Libertarianism - The Cancer That is Eating the American Right

I have been inspired to write this article because it has gradually become very difficult for me to sit back and not say anything concerning my direct observations of the ideology that is currently described as American libertarainism. At first the idea of being libertarian was considered novel and somewhat of a safe place, considering the climate of modern day American politics. No matter who we are, the idea of having to argue all the time with people repeatedly can take a toll on anyone. It is no wonder that many of the conservative friends I once had have seemingly given up on certain ideas in order to "get along" with more people and this objective seems to fit nicely with someone claiming to be libertarian.

In the simplest terms, many people I know claiming to be libertarian seem to suggest that they uphold conservative economic policies and liberal social views. I not only declare that their ideas are flawed in their premise but they also clearly do not recognize the inherent danger in their contrary thinking. In fact, their ideology is so similar to modern day liberalism, it is merely a hybrid of such irrational thought. Liberalism, as well as libertarianism, is a mental disorder.

Like liberals, libertarians mean well. They also believe their ideas to be superior to that of any other thought process which leads to their affectation. In fact, because they are so similar, they also like to speak in mantras and rarely are able to produce a reason for their beliefs other than to suggest that everyone is corrupt and only they believe in and understand true liberty.

What is liberty? 

Surely if one is preaching the value of liberty, it is often the mistake of the listener to assume that this person has innate knowledge of the subject they are preaching about. If I were to sign up for a seminar pertaining to personal finance, I want to be sure that the person giving the lecture is one who has proven themselves as an authority on the subject. They should be able to demonstrate their own abilities, ensuring that my time and money attending such an event is not wasted.

When it comes to the libertarian however, they freely admit to believe that we do not have true liberty in the United States and have not had the advantage of this "true liberty" since the formation of this country. I can only ask, how do they know what liberty is or what it really looks like if they have no direct knowledge of it?

Sure they offer many ideas that include but are not limited to: free markets, small government, small military, no laws concerning important social issues like drugs and preservation of marriage, and a disdain for almost any type of government regulations. However, what does this really look like and how can those of us that do not fully, but maybe only partially, believe in some of these values, fit into their world view? There seems to be no room for disagreement because the moment you challenge them is the moment you are told that you obviously do not understand the constitution and that is the end of the conversation.

Here we see the same tactics that are used by the left. Disagree with a liberal and you are branded a racist, a homophobe, a tool of the rich, a neanderthal, and any other word or phrase that will allow them to feel good about discontinuing any further discourse on the issue. For libertarians, you are a Neo-con (which apparently is evil), you're ignorant of The Constitution (even though amendments have been added that they seem to be fully unaware of), you are supporting a supposed failed two-party system (which is still continuing), you have no idea what liberty is (yet strangely they cannot tell you either), and pertaining to economics they will insist that you are supporting policies that are not actually conservative but Keynesian (more on this later).

Also similar to liberals, libertarians have saviors, people who will stand up for their beliefs and fix things in order to reflect their ultimate desires for others. For left-wing liberals, this is Obama, the man who can turn your entire paycheck into change you can hear in your pocket, as you stand in line for unemployment. For libertarians, it is Ron Paul. This man can bring the entire United States back to its inception and put forth all of the original ideas that our founding fathers wanted. Their ideology suggests that they stand for personal freedom and non-coercion yet, I am failing to see how grand daddy Paul will bring about this revolutionary change without some form of hostile take over, using a form of coercion. Perhaps only after the results have come about, non-coercion will surface but until then, how will this "true liberty" come about?

Libertarians also struggle with complete analysis. They form their beliefs on half-truths, or partial information, only understanding the very beginning of a story, while negating later revelations. Liberals do this as well. They take the first part of a story and run with it. This can pertain to history or even a news story but they fail to follow through with the issue. If they did make an extra effort in this area, surely they would realize their folly.

One primary example I find is when discussing the economy libertarians enjoy "appealing to authority" (yet, another fallacy committed by hard-core leftists), citing the works and analysis of economist F.A. Hayak. Perhaps it is their egos that become inflated when they read the words of Hayak from early years, seemingly supporting their economic views that has such an appeal to them creating excitement that prevents them from continuing their studies. How many of them know that Hayak changed his mind on monetary counteractions? From my perspective, not many. If they do have knowledge of Hayak's revelation, they usually disregard it but by continuing to use him as an authority, their argument becomes worthless and they seem to be unaware that it has. The same can be said for Ludwig von Mises, another economist libertarians use for reference justifying their illogical economic ideas, who also admitted in his writings that monetary expansion is sustainable. Again, they are lazy in their studies, just like their cousins on the left.

