0 votes

Why I fled Libertarianism — and became a Liberal

***Disclaimer - this isn't me but feel free to vote down. I found this in another forum

- - -

The night before the 2008 Nevada Republican convention, the Ron Paul delegates all met at a Reno high school. Although I’d called myself a libertarian for almost my entire adult life, it was my first exposure to the wider movement.

And boy, was it a circus. Many members of the group were obsessed with the gold standard, the Kennedy assassination and the Fed. Although Libertarians believe government is incompetent, many of them subscribe to the most fringe conspiracy theories imaginable. Airplanes are poisoning America with chemicals (chemtrails) or the moon landings were faked. Nothing was too far out. A great many of them really think that 9-11 was an inside job. Even while basking in the electoral mainstream, the movement was overflowing with obvious hokum.

During the meeting, a Ron Paul staffer, a smart and charismatic young woman, gave a tip to the group for the upcoming convention.

“Dress normal,” she said. “Wear suits, and don’t bring signs or flags. Don’t talk about conspiracy theories. Just fit in.” Her advice was the kind you might hear given to an insane uncle at Thanksgiving.

Then next day, I ran into that same operative at the convention, and I complimented her because Ron Paul delegates were being accepted into the crowd. I added, “We‘re going to win this thing.”

“Bring in the clowns,” she said, and smiled before I lost her in the mass of people.

I will never forget that moment: Bring in the clowns. At the time, I considered myself a thoughtful person, yet I could hardly claim to be one if you judged me by the company I kept. The young lady knew something I had not yet learned: most of our supporters were totally ***** nuts.

Continue:
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/28/why_i_fled_libertarianism_an...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Can someone tell me plz

If I click that link and read the rest of the post will I see at least 1 mention of the Federal Reserve? If so I will click the link & continue to read the rest of the writers experience objectively, without bias

There is none.

'Nuff said.

I believe in the freedom to be what we choose to be.

"If you think that

"If you think that selfishness and cruelty are fantastic personal traits, you might be a libertarian.

It is entirely implausible that any libertarian, even ex, would think this has anything to do with libertarianism. We are to believe he associated with libertarians and thought this? In fact the entire screed is a parody of every straw man argument against liberty, and in writing it he makes himself into a parody of a cognitively challenged liberal.

Maybe his family was a bunch of racist xenophobes and told him he was being raised 'libertarian' but that doesn't make it so.

At the time, I considered myself a thoughtful person

That was his first mistake. He should have stopped there.

I’m a big, fat and bald white guy with a mean goatee

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son.

very good

funny

waterthetree

Ugh Labels

Self-identifying into oblivion....does nothing.

Labels are so yesterday.

Perspective is what differentiates people, and those with well-rounded frames of reference bring balance to the system---despite whatever label is affixed.

Classic liberals, liberated minds, liberal thinkers, libertarians...whatever....are finally peppered across all parties in contemporary America.

The trick will be to identify each other and converge in an era of new ideas and solutions. I think it's about redefining it all. Not simply redefining your own personal self-identification (who cares? other than your inner-self...)

I do not subscribe isms, ites, ives, rats, or cans

I used to subscribe to progressive mindset and used to try to convince people that progressive is conservative because it really is when one really examines the historical meanings. I gave all that up once I saw the supreme effectiveness and lawful path of sovereignty in court.

I had already read much law and history surrounding the drug war and had already studied the history of the skull and bones and bankers that I was literally warning people all the way back to 1998 that they were going to execute a large violent attack upon the US to usher in their fascist NAZI style agenda upon America so I was way beyond conspiracy theory and more like an independent intelligence operative before (and after) 9-11. Before being exposed to and realizing true sovereignty rooted in real law I always thought we needed to change and tweak certain laws and believed that meant we needed to convince masses of people to vote for the right candidate or support the right petitions. After being exposed to sovereigns in court and seeing their victories 100% of the time, I then really went DEEP into law and the history of law and then had an epiphany that forever abolished my participation in the nonsense of politics, elections, campaigns and initiatives FOREVER. I realized that real law (legal law) is no different than scientific law and found a clear root logical foundational maxim:

No law can violate any other law

Once I had this epiphany I re-read all the law and history of law and saw a completely new picture that ended my participation in politics, voting, and activism forever. I realized that the TPTB and BAR had created the greatest deception ever perpetrated upon mankind. TPTB already knew the maxim that I had found and had literally built all statutory codes in such a way that they are only applicable through various forms of consent that are issued by each individual through various contracts offered by the corporate STATE and various departments of the US CORP. I realized that they setup a system where the culture made it seem like all of the forms are mandatory when in reality they are issued by voluntary consent of each individual acting on their own accord. Once someone voluntarily binds themselves to their offers contracts to have legislative code apply to themselves then those valid contracts are BINDING in courts. Because our law explicitly states that lawful powers of government are derived from consent of the governed NOT government I began to look at all case law and application of statutory code upon the governed and realized that every case I could find was always applying code regulation, intended for commercial entities, to the people as commercial persons all while the Constitution never authorized the government to regulate people anywhere. The clear conclusion I found was that the people are enslaving themselves to a commercial personhood capacity that is regulated by whatever two-bit tyrants in congress pass into "law" and all of the imprisonment of the drug war, infractions and anything else that seemingly is derived ONLY from the government is actually something that people consented to themselves when they never were required to consent to operate in a limited liability commercial personhood capacity in the first place.

