically secular Republicans.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

129. Oops!

An inconvenient truth!

[Tarheel_Dem]

131. Very "inconvenient" if the heated responses are any indication. Touched a nerve, doncha know?

[treestar]

210. lol now he lives in a country where

white people's privilege and male privilege is protected!

[Tarheel_Dem]

213. Especially straight white male privelege.

[byronius]

59. A former high-school friend (now a quasi-racist libertarian) put it succinctly: "I've got mine."

Yeah, we stopped talking after that. He was one of those confused people that loves science but votes for the anti-science party out of nihilistic ignorance.

[LittleBlue]

60. Libertarians build their ranks from young people disillusioned by ineffective and corrupt govt

They are also fueled by seeing mass incarceration from the War on Drugs, denial of equal marriage rights, unending wars that resemble crusades, government spying, etc.

We are to blame for making young people turn to crazy ideologies for social change instead of coming to us. Why did it take a poll shift for the president and other party members to support gay rights? Why is Rand Paul talking about ending the incarceration of over 250,000 black people on drug-related offenses, and not us? We're to blame for creating an environment where voters believe that voting makes no difference because the parties collude against the people. If we had done the right thing instead of caving to conservatives on too many issues, libertarianism would have far fewer followers.

[BlueEye]

71. Spot on, I agree with you 100%.

A good deal (though not all) of the libertarian movement today is a hybrid of bona fide progressive positions on a variety of social issues with a dangerous, screwed up, highly unrealistic economic worldview. I have encountered a fair amount of twenty-something folks who readily admit that libertarian economic philosophy "seems a little extreme/unrealistic/fringe", but then proceed to support Rand Paul types because they find the rhetoric on drugs, marriage equality, and foreign policy refreshing.

Democrats, and progressives in general need to continue to make our positions on those social issues heard loud and clear, while doing a better job at articulating a common-sense economic policy that works for everyday people, not just corporate America.

[LittleBlue]

77. Yes

Democrats, and progressives in general need to continue to make our positions on those social issues heard loud and clear, while doing a better job at articulating a common-sense economic policy that works for everyday people, not just corporate America.

Especially this. Too often we act ashamed of being liberal on popular stances. We should never fear conservatives when our position is popular and correct.

[HughBeaumont]

84. Ah, the good old "Big Tent" . . . .

. . . . the . . . . "sensible" voice of our electoral paradigm.

In politics, the Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.[1][2] The Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for economic liberalism and the New Right.[3] The Third Way is promoted by some social democratic and social liberal movements.[4]

The Third Way has been criticized[11] by some conservatives and libertarians who advocate laissez-faire capitalism.[12] It has also been heavily criticized by many social democrats, democratic socialists and communists in particular as a betrayal of left-wing values.[13][14][15] Specific definitions of Third Way policies may differ between Europe and America.

[lumberjack_jeff]

173. Fully agree.

Also, using "white men" as a cussword roughly analagous to "cooties" aggravates the problem.

[davidn3600]

198. Yup

What you said.

Libertarians also want to end the drug war. Many liberals on DU want to end the drug war. But Obama and Hillary don't. So that's another big issue that drives young folks away from Democrats.

[libodem]

65. Super extra better article, Ism

Sweeeeet.

[ismnotwasm]

70. ....

[Romulox]

78. As I mentioned, smear small "l" libertarians with the Libertarian Party,

And then use the resulting confusing to trash Edward Snowden.

How o how does this "mistake" keep on happening?

[ismnotwasm]

88. The difference?

A libertarian is one who advocates for the maximization of individual liberty, and/or advocates for the minimization (if not total abolition) of government, and/or follows the non-aggression principle.

A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party, a political party based on libertarian principles.

Members of the Libertarian party are a subset of the libertarian community, who believe that the goals of limited (or abolished) government can be achieved through the political process. Here it is in ven diagram form:
(Diagram)
All Libertarians are libertarians, but not all libertarians are Libertarians.
So, libertarians who are opposed to voting can only be described as “small l” libertarians. Ron Paul can generally be described as a “small l” libertarian, even though he is an elected member of the Republican party. However, in 1988, when he ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, he could have been described as a “big L” Libertarian.

There are, unfortunately, cases of “Big L” Libertarians whose credentials as “small l” libertarians are questionable, but for the purposes of simplification (and my own sanity), we’ll try to ignore these individuals.

https://nonaggression.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/whats-the-difference-between-a-big-l-and-a-small-l-libertarian/

[Romulox]

92. That's not the whole story. Look up "civil libertarianism", and you'll see it's a cornerstone

of liberal/Left thought in the US.

