A generation of Libertarians?

[Tree Frog]

In High school (Ages 16-17),  we took this political spectrum test. We were required to answer about 15 questions regarding; Policy, Economic, and Social. After we completed the test we were scored on a Nolan Chart which I will add below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 About 10 minutes before the test, the teacher spouted off about how Centrism is the most popular political group among a majority of people (Bull Shit). The questions on the test were surprisingly fair. Of course the Nolan Chart is set up in such a way to make Socialism look "Free", and that Left and Right are separate from Statism. After the test was complete we saw our placement on the Chart and gave our results to our teacher who recorded them on the board. 

 

Out of 30 students:

 

Statist= 0  Left = 3 (All girls)  Right = 10  Centrist = 1 (I think it would be very hard to score this)  Libertarian = 16

 

Of course there is variation, but they were mostly all clustered on the upper right of the Chart. 

 

A day later after all scores had been recorded we compared all of the other classes results. The four other classes had also tested majority libertarian. This might just be a product of where I live.  However, kids don't really talk much about politics, and the millennial generation is typically associated with Leftism. So I still found it surprising.The problem is this is a small sample space of only 120. This trend may not be reflected nationally. It would be wonderful though. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pepin]

I took a few of those tests of forums a while back, and I couldn't exactly answer a lot of the questions as they didn't make sense with my views at the time (was not an anarchist). I choose the best of evils and ended up on the point of the libertarian square.

 

People seem to me to be pretty libertarian. Their hang ups tend to be in regard to regulation of corporations, education, healthcare and minimum wage laws. It makes sense that these are the issues people struggle with the most as they are the most difficult to understand in terms of laws, upbringing, history, economics, and so on. Economics is a topic people really tend to disregard unless it agrees with their bias.

 

With that said, people are also extremely statist in positions they are not libertarian in. There is often little ability to move someone on specific issues if they are "convinced' that it is an essential state function.

[J. D. Stembal]

It might help to post a link or reference some of the questions. Rewinding back to that time in my life, I would be considered libertarian especially with regard to the legality of controlled substances, elimination of the legal drinking age, voting is pointless, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, etc. Then, when I went on to college, the environment became very state centric, and leftist (9/11 occurred during this time). For the record, I went to a public high school and a private (Lutheran) college, both in Illinois - quite an interesting juxtaposition, eh?

[luxfelix]

In response to the topic title, I do feel that is the case and, in particular, I've noticed the demeanor and witnessed forthright admissions to government disillusionment among peers. A good start I'd say. 

[prolix]

Majority of Americans are libertarian. Problem is the majority of americans are also apolitical; so they don't vote or they just vote whatever. Thus, no wonder they don't get represented in the capitols. Also it doesn't help that there are never any viable candidates or party, including ron paul, for libertarians; hence most vote left/right if they vote at all. I understand the position here on politics, voting, government etc. but come on, wouldn't it be kinda cool to have a viable libertarian party that was effectual and we started to move towards a libertarian minarchism? I know anarchism is the goal. But isn't minarchism the lunch stop on the way to a total anarchist free society dinner? Like, if you get poisoned, and you take the antidote, there is still that transition period where the poison is active over here and nullified by the antidote over there and your metabolism is in the process delivering the antidote for a certain period of time. Technically, if tested, you would test positive for poison at that time. Same with minarchism, technically you test positive for statism at the time, it is not ideal, but as a possible transitional state of affairs it is quite appealing. Either way, it would be nice.

 

And this kind of reminds me of the zeitgeisters. If you can't get to anarchism without passing through minarchism, which I think is valid, then you can't get to Star Trek zeitgeist utopia without passing through a free society first. You need to have a free society first, first before you do the work to  have a Utopian-esque society.

 

It is funny. People always characterize anarchism to be utopian. Look at what they are saying. The simple idea of not solving problems with violence, like animals do, would be utopian. The idea that not doing something so destructive as the state would be some unreachable zenith of social perfection. I disagree. I would propose that it is just the beginning prerequisite for utopia. Like, if some homeless-jobless-mentally disturbed dude was covered in shit. Right? His own human shit. And you washed him off. As you should. For him to exclaim "I am now the perfect man!" because of the recently removed fecal layer, well, that would be quite absurd. He still has much work to do in order to even be a sufficient man, let alone a great man or a perfect man.

