Why aren't more people libertarians?

[cajuncocoa]

Bill Maher and Glenn Beck are libertarians. Maybe there's more of them than we realize.

 

[Lucille]

The Libertarian Mind
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-libertarian-mind/

The political psychologist Jonathan Haidt and several collaborators have published a new study of libertarians. Using data collected from 11,994 volunteer respondents, the study finds that self-identified libertarians have a distinct moral code based on the priority of freedom, are inclined toward abstract reasoning rather than emotional response, and value individuality over community.

These conclusions won’t be news to anyone who is a libertarian, knows libertarians, or follows their discussions–which I assume to include most of TAC‘s readers. What’s interesting is the way that they complicate some common assumptions about how we relate to each other as political animals:

First, as Haidt argues at length in The Righteous Mind, these data suggest that people don’t simply choose their political beliefs (see Daniel Flynn’s review from the print magazine here). Rather, their political commitments choose them–or, more accurately, appeal to preexisting intuitions and dispositions.

That’s consistent with experience. As many of us have learned in long and fruitless conversations, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians don’t just disagree about “the issues”. They have very different views of the world, which can lead them to draw different conclusions even from uncontroversial facts.

Second, then, the study implies that consensus is far more elusive than many political theorists hope. It doesn’t matter whether we all talk to each other calmly and respectfully, without the influence of pundits, attack adds, and other alleged distractions. We’re unlikely to agree because we’re just not the same kinds of people.

That doesn’t mean discussion is pointless. But it does suggest that we shouldn’t expect to convince each other, even though we may be able to agree on particular positions for different reasons.

Finally, Haidt’s analysis challenges the assumption that political positions can be placed on a flat left-to-right axis. Libertarians, as they appear here, aren’t somewhere “between” liberals and conservatives. They have an distinctive outlook defined by an independent cluster of intuitions and dispositions.

The reason that libertarianism isn’t better represented in electoral politics is that this psychological profile seems to be relatively rare. In Haidt’s study, only 7.6 percent of respondents identified as libertarians. Because it was based on a web questionnaire, the sample may not be representative. But it seems as likely to overestimate the proportion of libertarians as to underestimate it. My unscientific impression is that libertarians have a considerably larger presence online than in the general population.

Libertarians sometimes argue that they’d attract more support if they were only given the chance to explain themselves properly. And Haidt’s research supports their conviction that they’ve been neglected or misunderstood. But it also suggests that libertarians shouldn’t hope to make many converts. The libertarian mind may be too uncommon to have much influence in a democracy.

 

[Czolgosz]

The Libertarian Mind
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-libertarian-mind/

Spot on.

 

[jmdrake]

Because libertarians do a horrid job of marketing themselves by putting all kinds of conditions on libertarianism. (i.e. "Unless you are pro choice/pro life you aren't a libertarian"). At least that's what I see here at RPF constantly.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Because libertarians do a horrid job of marketing themselves by putting all kinds of conditions on libertarianism. (i.e. "Unless you are pro choice/pro life you aren't a libertarian"). At least that's what I see here at RPF constantly.

What's to sell?

Rule 1 - Mind your business.

Rule 2 - Keep your hands to yourself.

 

[awake]

Honestly, there are more libertarians than there ever have been. There were only a handful of notable libertarians 40 years ago. Now there are whole movements. It is a slow progress, undeniably, but so is anything worth many generations in the making.

This is a war between extremely small minorities on each end of the spectrum. It is a war on the battlefield of ideas. It is the greatest struggle of all time: good vs. evil. The idea of slavery has been continuously beat back to make way for the ideas of liberty. As hopeless as it looks from the perspective of living inside current events, history has revealed a crystal clear picture: liberty has been making a steady march towards the walls and gates of the violent ruling elite. This is the reason, I believe, behind the push for world government: national strongholds are not enough to contain the people and their natural desire for wanting more or better, even though they might not recognize it as the quest for liberty per say.

There are elite on both sides who influence the rest. It is a war for the minds of the in between.

It does not matter that people don't embrace libertarianism. All that matters are that the ideas can and do make progress in the minds of other people. The term Liberal used to refer to the early liberty fore-bearers until it was infected by those who wanted to put a stop to it...Their work for liberty was not enjoyed by them but is indispensable by current generations. We are doing as they did for the future generations.

WE ARE WINING but its like watching the grass grow. The grass does grow.

 

[juliusaugustus]

Bill Maher and Glenn Beck are libertarians. Maybe there's more of them than we realize.

Don't forget john stossel.

 

[jmdrake]

What's to sell?

Rule 1 - Mind your business.

Rule 2 - Keep your hands to yourself.

I agree. But then I hear "libertarians" tell me that if I'm not for the state getting into parent business and telling them to keep their spanking hands to themselves I'm not a libertarian. It gets sooooo confusing.

 

[jmdrake]

Bill Maher and Glenn Beck are libertarians. Maybe there's more of them than we realize.

Is Bill Maher from the Cornell West "increase taxes on rich people" wing of the libertarians?



That said, I love me some Cornell West. And he does respect Ron Paul.

 

[AGRP]

There's a lot of money at stake by outlawing virtually free things that have a high value. So much money that people with power will control means of communication and education to brainwash, commerce to control sales and distribution, and freedom to control action. Cant be growing or selling that herb. Cant be milking or selling that milk. Cant be gathering or storing that water.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I agree. But then I hear "libertarians" tell me that if I'm not for the state getting into parent business and telling them to keep their spanking hands to themselves I'm not a libertarian. It gets sooooo confusing.

Sound like a violation of rule 1

 

[paulbot24]

If they were just given their liberties back and set free from our tyrannical government, many would turn around, look back at their slave quarters, and say, "So they're kicking us out of our homes?"

