Idealism is an admirable thing, but often impractical in many ways. I have come to the conclusion that the attractiveness of Libertarianism to the Conservative voter is pretty equivalent to the attractiveness of Socialism to the liberal voter. Thus, as a political ideology, it is as impractical in the modern United States as would be adoption of full scale Socialism. There are a number of factors for this, of which I hope to discuss a few.
Now, Libertarianism is quite a broad topic and ranges from “Right” Libertarianism all the way to Socialist Libertarianism. (Wikipedia) For the sake of this discussion, I will use the basic tenets of the Libertarian Party (www.lp.org) since it more closely represents what people accept today as the definition of Libertarianism. Given that we have a Libertarian candidate for President of the United States, present on the ballots of all 50 states and, who has achieved double digit support according to some of the latest national polls, it bears a discussion.
The United States Libertarian platform emphasizes individual liberty in personal and economic affairs, avoidance of “foreign entanglements” and military and economic intervention in other nations’ affairs, and free trade and migration. It calls for Constitutional limitations on government as well as the elimination of most state functions. It includes a “Self-determination” section which quotes from the Declaration of Independence and reads: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.” It also includes an “Omissions” section which reads: “Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.”
This includes favoring minimally regulated markets, a less powerful federal government, strong civil liberties (including LGBT rights), (the party supports same-sex marriage), the liberalization of drug laws, separation of church and state, open immigration, non-interventionism and neutrality in diplomatic relations, free trade and free movement to all foreign countries, and a more representative republic. The party’s position on abortion is that government should stay out of the matter and leave it to the individual.
The Libertarian Party opposes all government intervention and regulation on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates and advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. The party’s recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System. The party supports the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which they believe will significantly lower the national debt, provided that the budget is balanced preferably by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes. Libertarians favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. The party also wants a halt to inflationary monetary policies and legal tender laws. While the party defends the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies, it opposes government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. (Wikipedia)
Sounds good, right? So, what’s the problem?
- Our current political system favors those with money and power. Those with money and power can have significant influence of our elected officials, who especially need money and influential support to get elected and re-elected. In turn, those who give, expect something in return. In most cases, it is some sort of preferential treatment in the creation of laws and regulations, or some intervention that helps them.
- Many of the planks of the Libertarian social platform flies in the face of deeply held religious beliefs of some. How could they embrace legal abortion, unfettered drug use, same-sex marriage, unlimited pornography and legal prostitution? On the other hand, the party’s approach to liberal ownership of guns is appealing to many.
- Libertarian polices calls for a hands-off approach to most foreign entanglements, closing of military bases around the world and an overall reduction of military spending. Again, for many, this is unacceptable and leaves the country vulnerable to attack.
This is just three examples.
Now, don’t get me wrong, many people would be willing to fully embrace these beliefs and many have. But given that Libertarianism is being peddled mainly to more conservative voters, I see it as an ideal that cannot be easily achieved.
And the fact, that you have two candidates that are former Republican Governors seems to support that fact. Certainly, the Bernie Sanders supporters favor much more Government intervention and involvement, especially in education and welfare and thus would lean toward the Socialist ideology.
So, in conclusion, I find Libertarianism to be an idealistic ideology given the way our politics and government operate today and because some of the tenets are counter to the religious beliefs of many conservative voters.
What say ye?
Wheat & Tares 
I’m far from a libertarian myself, so I’ll let other commentators weigh in. Just to say that I agree that over-idealism of all kinds can be a dangerous. I get as frustrated with Ron Paul types as I get with Bernie Sanders types. We all crave simple explanations for our problems and obvious solutions to them, but nothing in life is that easy. Perfection is inhuman. We need imperfect solutions for an imperfect world.
I think that is part of my point. Easy to say, hard to do….
Conservatism consists of 3 types: (1) social, (2) fiscal, and (3) religious. There is some overlap between 1 and 3, but a person may be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This group is who Gary Johnson is trying to appeal to with his campaign slogan “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” I suspect many of our readers fall into this categorization and may find Gary appealing.
