First, let me apologize for using "Ron Paul" in a headline for a second time this week. I realize that it’s a cheap traffic driver, like putting cheesecake photos of female celebs on your site.
But the previous time I invoked the nation’s most popular libertarian, a lot of those who were drawn hither by Google expressed puzzlement that I thought the phrase "freewheeling fun" was a hoot when applied to libertarianism.
This still doesn’t quite explain it, but it at least shows that some libertarians are fully aware of the dark, grim, foreboding side of their worldview, which tends to be the one I generally see. I’m cleaning my desk and IN box today, and I run across a copy of The Heartlander, a newsletter put out by The Heartland Institute, which describes itself as "A nonprofit organization devoted to discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems".
The lead article in the latest newsletter is written by the organization’s president, Joseph L. Bast, and it begins:
We all have some friends and acquaintances who seem congenitally to be optimists and others who were born pessimists.
Among libertarians – for whom extremism is never a vice – the
division is especially sharp, and pessimists outnumber optimists by a
wide margin. I know plenty of libertarians who believe we are at the
gates of hell, carried there in a charred handbasket by people whose
names change over time (sometimes “Clinton,” sometimes “Bush”) but who
always walk in the same direction. Are they right?
That’s what I’m talking about. What I usually hear when libertarians speak is the cry of those "who believe we are at the
gates of hell, carried there in a charred handbasket…"
What I don’t hear is the voices of those few (according to Mr. Bast, they are indeed in the minority) sunny optimists among libertarians — although his article is an attempt to foster that attitude. And his list of things to feel good about strike me as mostly unhappy news (such as "President Bush vetoed a proposed expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program"), but then I’m not his intended audience.
I’ll keep my eyes peeled for the next issue of The Heartlander. Maybe I’ll find the "freewheeling fun" of libertarianism in that one.
Related Posts
Having been a party-line libertarian for 15 years I must say that I am more optimistic than ever that this political philosophy is getting increased attention. It does seem a shame that the fight is so difficult especially with the mainstream media but it is probably only feeding the momentum anyway.
So let me say that I see a bright, free, and just future for the United States led by folks who honor the constitution of our great land. Ron Paul for President!
If you think about it, it’s only natural for Libertarians to pessimestic.
The people blindly following the Democratic and Republican parties do not pay that much attention to what’s going on in the world.
They are worried about more important things like how their favorite sports team is doing or what options to order on that new SUV they’ll be buying with their home equity loan.
Libertarians are paying attention, and what they see would make anyone a pessimist.
“freewheeling fun”
Well, libertarians believe:
All drugs should be decriminalized(or at least marijuana and cocaine). Bong full = “freewheeling fun”.
Prostitution should be decriminalized. No more pimps, “women of the night” with healthcare packages and good references = “freewheeling fun”.
Freedom of speech/expression is uncompromisable. Speaking what is on your mind without fear of jail time and/or fines = “freewheeling fun”.
countless more.
It’s not about lower taxes, money is power, the more we as individuals have the more power we retain, the more the government takes from us the more power it usurps. Lots of government power has proven to be disasterous every time on both the left and right ends of the political spectrum. The road to serfdom.
Basically as long as you are not harming another person you should be able to do or say what you want. The more power/control you hand over to a select group of individuals(elected or not) the greater the chance for abuse of power, and the more likely that abuse will be exacted in ways that were never intended by those who handed them that power.
You see increased government control of healthcare as a way to help those who can’t afford healthcare and to keep the healthcare industry in check. Libertarians see increased government control of healthcare as a way intrude on personal medical desicions between a doctor and a patient and as a precursor to any number of horrific unintended consequences(china’s “one child policy”, eugenics, ect), not to mention that government subsidies have a tendency to drive up prices(college tuition being a prime example).
Government control = totalitarianism, not fun.
Personal control = freedom, fun of the possible freewheeling variety.
The “dark, grim, foreboding side” of libertarianism comes from watching a once free country in free fall toward socialism and tyranny. See the nine trillion dollar debt, the three trillion dollar federal budget, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, spying on Americans, and worse to come.
The sunny, optimistic side comes from knowing that people still want to be free. That nothing makes a nation more prosperous, or more livable, than freedom. Ron Paul is tapping into that optimism to attract millions of young people to his campaign.