 

[specsaregood]

Because libertarians do a horrid job of marketing themselves by putting all kinds of conditions on libertarianism. (i.e. "Unless you are pro choice/pro life you aren't a libertarian"). At least that's what I see here at RPF constantly.

I was going to say that many vocal libertarians come across as utter assholes; but I'll go with what you said.

 

[roho76]

I think all this fake food has made it so we can't pay attention long enough to understand basic math, so politics outside of the "Red team/Blue team" soundbite mentality, is not widely practiced.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Is Bill Maher from the Cornell West "increase taxes on rich people" wing of the libertarians?



That said, I love me some Cornell West. And he does respect Ron Paul.

At least West tends to see Obama and the Democratic establishment for who they really are. Maher on the other hand panders to that crowd and takes the easy way out by targeting his humor against conservatives (not that they don't deserve to be the subject of ridicule but it's just too easy).

 

[robert68]

..

 

[Proph]

Allow me a shameless cross post to answer:


And we keep coming back to this.

But here's the fundamental problem: people understand, they understand perfectly what is going on, for the most part.

We think, that all we need to do is "educate" enough people, and a point of critical mass will be reached, and we'll turn this whole thing around.

We are dead wrong.

People do not want freedom.

They never have wanted freedom.

They want what people since the beginning of time have wanted: to be fed, entertained and exercise petty power over their fellow man.

We are the minority, and always will be the minority, and the only time that freedom briefly flourishes, are the times when we have asserted our right to be free and dragged the rest of wretched humanity along for the ride, kicking and screaming the whole time.

This is the only point that I disagree with Ron Paul: freedom is not popular.

It must be seized, and vigorously protected, by force, to last.

A remnant that lacks the will to do that will almost certainly be subjected to slavery and oppression.

It has nothing to do with people, already struggling to make ends meet, being deprived of the luxury of carrying on discussions (or researching) like this, eh? In that respect, it actually benefits those in power to keep making things worse, so that the populace remains ignorant. There's no time to figure out how to make things better for yourself (let alone, humanity) if you're working 2-3 jobs and spend your spare time eating and/or sleeping (both basic necessities for survival).

This actually brings up an interesting point; these are the people who need help the most, but are least likely to hear the message (due to the lack of spare time). How do we get the message across to these individuals? But, I digress.

The only reason I'm writing this is that you seem demoralized and/or frustrated. I've felt like posting rants similar to yours before, but refrained because negativity is contagious. Just as you felt the need to cross-post, I feel the need to post this, because I think more people need to hear it; especially with the "We must take action!" rhetoric I've been seeing in a few places:

Isn't taxation just a form of modern-day slavery? Slavery, at the time before the Civil War, was a necessary evil. Do you think it would have still existed, as technology became more advanced? I don't. The "necessary" bit would become smaller and smaller, until eventually, slavery is just evil. I think the same would/will eventually happen with taxation and (big) government.

I propose we just wait it out. By setting a good example, as Paul has done himself, you become the light that guides the others. The shittier things get, the brighter your ideas become. It's a battle of perception, and this defeatist "poor us!" (porous!) mentality does NOT help the cause. Inform, sure, but most won't believe or understand you until they experience it themselves.


Take consolation in the fact that big government is its own biggest threat, not us. What's that old saying...?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Wait...what? So...

Bah! Fuck it!

But here's the fundamental problem: people understand, they understand perfectly what is going on, for the most part.

We think, that all we need to do is "educate" enough people, and a point of critical mass will be reached, and we'll turn this whole thing around.

We are dead wrong.

Do they? Check out Robin Koerner's article "Love and Sales: The Thankless Art of Political Persuasion" if you haven't already:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/love-and-sales-the-thankl_b_1376615.html

Nevertheless, I notice that many of my political brethren advocate for our favored candidate and passionately held beliefs by trying to show our opponents they they are wrong. It never works - even when they are wrong -- because being right is not the same thing as winning an argument. And even more importantly, winning an argument is not the same thing as winning a supporter.

Wow. This post ended up being much longer than I initially intended. If nothing else, maybe it can be used as a sleep-aid? If you legitimately reached the bottom, congratulations! Level up! Hai faive!

 

[cajuncocoa]

The thing I keep hearing a lot from friends and family is, they like the ideas, but they don't think it would work.
I keep telling them we'll never know unless we try, and what we've been doing for the past....well, forever, hasn't worked either.
Then they usually just nod politely and change the subject. *smh*

 

[LibForestPaul]

Allow me a shameless cross post to answer:


And we keep coming back to this.

But here's the fundamental problem: people understand, they understand perfectly what is going on, for the most part.

We think, that all we need to do is "educate" enough people, and a point of critical mass will be reached, and we'll turn this whole thing around.

We are dead wrong.

People do not want freedom.

They never have wanted freedom.

They want what people since the beginning of time have wanted: to be fed, entertained and exercise petty power over their fellow man.

We are the minority, and always will be the minority, and the only time that freedom briefly flourishes, are the times when we have asserted our right to be free and dragged the rest of wretched humanity along for the ride, kicking and screaming the whole time.

This is the only point that I disagree with Ron Paul: freedom is not popular.

It must be seized, and vigorously protected, by force, to last.

A remnant that lacks the will to do that will almost certainly be subjected to slavery and oppression.

Not 100% agree. There is also much fear in people. This includes fear of reprisal, as well as fear of liberty, self-reliance.

 

[LibForestPaul]

Sorry, but I just can't buy this line.

Do you really think the elderly want their monthly shakedown of the young to stop?
Do you really think 55 year old retired cops want their pensions to stop?
Do you really think some CEO wants to compete on merit and not use the courts against his competitor?