19 votes

Why so many people are hostile towards limited government and libertarians

Many people are very hostile towards Classical Liberalism and libertarians because the social and economic liberty we desire in this world also has to come with personal responsibility. And many people are naturally terrified of responsibility, of paying their bills, getting food, healthcare, and education for themselves and their children. We all have this in common, we just have to learn that these responsibilities cannot be handed off to politicians who only care about getting elected.

Being Classically Liberal

Comment viewing options

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

I blame the main stream

I blame the main stream media.

...

I think some people aren't so concerned with having to deal with their own responsibilities as much as having to deal with other peoples irresponsibilities. And that might be something that being responsible yourself won't necessarily remedy. While the lack of an FDA might be helpful with fears of dangerous food appeased by free market principles which put companies producing poor quality food out of business when people take responsibility for knowing what they are purchasing, not every issue is as easily dealt with. For example, if someones neighbors are going to start smoking various currently illegal substances upon their legalization, without regard for the people around them, forcing their neighbors and people in public places to breath in those substances, then legalization will always look unappealing to many. In their minds they're voting for whether or not they want their kids breathing that stuff in 2nd hand at the park or in the backyard on a regular basis. There may be other ways to deal with these kinds of worries which aren't necessarily already in place and would accommodate both sides. But when people are as inconsiderate as they often are with cigarette smoke, there will always be that concern with other substances. Smokers would probably argue that it's the responsibility of others to avoid their second hand smoke, but in many cases it's not really possible short of wearing gas masks all the time, and never opening the windows of one's own home. Better property rights might help, where 2nd hand stink damage to clothing and such would be compensated in a simple way. I realize a lot of people here won't like this line of thinking, but one mans liberty is often another mans bondage.

Great post

I would add to his points the public schools have indoctrinated people for 4 generations.

Free Market = Robber Barron's and depressions

State Rights = slavery

The right to bare arms = children being murdered in mass

So people today think that limited government people will cause all of the above, even though we have all of the above in spades with the largest and most tyrannical government in the history of the world.

Public schools are a raging success and that is why politicians love to increase funding for them - the results have exceeded all expectations. And they want the union vote as well.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

Hey, I like the points you made

It's nothing I haven't heard before but I think you presented them really well. I just wanted to encourage you to keep putting the ideas out there if you haven't been already somewhere on the web.

Have you seen Nystrom's new tag for posts "DP Original"? If you write something from scratch, you can tag it with that.

Defend Liberty!

good suggestion. Thank you.

good suggestion. Thank you.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

scawarren's picture

Bump for a good post.

Bump for a good post.

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

second that...

bump

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

bigmikedude's picture

BUMP

BUMP.

My blood boils every time I hear that typical, generationaly embedded, 'give me, give me' expectational phrase:

"The government should..."

And I hear it from almost everyone at some point in a conversation.

My answer is often "No they shouldn't - YOU should."

This is the reason...


Nobody is terrified of the idea of taking care of themselves.

But when you live in a crooked, rigged: "Haves" and "Have NOTs" type of system -- then you are going to need a whole lot more than just good intentions (and the idea of responsibility) in order to compete and survive in such a system.

If the costs of housing, food, healthcare, and education are ridiculously expensive, then what this means is that in order to be "responsible" -- you have to first be rich.

For those born into wealth being "responsible" is quite easy.

But for those born with doodly-squat, then it does not matter how well intended they are about being responsible -- their lives are trapped in a downward spiral (or pointed in that direction). Forget college education, forget competing in the marketplace for jobs, forget decent housing, forget healthcare. All those things cost way too much money.

I am a self-made person. I am very responsible. I paid my way through college all by myself, got good grades, and got a good professional job immediately afterward. During that whole time, I was well aware that I could not afford to fool around in College, or take time off afterward. I had to get as much accomplished in 4 years as possible, and then pursue a real job and career immediately -- while my marketability was at its high point.

But ... I could not have done any of that without State Grants, and one scholarship, and going to a State University -- which at that time had very low (subsidized) tutition (due to cutbacks .. now the tuition is over 20 times higher today!!!). That made it possible for me.

And later on when I got laid off, I could not pay mortage bills and living costs without unemployment benefits. So I would have gone broke, and then lost everything that I had (I would've been totally wiped out, and also at that point totally unemployable). But because I could pay my bills and keep things going, I got another comparable job, and continue to carry on and be a productive citizen because -- the system worked as designed for me. The protections worked.