 

I mean the idea of utopia being "perfect", or "unattainable" aside. I view utopia as an ideal not an impossibility. And it is an ideal we can only start to strive for once we have a free society. As opposed to the view that a free society would be a utopia itself. I reject the latter.

 

Another analogy; if you only stop beating your wife, it doesn't make you a good husband, you still have work to do to be a husband at all as opposed to an abusive sociopath...

[luxfelix]

Problem is the majority of americans are also apolitical; so they don't vote or they just vote whatever.

 

Are you differentiating between apolitical on principle vs. apolitical without principle as being a problem? 

[prolix]

Are you differentiating between apolitical on principle vs. apolitical without principle as being a problem? 

No. In regards to a libertarian minarchist state it is problematic. Like "I wouldn't belong to a club that will have me" or "The club for people that hate people; we can never get a meeting together" or "the political group that is largely apolitical". But I am not differentiating  here...

[luxfelix]

So is the point then to spread awareness (and measure influence) through voting like Ron Paul stated?

 

 

Is that why remaining apolitical is problematic?

[Josh F]

yeah socialists are not a majority, they just control the state.

[J. D. Stembal]

Majority of Americans are libertarian. Problem is the majority of americans are also apolitical; so they don't vote or they just vote whatever. Thus, no wonder they don't get represented in the capitols. Also it doesn't help that there are never any viable candidates or party, including ron paul, for libertarians; hence most vote left/right if they vote at all. I understand the position here on politics, voting, government etc. but come on, wouldn't it be kinda cool to have a viable libertarian party that was effectual and we started to move towards a libertarian minarchism? I know anarchism is the goal. But isn't minarchism the lunch stop on the way to a total anarchist free society dinner? Like, if you get poisoned, and you take the antidote, there is still that transition period where the poison is active over here and nullified by the antidote over there and your metabolism is in the process delivering the antidote for a certain period of time. Technically, if tested, you would test positive for poison at that time. Same with minarchism, technically you test positive for statism at the time, it is not ideal, but as a possible transitional state of affairs it is quite appealing. Either way, it would be nice.

 

And this kind of reminds me of the zeitgeisters. If you can't get to anarchism without passing through minarchism, which I think is valid, then you can't get to Star Trek zeitgeist utopia without passing through a free society first. You need to have a free society first, first before you do the work to  have a Utopian-esque society.

 

It is funny. People always characterize anarchism to be utopian. Look at what they are saying. The simple idea of not solving problems with violence, like animals do, would be utopian. The idea that not doing something so destructive as the state would be some unreachable zenith of social perfection. I disagree. I would propose that it is just the beginning prerequisite for utopia. Like, if some homeless-jobless-mentally disturbed dude was covered in shit. Right? His own human shit. And you washed him off. As you should. For him to exclaim "I am now the perfect man!" because of the recently removed fecal layer, well, that would be quite absurd. He still has much work to do in order to even be a sufficient man, let alone a great man or a perfect man.

 

I mean the idea of utopia being "perfect", or "unattainable" aside. I view utopia as an ideal not an impossibility. And it is an ideal we can only start to strive for once we have a free society. As opposed to the view that a free society would be a utopia itself. I reject the latter.

 

Another analogy; if you only stop beating your wife, it doesn't make you a good husband, you still have work to do to be a husband at all as opposed to an abusive sociopath...

 

"It would be kinda cool to have a viable Libertarian Party..."

 

Really? The nature of government is to grow itself through special interest. As soon as the Libertarians rose to power, they would be no better than the Democrats or Republics or the Green Party. In order to get there and stay there, they would have to bribe their way with more and more handouts for affiliated interests. Verily, this would be the only way they could ever be elected. Look at Adam Kokesh pledging to run for president in 2020 on the campaign platform of totally abolishing the federal government. There is no way in hell he will ever get one electoral vote, because he's sending the message that he wants to dissolve the political lobbyist system from the inside.

 

This is the same reason you will never have more than a handful of Libertarians on the federal level, and even then they will need the support of a larger party (Republicans) to get there.

 

For the record, I also do not believe that anarchism is unattainable or utopian. It exists everywhere you look within small pockets of voluntarism. Have you ever heard the expression, "There isn't a law against it yet?" 

[prolix]

"It would be kinda cool to have a viable Libertarian Party..."