The division of people into various groups and categories in order to justify a political position is one that has been around since the beginning of political history. In modern liberalism, this tactic must be used and has demonstrated on numerous occasions to be successful in winning the support of ignorant people who are unaware that policies effect all, not just certain groups. The libertarian has clearly learned all about divisions for their mind is equally divided and they demonstrate this quality by constantly playing on the inherent insecurity of the voting population. The narrative usually follows something like this: "Nobody in the government is working for the people. Both parties are equally evil and all we keep doing is voting for the lesser of two evils." The libertarian knows that many people are frustrated and they capitalize heavily on getting the listener or reader to a point where they feel as if there is no hope in working within the established parties. The politics of FEAR and division. By appealing to a person's intellect, suggesting that we "all know" everything about the government is corrupt, and supplying endless anecdotal material that "proves" this, a libertarian's appeal is easily increased. They give the appearance that their third option is the only one offering the American people a "real" choice, something that is above the fray. Most people do not ask the next, obvious question which is, "if everything the government does is inherently wrong, why are you offering yet another government option?"  The fact is, libertarians need the government just as much as any political party would, otherwise, how would their beliefs be implemented?

The beliefs of the common libertarian are actually quite rigid and seems to leave no room for compromise. Furthermore, they are fixated on their end goal rather than the process. In liberalism, we commonly see a focus on the end goal and have repeatedly witnessed the justification for obtaining their goals through the philosophy of the ends justifying the means. When one is constantly focused on end results, it's hard not to believe they will then act differently from those that have already demonstrated the results of that thinking.

What is it libertarians are offering? Oh, look at this, Ron Paul IS a career politician himself. At this point, I want so say, I'm not going to slander the man. Quite frankly I do believe him to be a decent guy. I'm sure if I took the time I could find some horrible stories about him. I have read about him being a racist and hating Jewish folks which could be true or it could be deceptive lies but, none of that really matters. Ultimately, it doesn't matter much that many of the men and women we elect are screwed up and flawed, because I myself deal with my own demons and I'm pretty sure the readers of my blog are not pure either. If you crack open the chapters to anyone's book of life, I'm sure all kinds of various skeletons can be found. So the goal of this article is not to demonize this man but merely show that what libertarians offer is no different or better than what they accuse the other parties of offering. The fact that they put so much stock into one man is actually quite disturbing and again, this is the same type of man-worshiping-man virtue found among modern day liberals in the U.S.

It is bad enough that the right must fight with the left on such petty issues that have already been learned repeatedly throughout history but, now the right has been infected with this new cancer that comes to us in a benevolent form and I suggest is no different from the left. The more I learn, the more it appears as if this fallacious ideology was sent to us courtesy of the far left, with the hopes of dividing our party. After all, this is another party that lives in the world of conspiracy, perhaps they are just projecting who they really are and where they really come from.

Libertarians come in all shapes and forms but all too common are the ones who believe in massive conspiracies. People like Alex Jones are their prophets, foaming at the mouth about the evils of our government and how our country was behind 9/11. They go so far as to suggest we carried out the attack, while simultaneously declaring we deserved what we got for interfering in the Middle East. Well, which is it? That our government was responsible or that Arab terrorists were? They will hold onto an argument for the sake of separating themselves from others.

I once became involved in a conspiracy thread on Facebook pertaining to 9/11. I spent days on end presenting conspiracy minded libertarians with very plausible arguments, backed up with REAL science and physics. I gave them links for sources, as well as my argument based on my own education. There was not ONE argument that I ignored. I had so many of them coming at me at once, it was actually overwhelming. There were many times when I know I had absolutely proven them to be wrong and instead of thinking about how they have been misled, they would admit that their account may be wrong but that there was still a conspiracy. All of them tried their best to offer up some form of "proof" concerning a conspiracy but not one of them had a full timeline or story. In fact, they were all over the map. They first said we placed explosives in the buildings. When I posted links that showed them the FULL video of the towers coupled with actual known videos of explosions, they didn't change their mind about government complicity, instead they rationalized, "yes, that could be true but..." and then continue on with straw-man arguments that would only matter if actions occurred in a vacuum.

To put it simply, in a laboratory, experiments are controlled. A scientist can perform under known conditions that can include exact measurements that pertain to temperature, mass, volume, and pressure. Even with all of these known values, experiments can produce unexpected results. These isolated occurrences can be the result of human error or contamination. Depending on the amount of steps that were completed and the material used, sources for inconsistencies can be quite numerous. Taking an event like 9/11 where there are no controls and little known values, it is without saying that many inconsistencies will be found and that is completely independent of some conspiracy. If something can be explained in realistic and scientific terms, there is no reason to hold onto sinister views that do not even make room for rational error. Those in the conspiracy camp are not interested in science; they are merely interested in identity. Their desire to be apart of a group and against another outweighs their interest in engaging in coherence or the finding of truth.