The problem for conservatives is Trump. He is trying to appeal to (1) social conservatives by saying he is now against abortion and gay marriage. Problem is he used to be pro-choice and I really don’t think he cares much about gay marriage but is simply pandering to social and religious conservatives. So Trump really isn’t socially conservative, despite his rhetoric on the campaign trail. Then there’s this issue of (2) fiscal conservatives. He has been all over the map here. He’s going to raise taxes, he’s going to lower taxes. Nobody has any idea what he’s really going to do because he can’t make up his mind. It’s hard to call Trump a fiscal conservative, and he’s against TPP, which many fiscal conservatives are for, so that’s another strike against him being a fiscal conservative. Then there’s the problem with (3) religious conservatives. He’s pandering to them too, but can’t quote a favorite verse from the Bible, has never asked God for forgiveness, and doesn’t even know what to call the cracker and wine thing. He’s not religiously conservative either.
So conservatives have nobody to vote for, because Trump is neither (1) socially, (2) fiscally, or (3) religiously conservative, and neither is Hillary. Who should a true conservative vote for? (Hint, it ain’t Trump.)
So you have to decide, do I throw my vote away for a 3rd party candidate like Evan McMullin (or I hear some guy named Castle, who I know nothing about), or Gary Johnson, who at least is fiscally conservative, or Hillary who is neither fiscally conservative, socially conservative, or religiously conservative? That’s the appeal of a libertarian like Gary, at least you get something conservative, and he’s got a better chance (especially if he gets into the debates) than any other 3rd party candidate.
In this election, conservatives are going to be stuck with someone who is neither socially or religiously conservative. If a person can get fiscal conservativism from a guy like Gary, as Trump would say “what have you got to lose?”
On the other hand, conservatives did grudgingly go for Mitt, and there are places, like the Chicago Tribune, that think Mitt and Hillary are actually have pretty similar political positions. Most people are convinced that ObamaCare is based on RomneyCare, after all.
I should also mention that Trump has no regard for the Constitution (“stop and frisk”, “keep the Muslims out”, Mormons are an alien religion”, “open up the libel laws against the press”, “repeal birthright citizenship”), so I can’t understand why anyone who pretends that they support the Constitution would vote for Trump, who is so close to dictator that it’s easy to compare him to Mussolini or Hugo Chavez.
“Stupid presidents, smart presidents, white presidents, black presidents — doesn’t work! What this country needs is a crazy Third World dictator. And Donald Trump has what it takes to be that. He’s already got a plane with his name on it, solid gold buildings, a harem. … This is what I’ve been waiting for my whole life. A President who’s not afraid to tell the truth about being a lying a**hole.” –Lewis Black
I sometimes think Libertarians ought to get their wishes granted, just so they can watch society self-destruct all around them. Pulling government out of the health-care and retirement business would impoverish (or simply kill) most of our senior citizens. Allowing corporations to self-regulate would simply exacerbate the abuses we see today. Doing away with the minimum wage would be catastrophic. Well, pretty much everything they propose would produce chaos and economic devastation. For some reason, they can’t seem to understand the notion that governments exist in the modern world to serve some very necessary purposes, many of which Libertarians oppose. It’s definitely pie-in-the-sky idealism without a shred of common sense to it. So, while I sometimes wish the Libertarians could get their wishes, I don’t really want to pay the price their education would cost. There happens to be a good reason no country in the history of this planet has ever made Libertarianism work. Not so with socialism. On that front, we could learn a good deal from, say, Germany.
All political parties have moved very far away from what they were originally. Except the Communist party.
The United States no longer has a two, or three party system. We have a Uniparty, whose purpose is to further the communist globalists agenda.
Obama is the dictator, not Trump.
Clinton will be Obama on steroids.