 

Really? The nature of government is to grow itself through special interest. As soon as the Libertarians rose to power, they would be no better than the Democrats or Republics or the Green Party. In order to get there and stay there, they would have to bribe their way with more and more handouts for affiliated interests. Verily, this would be the only way they could ever be elected. Look at Adam Kokesh pledging to run for president in 2020 on the campaign platform of totally abolishing the federal government. There is no way in hell he will ever get one electoral vote, because he's sending the message that he wants to dissolve the political lobbyist system from the inside.

 

This is the same reason you will never have more than a handful of Libertarians on the federal level, and even then they will need the support of a larger party (Republicans) to get there.

 

For the record, I also do not believe that anarchism is unattainable or utopian. It exists everywhere you look within small pockets of voluntarism. Have you ever heard the expression, "There isn't a law against it yet?" 

Yea, I get the "government grows like cancer" perspective. But I was stressing the angle of libertarian-minarchism as a transition towards no state at all. Like MMJ laws per state leading to national legalization. It is a transition, if it will be at all, moving from abject statism to a free society. And I think a libertarian minarchism is part of that transition.  Now, I am 100% anarchist. Just pointing it out...

 

You totally got my 2nd point tho. That a free society is just the beginning of fixing society, but we gotta fix society before we get a free society, so, this is the tough up-hill part...

[J. D. Stembal]

Yea, I get the "government grows like cancer" perspective. But I was stressing the angle of libertarian-minarchism as a transition towards no state at all. Like MMJ laws per state leading to national legalization. It is a transition, if it will be at all, moving from abject statism to a free society. And I think a libertarian minarchism is part of that transition.  Now, I am 100% anarchist. Just pointing it out...

 

You totally got my 2nd point tho. That a free society is just the beginning of fixing society, but we gotta fix society before we get a free society, so, this is the tough up-hill part...

 

What is the Libertarian Party but another form of government? They will be just as easily corrupted if they achieve political power. Your marijuana example is terribly off point because it has nothing to do with transitioning toward a free, voluntary society. Do you realize that the only reason states, like Colorado, are legalizing it for recreational use is because they projected it to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue? You need an official state license to sell it, and there many other restrictions. If this is an example of transitioning to a free society, as you contend, it is an extremely heavy-handed bureaucratic means to an end. In fact, it is moving is the opposite direction of freedom. We want to move away from supporting corruption in the state, not give them more fuel for the fire. It might smell like freedom to you, but recreational pot actually increases state coercion.

 

You should have used the example of moving toward a free society with regard to marijuana (and other illicit substances) by mentioning Silk Road, and how it got nuked by the federal government. Is it any wonder?

 

With regard to your second point, don't put words into my mouth. We need to fix society, because how else can that be accomplished without a government, voters, and the bullshit political circus? There is no society; it is simple as abstract noun that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. Voluntarism cannot exist there. We need to start dismantling the state interference within our daily lives first. Push the state out at all costs, and create a voluntary life, and like-minded people will join you. That's how freedom grows.

[prolix]

What is the Libertarian Party but another form of government? They will be just as easily corrupted if they achieve political power. Your marijuana example is terribly off point because it has nothing to do with transitioning toward a free, voluntary society. Do you realize that the only reason states, like Colorado, are legalizing it for recreational use is because they projected it to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue? You need an official state license to sell it, and there many other restrictions. If this is an example of transitioning to a free society, as you contend, it is an extremely heavy-handed bureaucratic means to an end. In fact, it is moving is the opposite direction of freedom. We want to move away from supporting corruption in the state, not give them more fuel for the fire. It might smell like freedom to you, but recreational pot actually increases state coercion.

 

You should have used the example of moving toward a free society with regard to marijuana (and other illicit substances) by mentioning Silk Road, and how it got nuked by the federal government. Is it any wonder?

 

With regard to your second point, don't put words into my mouth. We need to fix society, because how else can that be accomplished without a government, voters, and the bullshit political circus? There is no society; it is simple as abstract noun that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. Voluntarism cannot exist there. We need to start dismantling the state interference within our daily lives first. Push the state out at all costs, and create a voluntary life, and like-minded people will join you. That's how freedom grows.

Ah jeeze dude...

[J. D. Stembal]

Ah jeeze dude...

 

Bro,

 

Thank you for taking the time and consideration to respond to me.

 

Yours truly,

 

Dude