This type of thinking is cult-like and we see this when it comes to groups on the left that advocate man-made global warming. It's more of a religion than a movement interested in honest, scientific discussion.

There is some wisdom in many ideas that are put forth by libertarians and this is why they have found themselves a home on the right side of the paradigm. However, their approach is divisive and their ideas are equally radical to the ones presented by the far left.

Concerning the economy, we need to worry about inflation and we should be concerned about our Federal Reserve printing unlimited cash to pump into the economy. There is no doubt that several ideas should be considered but it is clear when a full study of history, not just in economics but in cultural history as well that balanced approaches to economic problems are not only possible at solving problems we face, but necessary. Anything too extreme can create imbalances that ultimately affect millions of people. If we do not know or reject our history, then how can we possibly have an idea of what our next course of action should be?

Only conservatives have offered proposals that coincide with learned principles and American history. The American conservative may indeed preach limited government but the idea that we reject all government as bad or destructive is just a person trying to rewrite history. Conservatives do understand that government serves as a function that is to help protect the country from inside and outside hostile forces. They are there to help alleviate large swings both growth and recession, since we know that economies by their very nature oscillate. Large expansions produce bubbles, that we witnessed in the 90's and this can cause many problems, much like an economy that is in recession and having trouble growing. By creating economic policies that can help encourage and sustain growth at a reasonable rate, a government can assist in preventing the least amount of negative consequences and yes, many conservatives have offered solutions that involve Keynes policy. The gold-standard was abandoned years ago because it doesn't work! Government also needs to help protect the consumer, the worker, the natural resources, and provide a variety of services that function for the good of the whole.

The free market should indeed be held as a value but even it must have restrictions since it can also produce very undesirable results. Again, the idea is to try and strike a balance and the only way that can be done is if we stop allowing these divisive arguments to take over our political ideas and call it the cancer it is.

In summary... 

There is no proof that everyone in the government is evil and out to get us. This is an argument that is merely created to divide people and get them to have no faith or belief in their ability to help shape and create a healthier government. This rhetoric is alienating and fatal. These same people speak of personal responsibility yet, they also see themselves as victims of an evil government. So which is it? Are we victims or shall we empower ourselves to believe that not everyone is evil in our government and that we can have decent politicians? More appropriately, we should be asking what is going on in these people's worlds that they see everything as corrupt? The first step to change is within an individual. We do have the power to change our own lives. If you don't like corruption, get rid of the corruption in your own life first. Just imagine if we all did that.

Liberals and libertarians are lazy. This laziness pertains to their study of history as well as their arrested development in spirituality. Another example I see is the blatant bastardization of Ben Franklin's comment, ”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” Here the libertarian will suggest the patriot act is us loosing our liberty. As I have already addressed, libertarians do not know what liberty is, nor do they know what it looks like since they have never experienced it. In Franklin's case he was referring specifically to personal responsibility.

"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppressive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."
George Washington 

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Clearly our responsibly lies in our individual morality. Only the whole can be healed with the individual working to be moral. Libertarians do not profess morality since they treat it the same as liberals - relative. Morality is not relative. Anyone that suggests otherwise is either parroting something they heard or they have trouble in understanding logic, either way both are a sign of intellectual and spiritual laziness.

Libertarians cannot claim to offer a different solution when their solution would require government, the very entity that they repeatedly demonize. This argument is beyond silly and quite frankly insulting to my intelligence. Government is required and that first needs to be accepted and recognized otherwise, this ideology is merely what I have stated, a fraud designed to tear people apart. The basis of this theory is merely to complain and prop up people's egos leading them to believe they are somehow better and more knowledgeable than others. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We need a leader, not a dictator. No matter what you believe about this country, nothing will change the fact that we all have different views and these different views should be acknowledged and debated. Shutting down debate and refusing to compromise is not an American value, no matter how the far-left and libertarians want to suggest that it is. The ends do not justify the means. We have a great system here and the best way to preserve our country and allow for expansion and increased standards of living is to help ourselves by becoming moral individuals, thereby helping the whole of our country to become more moral as well. Our government is not separate from us; it is a part of our lives.

History reveals many different things about this country and the very people who claim they want to re-embrace the forefathers wisdom are the same people who criticize and want to demoralize us. Whether coming from the far left or the libertarians, it's all the same toxic verbiage that divides us and keeps us further away from what principles this country came from. Perhaps, with some straight talk I can help the people I know with good intentions realize that libertarianism is merely a hybrid of liberalism and the sooner they recognize this, the sooner we can get back to actually saving this country from the real interior enemy- far left radicals that only have socialism and more policies that will result in two classes -- the haves and the have nots.