Trump is the only one fighting for America and her citizens. Trump does support the Constitution. Stopping inmigration, making press responsible for what it reports, birth right citizenship are not Constitutional.
He is against the TPP because, if it passes, America loses her sovereignty, all laws and the Constitution are null and void, the country will be ruled by foreigners who are appointed, not elected.
How many of you know about Obama illegally giving the Internet control to a foreign entity that will have no oversite? Effective October 1, 2016. Obama said that the Internet must be censored.
Who owns all the media in America and in other countries? 6 billionaires who support globalism.
CNN gets millions per year from the State Department. Why? To do the will of the government, to keep people ignorant. This fact has been hidden, like all things are hidden from the citizens. Which is why the Internet will be censored.
Which is why Clinton vowed to suspend the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
Obama, and Clinton are advised and monetarily supported by a WW II Nazi Communist, George Soros aka Georgy Schwartz, who destabilizes countries in order to put totalitarian communist / fascist dictators in control.
Hitler teamed up with Islam in WW II to help get the Jews. Muslims are flooding the West. It is no accident Muslims are flooding the West and it is not because of war in the Middle East. It is no accident Christians and conservatives and Caucasions and religious Jews are being targeted and marginalized.
Clinton said ” Democrats are stupid and easily manipulated ” and ” It is important to keep the voters ignorant “. It is working.
This election is of vital importance. Too many do not understand what is really happening to America and too many do not care.
Clinton is a Communist. As is Obama and many members in Congress and Senate. If she is elected this election will be the last election we will ever vote in.
The Constitution IS hanging by a thread, and it is non Mormons that are saying this.
It’s actually quite amazing how much misinformation is in e.g.g.’s comment, but I’ll just put a link here:
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-stupid-quote/
Well done Andrew. It reminds me of my post about Bad Memes, where I attacked the “dumb voter” that was falsely applied to Trump: https://wheatandtares.org/2016/07/18/bad-memes/
These dopey quotes get repeated ad nauseum. I wish people would do some fact-checking without re-quoting false statements.
We always need one of Those posts to offset the smart ones.
“Practice Safe Government. Use Kingdoms.”
– A favorite bumper sticker
Back in 1974 Robert Nozick wrote the libertarian classic “Anarchy, State, Utopia” (also, my favorite named philosophy book) in which he sought to discuss the problems with anarchy, the state not by comparing libertarians best to the state’s or anarachy’s worst, but by comparing best to best. Unfortunately, this is a courtesy rarely returned to libertarians. Although your post falls into several of those traps, I do appreciate the civil town, as well as the end in which you end with a question inviting response and discussion, and I appreciate that, even as I disagree with how characterize libertarians
1- I think you are justified in quoting from the libertarian platform, I do not think you are justified from quoting from wikipedia because political parties and their ideals and platforms change over time. (Look no further than the democratic and republican parties). What quoting both allows you to do is create a hodge podge of what libertarians stand for now and what they have stood for in the past. For example, Libertarians are not calling for Ron Paul to be their Presidential candidate, instead they appointed a centrist governor at the top of their ticket he in turned picked a centrist governor to be his running mate. The libertarian party (and green party for that matter) is so small that who the party picks as a presidential candidate really says a lot about the current state of that political party. The fact that you had to get quotes from wikipedia to back up the assersion that ” opposesALL (emphasis mine) government intervention and regulation on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates and advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services” illustrates this point. I could not find anywhere in the Libertarian platform stating that they oppose ALL regulation, though at times the libertarian party might have stood against ALL state intervention, the platform, nor current presidential candidate do now, so this strikes me as a bit of a strawman.