Consent of the governed used to mean that, for actions in justice, an accuser of the governed would accept liability for accusations against those they accused and face them in court. The balanced scales of justice was the fact that liability was held by both the accused and accuser when facing each other in court and the outcome would be determine by the jury of who was actually the guilty party, whether the accused for the accusations against them or the accuser/informant for false accusations. The blindfold of justice was the impartiality of the court and weight of the facts placed upon the scales of justice would be determined by the jury.

Once I realized all of this and began winning in court every time I realized that all the politics, voting, petitions etc. were nothing but confusion executed by people who are not willing to accept full liability for their own actions. Because people are deathly afraid of accepting liability for their own actions people always sought a limited liability resolution to their ills through the mechanisms of political will. This means the tyrants always win because everyone already gave up all their rights through their own consent to commercial personhood identity regulated via legislature. Everyone could just accept liability for their own actions and remove all unlawful tyrannical power from the control freaks and deal with the problems of real freedom but most don't want to do that so the result is a two-party dominate system with third party splinter groups and a never ending battle requiring masses of people to get on the same page to 'fix' things, all while the tyrants know everyone gave up their rights in exchange for limited liability and proceed to dish out the absolute tyranny the persons of America have now consented to.

Real Sovereignty simply means we only need to accept liability for own actions and simply uphold the law, real non-conflicting law where no law can violate any other law. This is where the gold standard comes in here as an example. Our law says No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in the payment of debts. It does not say the People shall make gold and silver tender it says "State". This means regardless of my own opinions about what should be used as tender by the State, a lawful operator who has bound themselves to the contractually binding terms of the Constitution must abide by the terms to not breach duty. If they don't then they are in breach of duty and should be brought to justice for that breach of the People's binding law. Most want to make it a political issue of whether it should be this or that but whatever they want they must use Article V amendment process to change tender that State's use NOT just whatever whim of the day they decide via legislative acts aka Federal Reserve Act. This is an example of how ALL political groups have failed and is exactly why I don't participate in politics anymore. I am not interested in political whims of confused people who do not want to accept liability for their own actions. I am only interested in upholding the law. This is why I am at the DP, to discuss strategies to restore the Constitution and uphold the law. I can unequivocally state that our path to uphold the law is through real justice being brought against those who breach peace and breach duty and by accepting liability for those accusations against those we accuse whether that be criminals claiming to be "law enforcement", "Judges", "agents" of "government", or the criminals in our communities.

We will only devolve into lawlessness if we don't uphold the law. Upholding the law is not about our opinions it is simply ensuring that no law violates any other law and accepting liability for ensuring the law is maintained at all times.

I hope all of you cut through the bs deceptions of "sovereign citizens" ADL propaganda, authoritarians fear mongering and false claims and realize that equality of all strictly recognized in our law means that we are all equally sovereign with the sole power to accuse anyone of anything as long as we each hold equal liability for any accusations we bring against another. This is what will remove ALL false claims of "government" authoritarians from our lives and return government to their lawful place of impartiality and limited powers. If we begin formally challenging the jurisdiction of these unlawful authoritarians for every unlawful action they bring against us they will run out of time immediately and then we can begin to consciously maintain lawful precedent that is rooted in ALL lawful powers of government being derived directly from the governed NOT the government.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Cliffs - Was a libertarian

Cliffs

- Was a libertarian because he burned trash
- Married a liberal woman
- Disliked weird and selfish libertarians
- Prostrated himself and wept at the glory of Obama's inauguration

As for me, I know exactly what this guy's mindset is. I wasn't a big government liberal, but I was a hardcore Green, anti-war, bleeding heart liberal.

They live completely out of control, at the mercy of their emotions. If someone is suffering, they have an overwhelming desire to ease that person's suffering no matter what the cost, no matter who has to pay for it, no matter what it means for the future, no matter what critical issues they should have dealt with immediately instead. On encountering racism they also have the same type of overwhelming emotion. Sometimes they can do all kinds of amazing things like math and logic, but when they hear the trigger words it's like, bam, their mind releases the emotion and it's game over. It's mind control. Beyond that I can only imagine how the mind control is constructed.