Civil libertarianism is a strain of political thought that supports civil liberties, or which emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority (such as a state, a corporation, social norms imposed through peer pressure, etc.).[1] Civil libertarianism is not a complete ideology; rather, it is a collection of views on the specific issues of civil liberties and civil rights. Because of this, a civil libertarian outlook is compatible with many other political philosophies, and civil libertarianism is found on both the right and left of modern politics.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarianism

[ismnotwasm]

93. I'm just giving you shit

I know what you mean by civil libertarian, but tossing that little "L" around doesn't help clarify your position.

It's all good.

[Romulox]

95. That's good to hear. You can see many here don't understand (or don't care about) the distinction.

[Warren DeMontague]

185. I doubt there are very many actual Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand "Libertarians" on DU.

Or let me reprhase that- there arent many except ones who are disingenuously pretending to be something else.

So honestly it seems like- intentional or not- a lot of this thread is basically just "giving shit" to the people who self-identify as left libertarian or civil libertarian, so everyone can dust off those hilarious knee slappers about "they just want to smoke pot and get laid" while those people are forced, again, to try to patiently explain the difference.

[betsuni]

195. If a lot of this thread is teasing the various libertarians ...

(or Libertarians pretending to be something else), forcing them to patiently explain the difference yet again -- sounds familiar, but it's usually the other way around -- the clog is on the other foot. I've enjoyed this thread. Teasing is fun. What's good for the libertarian gander is good for the goose. A taste of their own cough medicine. Oh no, time to call the Idiom Addiction Hotline again.

[Warren DeMontague]

197. I guess.

If anyone deserves being made fun of, it's people who consistently support things like full equality for LGBT people, or privacy rights, or the right of terminally ill people to not die in screaming pain because "God wants you to", or ending the drug war and concomitant mass incarceration of millions of non-violent offenders.


I guess.

[betsuni]

199. So if someone says they like kitties, you accuse them of hating puppies.

I guess.

[Warren DeMontague]

200. No, I'm wondering why it's so gosh darn important to conflate things like left-libertarianism

or civil libertarianism with the big-L Libertarian PARTY, when most of the people doing so in this thread are clearly smart enough to know the difference.

What's the goal?

What are the specific issues that the DU left-libertarians support, that have other folks' noses out of joint? Is it, like I said, ending the drug war? The right of the terminally ill to choose an exit on their own terms? The right of consenting adults to keep government out of their bedrooms and bodies? The 4th Amendment? The 1st?

Is it all about Ed Snowden? I'm confused (I admit, without an excel spreadsheet I find it almost impossible to keep track of the various DU "teams", or who is mad at who on any given day for which inexcusable outrage)

See, from where I sit, I would think that all those things would fit neatly under the label of "liberal". I think they should. I note that in states where the Democratic Party HAS made those issues synonymous with us, as the liberal party, we as Democrats in those states tend to do better even in national election years when the Democratic Party suffers large losses, like 2014.

But if Liberal doesn't mean those things- or even if it does- who gives a shit if people want to call themselves left-libertarian or civil libertarian or socially libertarian, if they are making it expressly clear that they are NOT talking about the Libertarian Party, or Ayn Rand, or flat taxes or doing away with public utilities or any of it?

[beam me up scottie]

202. ^^^THIS^^^

without an excel spreadsheet I find it almost impossible to keep track of the various DU "teams", or who is mad at who on any given day for which inexcusable outrage

[Android3.14]

79. What an unfortunate piece of ignorance.

The OP and the supporters of the OP idiocy, remind me of white people telling black people what it means to be black, men telling women what it means to be a woman, and so on.

[ismnotwasm]

83. What an interesting point of view.

[geek tragedy]

107. "What an unfortunate piece of ignorance"

Exactly how I would describe libertarianism and its adherents.

[YoungDemCA]

165. Except the analogy fails, because Libertarians aren't disenfranchised or oppressed

Far from it.

Which was the point of the OP.

[Android3.14]

179. What an affirmation

I had that exact thought the other day. I thought, "Man, those people over there are neither oppressed or disenfranchised, and that means I can tell them how they should behave and think."

It was an empowering experience, but I still had that small doubt. Now that I've read your post, I feel much better about telling people how to behave and think.

Golly.