2- My not-at-all libertarian friends hate it when I say this , but libertarians, like conservatives and liberals are hardly a monolithic group. For example, libertarian hero F.A. Hayek wrote in the “Road to Serfdom” that he supported minimum wage laws, but was concerned when creating basic safety nets turned into administrative states with a centrally planned economy. Hayek believed that safety nets could exist in a market economy. Similarly Milton Friedman suported what today would be called a living wage (though he called it a negative income tax) were, rather than putting the burden on employers to pay higher wages (thus hurting small businesses) people making under a certain amount of money should receive a sum of money from the federal government. This would fight poverty without creating a large government bureaucracy and a centrally planned economy. Now, I think mainstream libertarians currently agree with Hayek (that some state intervention is necessary and the minimum wage specifically is justified) but most probably aren’t with Friedman. I only post this to show that there is hardly a consensus point of view neither now nor historically about where does one draw the line on state intervention, yet for some reason my not-at-all libertarian friends want to discuss what Hayek or Friedman have to say. They are too busy trying to tell me that libertarians believe everything posted on so-and-sos- Ron Paul is the Greatest Human Being Ever blog. Again, I don’t deny that some in my philosophical/political group have ideas that are unworkable, but that makes us just like every other US political philosophy.
3- I actually think that in the 2016 election Gary Johnson and the libertarian party could be the most pragmatic of the candidates running because a) protectionism was part of what fueled the great depression, yet both major political parties have candidates that are pro-protectionism (at least that is what they are saying for now). Protectionism is an idea that sounds great in theory but is unworkable in practice, and Gary Johnson and the libertarian party is pro-trade. b) both major political parties support an overly idealistic foreign policy. George W. Bush thought the U.S. would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq, I have no idea what the end game was in Egypt or Lybia when we assisted in regime change, but as of today neither country is a pretty sight. The problem with an unrealistic view of what American power can achieve abroad is currently we are achieving regime change and getting blamed for all the problems with a new regime. This is being counter productive in our goal of undermining terrorism. President Obama’s drone policy is also a problem for the same reason. I applaud Obama’s fortitude in not being bullied over the phrase “Islamic Extemeism” but I’m afraid his drone policy undoes any good not calling it Islamic Extremism might have achieved. Be keep stoking the coals terrorist groups use to recruit. Gary Johnson, to my knowledge does not support bringing back all US forces from around the globe, but he does support a foreign policy based on diplomacy and trade and using force as truly a last result.
4- In the book The Righteous Mind Jonathan Haidt discovered that libertarians actually have more in common with liberals and not conservatives. In fact, the only electoral vote a libertarian has ever received was from a democrat and not a republican.
I’ll stop here, since I’m sure no one wants my libertarian propaganda to take up ALL of the comments section. My point is this: libertarians are no more impractical than other political philosophies. Extremist true believers of any political philosophy are dangerous. Some libertarians are extremist, and I’m sure that some libertarian ideas (even ideas I think will work) may not work in the real world. But how does that make me any different than people who want to build a wall and make mexico pay for it? Or people who want to “create jobs” by raising tariffs?
Libertarianism is to U.S. politics what Mormonism is to Christendom.
You can’t begin to understand libertarians if you start with the basic definition as “fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.” That phrase doesn’t mean anything. It would be better to describe libertarians by saying they believe in the principle of non-aggression and private property rights. They don’t believe anyone has the right to force others to act. And any act of government is a potential act of violence in their view. People and society work best when they are allowed to trade and work freely.
Jason B. – Thanks for help making my point, I used Wikipedia because it summarized the important points made in the US Liberation Party Website. It does not surprise me that there are varying opinions on what Libertariansm means,
Mark L – Funny, that is the definition that Gary Johnson has used. Are you saying that the LIbertarian Party candidate does not represent Libertarian views. That does not surprise me.