Now I am Libertarian in most all respects (meaning most all of the subjects and themes that RON paul talks about). But the one area that I dispute is this desire to take away what little protections exist for the little person.

The focus here should be to go after the Big Banks, Wall Street, Big Corporations (and Corporate Welfare), Foreign Aid, Foreign Wars, and the FAT CATS -- that rip off the everybody blind and impoverish the rest of the Country. It's the "too big to fail" crowd -- that are the real irresponsible members of society.

If you listen to Ron Paul closely, this is what he also focuses on. He says quite clearly that he is not interested in taking social security away from people, and cutting off the other benefits.

We live in a time where all the welath in concentrated in the top 1%. And there is no real "middle class" anymore. We are nothing but worker-bees (slaves) trapped within a new, high-tech feudalist system.

The rich make off with all the wealth, and all the money (and get all the Tax Loopholes), and the rest of us are basically slaves -- if we're lucky enough to have a job in the first place.

So why are some Libertarians always going after the working class and the poor, and blaming them? Don't you guys know that the real "welfare queens" are: Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobile, Chase, Lockheed-Martin, General Electric, etc. etc. -?

These are the guys who rig and game the system, and have the least responsibility here..

It's the rich Corporate interests that hoard away all the public money for themselves. The rest of us, are just simply trying to make ends meet in this very, very unbalanced and unfair system.

Leave the poor working-class grunts alone!
Go after the RICH mutha F*ckers!

But, but, the New Deal!

So you support gov't use of violence against certain of your fellow countrymen in certain instances. Got it. If we just elect the right central planner, like you for instance, all we be right with the world. You should avoid the use of the word "libertarian" because you don't seem to understand the meaning of it. RP uses the whole cut warfare before welfare line because most people think the New Deal is as American as Apple pie and have been indoctrinated to love their socialism and think they "earned" it or are somehow naturally entitled to the property of others because they have less. If you listen further or look a little deeper you'll see that RP would have the welfare state on the chopping block as soon as the warfare state is dismantled. It' s a matter of triage and priorities at this point.

Ron Paul


No. What Ron Paul always talks about is cutting the Warfare State, and Foreign Aide, and also Corporate Welfare.

His statement on the social safety net is only that he disagrees with it philosophically, but NOT that he would dismantle it. He is quite clear about that.

He has also talked (generally) about a "transition plan" to bring the younger generation into a choice about whether to have certain entitlements.

Hopefully you can see that this is much different here than just putting everything on the chopping block and turning the poor people into the streets to starve to death. Having a choice means that they could optionally elect to bypass the entitlements, or choose to accept them. So they would continue to exist, but possibly become phased out -- if some alternative approach ("transition plan") were effective.

---

Finally I do not see a contradiction in supporting what is common and good about both Libertarian philosophy and progressive philosophy. In fact, forming a coalition is a wise strategy. Ron Paul often talks about forming coalitions with "liberals" like Dennis Kucinich, and Alan Grayson. Creating a coalition like this will help rid the Country of the rich and criminal business class (i.e., "The Elites") that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton want to protect.

And almost all government systems in the World are some kind of hybrid system to begin with. There has never been a Country that ever existed in which the government did absolutely nothing but just provide an Army.

And any government that would let the Big Business interests run amok -- would never be a successful society anyway (because that's what we have today -- a Country controlled by the wealthy and the powerful business cartels).

The concept of a government by and for the people is not the problem. The problem is that the rich today control it for their own selfish purposes -- and seek to screw everybody else.

One look into Dick Cheney's eyes and you will see what I mean....

It's the Robber Class that must be stopped.

But this demonizing, and trampling on the poor will accomplish absolutely nothing.

Ron Paul supports the welfare state?

