United Liberty
Why Libertarianism Must Change or Die
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 9:26am | posted by Crystal Gross
When I was sixteen years old — only one year after my conversion to Catholicism — I began looking into religion more seriously as a result of a persistent twinge of reason which plagues me to this day. Determined to avoid Atheists and Theists on principle, I instead looked to Thomas Henry Huxley and John Shelby Spong, an Agnostic biologist and a dissenting Episcopalian Bishop respectively. In conference with these two minds, I discovered myself for an Atheist, but also stumbled upon the first truly intellectual concept of my life: it is possible that each and everyone one of us is “right” in every way, shape and form.
From those early days of intellectual curiosity, thumbing through Spong’s “Why Christianity Must Change Or Die” and growing my understanding of the individual, I’ve sought autonomy in all aspects of my life. In short, it was no surprise to the few people who know me that I was attracted to the Libertarian Party. I’m a spiritual Atheist. I’m an intelligent idiot. I’m an optimistic cynic. Where else could I go?
I’ve loved the Party. It was a tent big enough to house possibilities, a place that wasn’t crowded with rhetoric and closed-mindedness and half-truths.
And then it happened: my partner informed me that Bill Maher is not — no way, no how — a libertarian.
Imagine my surprise. After all, Maher’s been something of a personal hero to me since my relative youth. If I knew and loved anyone, it was Lewis Black.. But Bill Maher … he was, like, second runner-up. To George Carlin. But I digress.
If Maher isn’t a libertarian, his balls certainly are. With a radical perspective on the Drug War, his much appreciated sneering at feminism and his abhorrence of religion in politics, Maher evidences a sound, logical acceptance of the libertarian philosophy as outlined on the Libertarian Party’s site: “Live and let live.” Unfortunately, my day-to-day experience with card-carrying members of the Libertarian Party indicates a considerably different perspective on the libertarian philosophy: “Live and let live … or else.”
Why would members of a “Party Of Principle” with the aforementioned philosophy exclude other people from their little club because they disagree on a few matters? Why is a platform more important than a fresh idea? Why is youthful intellectual curiosity discouraged among a group of people who profess to want YOU to THINK?
The more “radical” Libertarians — the biggest L’s among us — play a major role in the advancement of the Party in the future. Unfortunately, the readiness and enthusiasm with which they attack their own people distracts them from constructive efforts which only they are capable of carrying out. Like attacking politicians and bringing about actual change.
This year, I made the decision not to renew my membership to the party. Not only am I broke, but I’ve also had as much time since I joined the party to think about what it’s members really stand for as I did between my conversion to Catholicism and picking up Spong’s book. And you know what? It’s high-time “radical” Libertarians backed off. Otherwise, you’re going to have a lot of room in that tent.
I am always shocked everytime I hear Bill Maher say he is a Libertarian. Frankly, I think he gives them a bad name. Why does he think he should label himself that. Is it because he smokes pot? I think they are a little deeper than that. I know he wasn’t for the Iraq war, but the democrats wheren’t for it either. He is for big government by supporting health care which takes away your right to say whether or not you want your own health care and removes your personal responiblity. He hates corporate America and is a PETA fan. He would like to see federal funding of nonprofit organizations and even though recent evidence shows that the planet is cooling, he buys into Global warming (which is a wonderful way for socialist to take control of more industry). He believes FEMA failed in New Orleans, when I am sure Libertains would have suggested that those who live there should accept the responiblity for being in that situation. He is against any religious materials being anywhere near any government facility even though Libertarian believe in live and let live. Those things don’t hurt you in anyway, yet he reels against them. Basically, he believe the masses are stupid and can’t take care of themselves. He believe the government needs to make them do the right thing. That government need to push them to do what they should whether they want to or not and that we should all pay our taxes and support that belief. Just his support of Health Care’s public option is proof of that. He should own up to what he believes in. He likes to hear himself talk and his outward appearance is so very important to him. If you don’t accept what he is saying, well you’re just plain stupid (his words). I say, Bill, get the balls you say you have and call yourself what you really are; a Progressive. In case your not sure what that means Bill, the short answer to that is Socialist.
how is peta opposed to libertarian ideals. if anything they are attempting to extend liberty to opressed animals.
Interesting article, but you don’t actually give any meaningful evidence of what you describe as a “radical Libertarian” and why you are leaving the party. What specific examples do you have to show Libertarians are attacking themselves?
From what I can tell, as a long time Libertarian myself, is that the party is growing quite a bit more in recent years. With the complete failure of the Republican party standing by their so called small government roots, many long time Republicans are leaving the party. President Bush did a great job of disenfranchising many Republicans. In my opinion, when John McCain was chosen to lead the part in it’s efforts for 2008, that sealed the deal. It was clean the RINO’s were in charge of the Republican party, and a good deal of true small government minded Republicans. Now with Obama in office, which clearly has no regard for the Constitution, even more people want somewhere to go to show their distaste of the Democrat and Republican parties. That place is the Libertarian party.
Just because some in the party disagree on a few issues, doesn’t mean the party itself isn’t a legitimate home for Constitution minded thinking. The Constitution party exists, but they seem to care more about religion and imposing their view of what religion is on everyone, than the Constitution.
I like Bill Maher. I watch his show on HBO. I watched “Religulous”. I used to, in my youth, be a big fan of the old “Politically Incorrect”.
But Bill Maher is no libertarian. He’s for drug legalization and anti-war, but that’s about it. And he’s not for those policies for the same reasons that libertarians are. If you look at pretty much any other run-down of libertarian ideas, and the philosophy that underpins them, he comes up blank.
Bill Maher is a libertine big-government democrat. He thinks the government should be in your wallet but not your bedroom. Libertarians believe the government should stay out of both.
While I think that inclusion is important, these “big names” claiming to be libertarian or libertarian-thinking (Bill Maher, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin) will drive away most Americans considering something other than Team R or Team D. When someone of their name recognition claims to be libertarian, it damages the branding of the party and the movement, as they do not accurately represent either the Libertarian Party or libertarian ideals. When Glenn Beck claims to be a libertarian, he displays a “libertarianism” that believes in the Patriot Act, the War on Terror, and other “neo-con” positions, which scares away Democrats looking for a new political home. When Bill Maher does it, he shows his support of gun control, universal health care, and other “progressive” positions, scaring away Republicans who’ve been left by the GOP.
To me, Sarah Palin is the most detrimental “big name” to claim the libertarian banner, as most people only remember the positions of the Presidential ticket of which she was a part. They remember McCain’s big spending and social conservative views, which she supported fully during her fifteen minutes of fame during the final two months of that disaster of a campaign.
I think I agree with all of the comments on here for the most part. Maher is a pot head who wants it legal. Beck can’t leave his neo-con roots and now has 50 million reasons not to. Palin is the ultimate neo-con who just wants the conservative side of her thoughts taken seriously.
Ultimately though, it is the responsibility of the party to promote growth. And contrary to what the current policy of almost every individual libertarian I know is - calling out every person who is not libertarian “enough” or better yet, proving that you are more libertarian than another has to stop. The party - and more importantly the individuals that make up the party and movement need to change their attitudes from “you don’t qualify, you’re out” - to - “Come on in, let us show you what it REALLY means”.
I had trouble figuring out what your point was, but I think it must have been somewhere between the pope and Maher.
Anyway, I consider myself a small-L libertarian. I fear the massive and suffocating intrusion of government into everyone’s life. Republicats can’t seem to grasp either the concept of limited government or the importance of personal rights and responsibility.
What the two parties have done to this republic is shameful.