[Turbineguy]

96. A few things about being a libertarian

You have to be able to afford it. For many that means collecting government subsidies, or having an education mostly paid for by taxpayers. A job in a highly protected (by the government) industry is good too.

You can have an income from writing doom and gloom economics material.

You need to ignore the fact you are dependent on others.

And of course your economic system has to be based on a work of fiction.

So yes, given what I know about being discriminated against, it is mostly for white males.

[ismnotwasm]

99. Yes indeed

[hifiguy]

146. Modern rightist political libertarianism in a sentence:

"I got mine, Jack. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on."

[Vattel]

102. junk science

[Hekate]

113. Nice that somebody finally noticed. Ayn Rand was an anomaly in more ways than one....

She was the kind of woman who, in being contemptuous of all who are "weaker" than herself, ends up being contemptuous of other women as a category, and of their children.

Thus the books that she wrote, that strike such a chord with libertarian-identified men, are a blueprint of policies hostile to social justice, and that vast area so long dismissed as "women's issues" ( health, welfare, public education, anything to do with children, environment....)

[ismnotwasm]

122. "Atlas Shugged" was very much "I got mine"

And fuck the rest of you. Her protagonist Dagney is a character that Rand apparently identified with. Which is gross and creepy.

[Jamaal510]

152. Not even Officer Barbrady from South Park liked Atlas Shrugged:

[Orrex]

126. I just googled and re-read an argument I had with a Libertarian in 1999

Funny that just about all of the points that I made then are still in effect today re: Libertarianism as a white-dudes-only club.

[hifiguy]

132. Modern, self-identified Libertarians - as in the party -

are hard-right-wing assholes who want to smoke dope but hate the religulouly insane. They are indistinguishable in every other way from hard-right Repukes.

[Historic NY]

153. FTMP Libertarians I Know are selfish, inconsiderate, a$$holes.

[Recursion]

167. A libertarian I know has at least copped to the racism libertarian policies let run amok

So that's something. Though he's still kind of stuck there, and asks, "but it sounds like you're judging a policy by its outcome!" To which I keep asking "what the hell do you judge policies by if not that?" I guess his point is it seems a priori right to him, so the problems must be errors in implementation, or something. Sigh.

[YoungDemCA]

170. Outcomes aren't important to those who won't be negatively affected by Libertarian policies

So, that has to be kept in mind.

[YoungDemCA]

168. Unfortunately, a lot of the far-right, anti-government Libertarian talking points...

...have found their way into allegedly left-wing or progressive spaces.

To say nothing of racism, misogyny, and contempt for the "sheeple" who apparently aren't as "enlightened" as the Libertarians - who are almost inevitably straight white middle-class men.

[Number23]

172. You could not have nailed that harder if you'd tried. Seriously.

Your entire post is truth.

From the article: Many of these folks would like to return to the good old days, when robber barons and white men ruled.

The pining for the Good Old Days is the calling card of the privileged and the unprogressive, around here and everywhere else.

[ismnotwasm]

177. Yup

Summarized the whole point of the article as far as I'm concerned.

[Number23]

180. You got that right. So glad you posted this OP. It's a great read.

[Bonobo]

183. Ayn Rand disagreed with you. nt

[AgingAmerican]

186. Not even men

It appeals to young, white, gullible males. Most outgrow it by their mid 20s. Those who do not end up being Alex Jones level conspiracy nuts.

[DemocraticWing]

189. Notice my sig line?

Libertarianism is, in my opinion, a suicide of a democracy. Leaving a power vacuum where government should fill (within reasonable limits) will cause something worse to arise. It's why we have a government in the first place: we experimented with libertarianism at the nation's founding and have steadily moved away from the idea sense.

[davidn3600]

190. This article is shit

Last edited Thu Jun 11, 2015, 05:42 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm no fan of classic libertarianism by any means. But I know what it is and personally know a few people who label themselves as "libertarians" (1 of which is Latino) and this article is dead wrong on it.

This article is nothing but extreme generalizations and stereotypes to fit the author's biases.

Salon.com seems to also have an obsession against white men. Every other article is bashing white men on that website. It's getting ridiculous.

[daredtowork]

194. Libertarians operate on a LOT of tacit privilege

They will spout pseudo-science jargon on how supply and demand works all day without ever plugging in how factors like crony capitalism might come into play. Since the post brings up MRAs, one of their favorite hobbies is to EXPLOIT the rules of an online system in their favor to attack an enemy. Libertarian males celebrate a system that works in their favor, and they know how to work it. For them, cheating is PART of the system since everyone is expected to seek their advantage.