In one sense it's great that liberals feel so much compassion for others, and I remember once having felt that, but it's not real as coming from them. It's just mind control. Their overwhelming emotions do not come from their soul like it should, just their mind, so they're just playing out a script. I mean they genuinely feel it, but they didn't create it. They're drugged. And whatever spiritual beliefs you have, living at the mercy of such high emotion is so not the way to anything.

My emotion sort of died off, I think partly due to a spiritual practice I was doing that was meant to starve programming. So the triggers stopped working on me because the programs died off.

I call myself a libertarian

I call myself a libertarian when pressed for a quick categorization of myself. But I can understand the frustration as described in this article.

When I was younger, I believed that there was an element of "we're all in this together" against government power. This guy wants to keep his guns, this guy wants his homeschool education, this guy wants less government regulation of his businesses, so let's all band together and fight for each other's freedom.

And I spent a lot of time defending other people's interests. I have no interest in owning a gun, but I would frequently stick up for the pro-gun position in a gun-unfriendly state. I have no interest in homeschooling my children, but I have always stuck up for their point of view.

Unfortunately, I cannot say that I see the same kind of support for my pet issues. For example, tax equality between gay and straight marriages. Think of how often people on this site call the gay marriage issue a "distraction", "not important", "let's just get the government out of marriage altogether and do nothing in the immediate future to ensure both types of couples are at least treated the same"?

There seems to be a near universal opinion that privilege does not matter, that anyone born into any circumstance can make it if they just try hard enough. The kind of jingoistic American dream story that in any other context, a libertarian would never ever appeal to. The prevailing view is: the Federal Reserve is destroying us all, regulations are choking business opportunity at every step, Obamacare is a radical program that will impoverish the middle class, but racism and sexism are at most minor inconveniences that can be easily overcome in today's society.

At some point I have to ask myself, why am I bothering fighting for things that aren't in my own direct interest? What do I really care if homeschooling is made illegal, guns are banned, rich people are taxed 10% more? What am I getting in return? Libertarians of the objectivist persuasion may even applaud me for my selfish way of thinking.

"There seems to be a near universal opinion that privilege does

not matter..."

I think you're misreading most libertarians' attitudes. The prevailing attitude toward privilege among libertarians, as I see it, is not simply "privilege does not matter," it's that all political privileges should be abolished, and that economic privilege would matter much less in a dynamic, upwardly mobile economy. Also, that just because one group has a political privilege bestowed to them by the system, the solution is not to give the same privilege to all groups, but, rather, to abolish the original privilege.

I perhaps can't appreciate your position entirely, as I'm white, heterosexual, and the family I grew up in was not poor.

I understand what you'e saying

but my own experience with most libertarians is that they are very sensitive to the hardships people encounter in our society, and their position is that these hardships are greatly exacerbated by the prevailing liberal/conservative corporate state. The one exception to the benevolence I experienced on this site was someone who could not comprehend how I could let my wife make use of Medicaid (even though we had no alternative). He didn't really give a clear answer when I asked him if he made use of government roads or schools. I have little tolerance for this type of hypocrisy, but it is, thankfully, fairly rare among true libertarians.

Thanks

Actually, I think I remember this back-and-forth that you describe.

This person was never a libertarian, but

rather just another bitter liberal getting behind the GOP Ron Paul 2008 movement for gay rights, marijuana and ending wars, all noble causes, but far from the full agenda of Liberty.

I don't believe anyone is a Libertarian until they can explain the NAP and property rights as the primary guiding principles of libertarianism.

"There are a lot of libertarians in the Tea Party" This comment got me laughing. Just because Sarah and Glenn say they are libertarian does not make them so. Neither has the slightest concept of Rothbard's theories.

Apostates always have idiotic reasons for leaving.

Although the first word in the title of this comment is meant as an ironic dig at the goofy comparison that the writer of this forum made between libertarianism and cults, it is a true and depressing evaluation of most people who went off after the 2008 presidential election and drank the Obama kool-ade.

The main thing I wonder is, if this guy bases his support on issues rather than what he perceives as fringe viewpoints, did he do a 180 on his views regarding foreign policy? My guess is probably not, assuming that this article was written within the last 2 years. I had a few friends who were libertarians who ended up switching over to Democrat and falling in love with Obama, and most of them were poorly read on libertarian philosophy and were little more than progressives who hadn't fully embraced socialistic economics viewpoints.

One thing that usually points out who the eventual defectors are to me is how much they obsess over the abortion and gay issues. And no, I'm not saying that every pro-choice and pro-gay person in the libertarian movement is another progressive disaster waiting to happen, but people who will have a vote swayed on those 2 issues alone are usually not firmly centered in libertarian philosophy. As an example, take Murray Rothbard, who ended up endorsing Pat Buchanan.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

This person became a liberal, not because of anything wrong with

libertarianism, but because he disliked the "freaks" associated with the movement? The reason many "freaks" embrace libertarianism is that libertarians are often the only ones defending their right to be "freaks." The Constitutional protections of our liberties in the Bill of Rights are meant to defend unpopular, even offensive behavior and expression. There is no need to defend conventional behavior and expression.

