This is true from what I remember. I was in high school in 2008 when the Ron Paul stuff happened, and by 2010-2012, the disappointment of Obama was truly being felt, and people were willing to listen to the Libertarian stuff around then. The Libertarians pretty much took up the anti-war side when Obama was continuing Bush's wars.
I also remember that Libertarians and conspiracy theorists were literally the only people in media who said anything bad about the NDAA when that was passed. Trump has been using that with the DHS hauling off protesters in Portland, but when Obama passed it, no one said a word except the Libertarian crowd. They were definitely different back then to some extent.
I would say a sizeable portion of new (younger) socialists came from that libertarian era. That's why it sucks now, all the non-psychotic people left for a more coherent ideology.
You really hit the nail on the head here: libertarianism is an incoherent ideology, and anyone who (1) engages with it beyond a meme level and (2) is bright enough to recognize the contradictions will eventually leave for something that is at least internally consistent.
The upside of this is that the ones who at least give a little bit of a fuck about other people sometimes turn towards socialism. The downside of this is that the rest turn to fascism, which is all of the full-throated praise of capitalism you get with libertarianism with none of the protections for minority groups. If you want some easy dunks and want to potentially steer some folks away from fascism, /r/libertarian is not a bad place to do it.
Libertarians are just as likely to become normal liberals as they are to move further right. The legalize gay weed types were always just liberals who didnt like how socially conservative the democrats are, there was a similar phenomena with the lib dems in the UK during the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown years.
Additionally among the right, they tend to be non interventionist which is what the American right was before the internationalism of the Reagan administration.
The legalize gay weed types were always just liberals who didnt like how socially conservative the democrats are
In my far too extensive experience with libertarians, it seems like the majority are conservatives (certainly on economic issues) who have a pet issue or two that differs from Republican party orthodoxy (pot and LGBT rights are the classic examples). I think that's a strong predictor of where they're likely to go when they realize libertarianism is nonsense.
they tend to be non interventionist which is what the American right was before the internationalism of the Reagan administration
There was certainly an interventionist wing of the Republican Party before Reagan, but party orthodoxy was firmly imperialist. Look at Eisenhower and Nixon, and look at how a recurring attack on Democrats was that they were "soft on communism [abroad]." From about the start of WWII through at least the end of the Cold War (and still largely up through today) there was this bipartisan idea that "politics should stop at the water's edge." Sure, candidates would make hay out of foreign policy blunders during election cycles, but both parties were broadly in favor of using the military to attack anything hostile to capitalism wherever it might crop up.
The american right pre Reagan was not really tied to the Republican party in the same way that it became, there was a movement post Nixon though to make the party more conservative. Republicans were a liberal party and democrats were a segregationist social democratic party. The john birch society right and the kkk right were different on their views around foreign intervention.
Also being a conservative who supports LGBT rights and supports legalizing drugs makes no sense unless their a single issue gun voter or something.
This is true from what I remember. I was in high school in 2008 when the Ron Paul stuff happened, and by 2010-2012, the disappointment of Obama was truly being felt, and people were willing to listen to the Libertarian stuff around then. The Libertarians pretty much took up the anti-war side when Obama was continuing Bush's wars.
I also remember that Libertarians and conspiracy theorists were literally the only people in media who said anything bad about the NDAA when that was passed. Trump has been using that with the DHS hauling off protesters in Portland, but when Obama passed it, no one said a word except the Libertarian crowd. They were definitely different back then to some extent.
Like Mike Gravel found a legitimate spot for himself within the libertarian party back then, the whole movement was different.
I would say a sizeable portion of new (younger) socialists came from that libertarian era. That's why it sucks now, all the non-psychotic people left for a more coherent ideology.
You really hit the nail on the head here: libertarianism is an incoherent ideology, and anyone who (1) engages with it beyond a meme level and (2) is bright enough to recognize the contradictions will eventually leave for something that is at least internally consistent.
The upside of this is that the ones who at least give a little bit of a fuck about other people sometimes turn towards socialism. The downside of this is that the rest turn to fascism, which is all of the full-throated praise of capitalism you get with libertarianism with none of the protections for minority groups. If you want some easy dunks and want to potentially steer some folks away from fascism, /r/libertarian is not a bad place to do it.
Libertarians are just as likely to become normal liberals as they are to move further right. The legalize gay weed types were always just liberals who didnt like how socially conservative the democrats are, there was a similar phenomena with the lib dems in the UK during the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown years.
Additionally among the right, they tend to be non interventionist which is what the American right was before the internationalism of the Reagan administration.
In my far too extensive experience with libertarians, it seems like the majority are conservatives (certainly on economic issues) who have a pet issue or two that differs from Republican party orthodoxy (pot and LGBT rights are the classic examples). I think that's a strong predictor of where they're likely to go when they realize libertarianism is nonsense.
There was certainly an interventionist wing of the Republican Party before Reagan, but party orthodoxy was firmly imperialist. Look at Eisenhower and Nixon, and look at how a recurring attack on Democrats was that they were "soft on communism [abroad]." From about the start of WWII through at least the end of the Cold War (and still largely up through today) there was this bipartisan idea that "politics should stop at the water's edge." Sure, candidates would make hay out of foreign policy blunders during election cycles, but both parties were broadly in favor of using the military to attack anything hostile to capitalism wherever it might crop up.
The american right pre Reagan was not really tied to the Republican party in the same way that it became, there was a movement post Nixon though to make the party more conservative. Republicans were a liberal party and democrats were a segregationist social democratic party. The john birch society right and the kkk right were different on their views around foreign intervention.
Also being a conservative who supports LGBT rights and supports legalizing drugs makes no sense unless their a single issue gun voter or something.
For some reason like 50% of the people I've ever met from Ohio are this.
deleted by creator
libertarians.jpg