However, Libertarians are the first to get their dander up about immigration. They are extremely territorial about US borders. They believe in competition...but only amongst other white males. They are very uncomfortable with including women.

Btw, remember how "game theory" used to be so hot in politics and economics. You could look at Libertarians as a particular type of econo-politico-wonk gamer writ large. After college (or after a cursory reading of Ayn Rand), they are unleashed upon the world to apply their simplistic theories and attempt to convince people that it's only right that Rich People with Desire take their property and you should just accept the way things work and move to rural Idaho.

I like to imagine that these astroturfing trolls are kids working in a basement sweatshop somewhere out in Fremont.

[DonCoquixote]

206. for all those who say

"I am not that sort of libertarian" or
"Libertarian does not mean what Rand or Ron Paul says it means",
"I hate Ayn Rand and her stupid followers!" or
or any of the various things that are legitimate complaints that an idea you made has been hijacked.

The fact is, Libertarianism has been adopted and defined by the very people you are trying to speak against. That is because the version of Libertarianism that is being peddled is a very useful tool for the established powers that be. Simply put, there are a lot of people that feel that government is just an obstacle to them doing what is best for themselves, and that if they were left alone, society would benefit. However, the reason a state exists is because, sooner or later, some gang, be they a corporation or church, will purposefully rig and corrupt things to their will, if not outright take what they want.

It is pretty to imagine some world with no cops, or no one messing with your right to smoke whatever you call "medicine." But then when the corporations, which yes, are still dominated by those the articles label "white males" decide they want to get what they want, they will lie, cheat and steal, and there will be plenty of Libertarians who will say this is their right to do that. You can say "well the government is corrupt and it does not protect me!" Well, take a look at the way corporations have chipped at every single regulation from food safety to education. They put stooges in to take power, make sure government does not work, and then scream "well of course government does not work." Then,when you buy into that, they put in their privatized wonder, which is set up to be tool to lie, cheat and rob you. That is why despite the fact that we spend so much on both Medicine and Education, we have low quality, because corporations have made sure that they feed on the host before ANYTHING is done for the "customer."

Libertarianism, like Communism, is nice in theory, but it will not survive a real world where a group of people can get together to lie and cheat. Yes, Libertarianism worships the Horatio Algiers, but truth be told, it take collective activity to maintain power, and truth be told, there is nothing more collective,nothing that discards the value of individuals as much as the modern corporation. It allows people that NEVER take responsibility for what they do to profit, while those who do the work are trashed. If you are going to have corporations, and yes, let's call them collectives, because they ARE, then you need another collective, called a state that can actually stop them from lying and deceiving at the very least. Does anyone have any illusions that, if companies were allowed to make unsafe cars, or unsafe meat, they would? Does anyone have any illusions that if a company had to lie, or sell us out to China, that they would? They can talk Freedom this and freedom that, but they all want that money that it takes a collective to collect.

So, the the left leaning libertarian, I can respect that fact that you guard rights, but the flip side of every right is responsibility. You cannot have one and not the other. Yes, the libertarians know how to offer you a balm for grievances, but keep in mind that the collective called the state is what prevents the collectives known as the corporation from exploiting you. The people fighting to get government off your back are the same people that will be silent or outright cheering as Wall Street slices the meat off your back to sell as Bacon.

[JustAnotherGen]

207. It's an actual Political Party

http://www.lp.org/

I know there are folks who want to discuss the 50 shades of the ideology - but it seems to me - perhaps they as individuals do no want to be affiliated with the Party?

[treestar]

208. Libertarians think they'd be at the top of the heap

but for government regulation. Reality is they'd be the first ones to be squashed like bugs.

[betsuni]

211. How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

"OMG, light bulbs are white -- why are you obsessed with bashing white men? Ayn Rand disagrees. Obviously you support the War on Drugs, think terminally ill people shouldn't choose to die on their own terms, don't support LGBT equal rights, love endless foreign wars and Wall Street and the 1% and surveillance (LEAVE ED SNOWDEN ALONE!!!!111). DRUG WARS! Corporatist. (Something about capital L, lowercase l libertarianism, who knows.) Girls in bikinis are nice. I insist you buttress your argument with LINKS LINKS LINKS or go home, you professionally outraged feminist authoritarians!"

In the end, somebody else changes the light bulb and also replaces the toilet paper with a fresh roll.

[Romulox]

212. This thread proves how much stronger ignorance is than knowledge. nt