And tell me, has the nation's embrace of "liberal" Barack Obama constrained the corporate state or made the working poor better off? I am particularly incensed about this because I am working poor. I am making half the hourly wage I could get in a conventional job in my field and am working half time. The jobs simply aren't there. You can't fool me with this 2% CPI crap. I buy my own groceries. My standard of living is dropping by the day. I guess that's because of all those selfish libertarians in positions of power?

There is a lot to be commented on.

I think I threw up a little in my mouth at the idea of him crying over Obama's swearing in. How wonderful that all the racism has been overcome.

He discounts any merit to those that question the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Some people have theorized that a conspiracy took place by guys in caves to attack America. None of which has been proven in a court of law during a trial in which evidence is to be considered by a jury. If you believe an unproven conspiracy took place, you are yourself to be labeled with the nasty pejorative "conspiracy theorist".

I cried too, but for different reasons.

I have to admit getting a little misty when Obama was sworn in as well, though not because of some kooky concept of race equality being achieved or some other egalitarian delusion, but more because I knew that a complete moron (at best) or a loyal marionette (at worst) was going to cause a lot of people a lot of pain. 5 years after the fact, I not only feel vindicated in my initial reaction, but I am often wont to rub it in the faces of everyone I know who supported him and has some degree of buyer's remorse after seeing what he's actually done.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

you should re-title this to

How I Embraced Violence As A Tool For Social Change

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

this

this statement:

"Their saving grace is a complete lack of organizational ability, which is why they are always trying to take over the Republican Party, rather than create a party of their own."

I joined the LP in 1976 (My father was an Ayn Rand fanatic, and I like her fiction) but it was NORML (national organization reform marijuana laws) and the idea that, the war on drugs was made for the boomer generation and the LP was the only way to fight back peacefully, that had me.

It's true that the LP is unorganized. I believe it was designed that way.

What got out of the LP was the nomination of Ron Paul. It upset me because to me, there were libertarians who deserved the nomination. I saw no reason to nominate a Republican. I left the party because of it, and they continue to nominate Republicans.

SO when Ron Paul invited us into the GOP.. I didn't jump. I asked Ron Paul.. begged Ron Paul and Kent Snyder to go Libertarian or Indy (I had been Indy and worked with Ralph Nader for open debates and ballots access)..

I didn't join the GOP until 2011 when Ron paul annouced his second run and I knew he was not going to leave the GOP. I don't regret joining the GOP. Ron Paul was right.. and it was a very good move for many of us former libertarians because the GOP is organized, and if you know Robert's Rules of Order, how committees work (and many do not and that is the biggest problem IMO).. Libertarians never tried to take the GOP until Ron Paul.. and it's been good. Not easy.. it's no cake walk.. it's a good fight, and we are winning.

Now this thing about you being a liberal (not a progressive).. I agree with what Pat Condell says about Liberals, so if you have 7 mins.. check this out.. food for thought for you.

Thank you

Very well written and thoughtful. You brought up many things that i don't like about "libertarians." I remember meeting my first ones after I have my little schpeal to get get elected as a delegate from my precinct. I had just learned about liberty and spoke to that. The lady, husband, and awkward son told me I did a great job, then they started talking shadow govt and 911 stuff. I was totally turned off. I still call myself a libertarian, and I haven't been moved by any other philosophy yet.

Jonny R
Fellow Lover of Liberty

What does liking certain libertarians

have to do with being a libertarian? Surely you wouldn't throw away principles because you didn't like some people in a political party? You think conspiracy people or whatever you want to label them aren't in any other organization or group?

No train to Stockholm.

Many, many reasons.

If you are preaching to the choir, then I agree with you.

But if you are trying to win elections or hearts and minds, how you communicate has nothing to do with losing or keeping principles.

Do you cast pears before swine? Literally, do you? If not, why not?

Do you give your kids water to drink from a fire hose on full blast? If not, why not?

There is a skill to communication. (I know I have my flaws with it for sure.) Either you utilize known manners on how to communicate with people to find those who *WILL* come over to the libertarian (I'm using the small-l "libertarian" word here), or you alienate them.

There will always be the 1-5% of us who can take the firehose full blast, but that leaves the other 95-99% of human beings who cannot. Is it your "principle" to alienate 95%+ of people? How do you expect to win hearts and minds doing that?

Not one time in this story

Does he say what part of the libertarian ideology or philosophy he disagrees with and why, he only goes on to say why he didn't like certain people who associated with the party. Sounds like someone wanting to be in the popular group as opposed to the people who read books during lunch break.

No train to Stockholm.

hmm

hmm