Glad I could help Jeff, but in so far as I understood your point it was that libertarians are a bunch of overly zealous conservatives who are too idealistic. So idealistic our ideas would never work in real life. You still don’t seem to be engaging with any of my points, namely, 1- of course some libertarian ideas are crazy, and some libertarians are particularly crazy, however, Gary Johnson could be the most sane person on the ticket this year.I don’t mind that you use wikipedia, what I mind is that you appear to be using wikipedia to create the libertarian straw man that you want to argue against, rather than the libertarian party that nominated Gary Johnson. 2- You also seem to show an unwarranted prejudice against libertarians by focusing on the worst libertarians have to offer, while not acknowledging that every major political candidate and every major political party peddles in ideas that are unpractical if not impossible, i.e. the great wall that Mexico is going to pay for, tariff’s that will create American jobs, U.S. democratizing the middle east, etc. If impracticality is your concern then you should be concerned with any all major parties and political philosophies. You either need to compare worst to worst or best to best. 3- Finally, your whole premise that libertarians have more in common with conservatives has been put into question by recent studies. Some of these studies are reviewed in the book The Righteous Mind.
Jason B. – I don’t think I used the term “overzealous, but did say that conservatives were more likely to find aspects of Libertarian ideas appealing more than liberals. I think some find Libertarian ideas unworkable in the modern world in the same way that some scoff at socialism as workable even though there are successful countries that have adopted both philosophies.
I just find, as I stated, the ideas to be idealistic, yet impractical in our modern world and not implementable in our current political climate. Yet appealing to some.
Which successful country has adopted Libertarianism?
Switzerland, to some extent.
Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and others weigh in on how conservative Trump is NOT. https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/videos/10153908967609117/
Jeff, fair enough and no you didn’t use the word overzealous, that was my attempt to paraphrase what you said. Sorry if I over stated your point, and ultimately I do agree with you that not every libertarian policy or idea will necessarily work in the real world. Like I said, I may be over sensitive since I feel we libertarians always must be tied to our crazies and must carry all of our ideas to the logical extreme, a demand that does not seem to be placed on the two major parties. I especially appreciate that you acknowledge that countries (well, you at least acknowledge Switzerland) can and do apply libertarian policies at least some of the time, and the right policies at the right time have been and will continue to be successful. I also agree with you that the same burden is put on socialism. There are some socialist ideas that can and do work and others that won’t. I suppose my frustration is that the two major parties are basically getting a free pass when they propose ideas that will not work in the real world. Especially with this whole protectionism thing. Raising tariffs to the degree that both major candidates and parties are advocating in order to “save American jobs” is just and fanciful as those of my libertarian colleagues that think getting rid of all social safety nets will create a utopia. Neither extreme will work in the real world. Thanks again for your clarification.
Jason B – The one idea that just kills me is that politicians can save American Jobs, when it is the American people who voted with their own pocketbooks NOT to save American jobs. And Corporations, who at one time, recognized their responsibility to the country, only now recognize their shareholders, the financial community and the company executives. The market pretty much dictated the loss of jobs.
“I feel we libertarians always must be tied to our crazies and must carry all of our ideas to the logical extreme, a demand that does not seem to be placed on the two major parties.” Republicans tie democrats to their crazies, and vice versa. It’s simply what partisans do: tie any politician to the crazy one to make one’s own party sound better by comparison. Certainly democrats call Trump republicans crazy, and republicans do the same with Hillary and Obama.
Why would anybody vote to be subject to another person and to give that person power to rob, control and initiate violence against them if they didn’t obey? Jesus would never vote for anyone to have political power over their neighbor. You can’t love your neighbor when you vote to make them subjects and advocate violence be initiated against them for not following the edicts of the ruling class.
The state, in all its forms is a violent, evil, corrupt, murdering and lying institution and wanting to put your own personal stamp of approval on it, by voting for it, is foolish and antithetical to claiming to be a follow of Christ. It makes you complicit in its crimes.
Voting is only moral when you vote for yourself and not against somebody else. In the pre-existence you could only vote for yourself. You couldn’t vote to force anybody else to do anything. It is o.k. to vote to be a subject yourself but not to vote for another person to be a subject. And definitely not moral to vote to force your neighbor to become a subject.
Picking anybody but God to rule over you means you are rejecting God and His rule. Remember what God told to Samuel when the Israelite’s wanted a king?