News to me. First off, definitions are definitions. Libertarianism means something. When you advocate your willingness to delegate to the gov't the use of violence against those who have more on behalf of those who have less you cannot call yourself a libertarian. A benevolent statist, maybe. Secondly, the freedom to opt out of entitlements or the taxes that pays for them destroys them. They only exist due to the coercive violence used by the State to collect money and then provide benefits. Same thing applies with fiat money and legal tender laws. Thirdly, prior to 1913 in this country there was no central bank, no income tax, no gov't welfare (charity existed as it has for eons), and no massive warfare state ( although wars against native Americans could be considered a form of genocide). Do you imagine that there were hordes of poor folks just dying in the gutters everywhere? Nice fantasy but no record of it in history. All the indoctrination you have accepted about the late 1800s is socialist propaganda. I suggest you read Garet Garrett's "The American Story" for an alternative look at the so-called Gilded Age. Finally, you need to distinguish those who make money providing a good or service to others vs. those who make money via political connections and the welfare state, e.g. Walmart, and the warfare state, e.g., banksters and MIC cronies like Cheney. Otherwise, you're simply promoting envy and class warfare with a solution of more gov't theft and coercion via taxation so that elites cement their power and the rest of the people are equally poor. Exactly like where we are headed today in this country. You are the status quo and you don't even know it.

Here's The Proof


We agree about the evils of the (private) Central Bank -- which is a profiteering system (for the Rothschilds & associated Banksters). But the original subject here was about where the cuts should be -- and where not!.

In the video below, Ron Paul talks about just how he intends to cut the budget (if he were President).

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAPBjmXlkDQ

At 5:53 of this video, Ron Paul in explaining his budget plan says: "I don't cut social security benefits nor health care". (this is a direct quote)

His focus is on the Fat Cats, the overseas spending, department waste, and all the militarism.

And that is my focus too. That was the point made here.

And ...please...the existing system that we have today is the class warfare here -- with the top 1% making all the rules, stealing all the Nation's wealth, and robbing 90% of the population blind (Wall Street, MIC).

Simply put, any society where you have to be rich and wealthy .. just to acquire the minimum skills to be desirable in the marketplace (college degree) is clearly doomed to fail -- and produce poverty. How does anyone but the rich possibly compete? They can't. They're stuck cold (or stuck with crippling debt).

Obviously, you have no clue about how ordinary people of average means even live today..and what hell they have to go through just to make ends meet. The system is stacked totally against them ... in every direction that they look -- while the FAT CATS and the Elites hoard away billions, and even trillions, in profits (using public money in many cases). The Corporate Welfare for the rich is the violent entitlement here.

We live in an Oligarchy.
It's the privileged class that needs to get the cuts.

Violent entitlements? That's a new one...

Your nit-picking over what to cut, what not to cut, who is "rich and wealthy", who is "ordinary and of average means" to quote Rothbard, "obfuscates the true issues" and is typical of the politics of the day. You just think your central planning is best. Fine. Don't ever think outside the paradigm or, god forbid, a world without the Almighty State to dictate winners and losers and violently coerce some for the benefit of others according to the arbitrary and capricious mores of the sociopaths who make it to the top of the bureaucracy by hook and crook. I'll take all the cuts you support first and then continue advocating cutting all welfare. Again, per Rothbard, "There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a “button pusher” who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it."

The truth is more shallow

The media has put into most peoples' minds an image of what the opposition looks like. People have extrapolated that image to include everything they don't like about everything that's ever been said to them. When sheep talk to you, they refuse to see you. They see that image - the epitome of evil that has been built in their mind. And they respond not to what you say, but to that image. Something as logical as fearing personal responsibility certainly never enters most minds.

And often times you can

barely get two words out of your mouth, "Ron Paul", and there goes the knee-jerk epitome of evil response.

Quite disheartening.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Well put, TelFiRE...

..you have aptly described the speck in the eyes of others, all while neglecting the plank in your own (vis 'a vis "anarchists believe in slavery").

Happy Day!

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

The most feared responsibility and how things changed

I address the responsibility issue here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3357155

Being liable for accusations against another has to be the most feared responsibility of all. Being liable for accusations is the only lawful way a court can have subject matter jurisdiction in a case and removes the 'authority' from prosecutors and places all criminal and civil court actions back into the lawful placement of consent of the governed which also ensures that all elements of lawful agency to the People is maintained. Unfortunately people's fear of liability is exactly why the unlawful 14th amendment still stands as 'law' but most people are so afraid of liability they won't even take responsibility of their own knowledge of law which in turn enables the criminal conspiracy of the BAR to shape law into the mess we have today.

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...

don't take it personally

modern liberals are generally hostile towards everyone, even those they share values with.

they've bought in to the lie that the average person in their places of business, education and recreation are a threat to them versus our tyrannical centralized government, which is the actual threat.

George Bernard Shaw put it more succinctly:

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...