America can be free again, if we just vote for freedom.
Miranda said it quite well, and John Campbell is also correct? The pessimist sees that we are struggling because of the general public not paying attention and just going along with the status quo. But, the optimist points out that what we want is fun. So, we may not be hopeful that others will agree, but we are not in so much dispair that we give up. Otherwise we could just stop pounding the pavement, blogging, and spreading our ideas. We could stop paying attention just like everyone else. I don’t think we will stop.
Please consider contributing on the 16th of December.
Ron Paul needs the publicity of another big fund raising day.
I’m a veteran of the U.S. Air Force active duty (4yrs) and I currently serve as a traditional guardsman in the Air National Guard. All military personnel upon enlistment take the oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” A vote for Rep. Paul does just that. Ron Paul has my support.
There is an obvious media bias and it is sad. Rep. Paul is the one candidate of the crowd who has substantially differing views and he was not given much of a chance to articulate those views. Much time was given to marginal issues and small differences between other candidates’ positions on the issues. I suspect many special interest groups have much to lose if a President Paul had a chance to use his veto pen. This is reflected in the lack of time given to Rep. Paul.
As an economics major in college, I find his Austrian economics very sound. Check out http://www.mises.org if you find yourself in disagreement. There you can find a library of Austrian Economics E-books and other resources for free.
also the “dark, grim, foreboding” worldview you are speaking of comes forom reality. The goals of libertariansism and the priciples of libertarianism are not “dark, grim, foreboding”. What is “dark, grim, foreboding” is how far we are to acheive those goals. A close look at the Drug War waged by the west for example shows a lot to be grim about concerning our present and possible future. The same could be said about Freedom of speech and economic freedom. I fail to see how pessimism about achieving libertarian goals equates to a “gray, dull, monotonous, seething, dispiriting resentment”.
It’s the failure of libertarians to restrict the growth of the state and the loss of personal freedom that we are pessimistic about, but in no way do we see libertarianism itself as dull and unattractive, libertarianism is the answer to what is dull and unattractive, our present political reality.
It’s funny – I consider myself to be philosophically aligned with the Libertarian view of the world and it would seem from my posting here (for which I do thank Brad for the opportunity) that I would be some sort of curmudgeonly pessimist with a constant scowl… but I don’t think anyone who knows me would see me that way. I spend more time laughing than whining.
I am just passionately opposed to the blatant inefficiencies and corruption of government and the unnecessary control the government has over the personal private lives of the citizens of the United States.
Libertarianism is about personal ethics, accountability, common sense, and freedom… that’s about as positive a message you can find.
Tell you what, the Paul campaign is making an optimist of me–I think it may be springtime for libertarianism. I mean really, when was the last time we saw the word libertarian all over the MSM?? Never 🙂
I’m optimistic because as a career Naval officer and libertarian I can endorse the Constitution and a major party candidate at the same time.
I could be optimistic…but then everyone around me would tell me they are going to go and vote for Guiliani and suddenly I am back to my pessimistic reality. Maybe, just maybe, if for once in my life I started to see our country start to move in a positive direction in regards to national debt and individual freedoms I would retract my feelings and start getting excited about waking up to our current reality. But appearantly there is not overwhelming support for Paul and appearantly people would rather vote for people like Clinton, Guiliani, and Hucklebee. But honestly I think I am a realist. Not a pessimist or a optomist. A realist, and the reality of the situation is that our country kinda sucks…at least from a freedom stand point when compared to the Netherlands…
Its hard to be optimistic when we are entrenching ourselves in a perpetual state of war and dollar has fallen to 800 against gold (anyone have a savings account?).
I am a libertarian who is optimistic in some cases and pessimistic in others. It really depends on the issue, the country, etc. Right now I’m optimistic that things will be better under anybody but Bush.
But I’m also pessimistic when a Right-wing conservative like Paul gets called a libertarian. HE IS NO LIBERTARIAN. He is a conservative. He calls himself a conservative. He has abandoned libertarian views he once held to join in with the immigrant bashing on the Right. He opposes separation of church and state. He has proposed legislation to ban flag burning and make abortion a federal issue by inserting a “conception” clause in the Constitution. Then there are his loony issues that are pure John Birch Society and not libertarian — his obsession about the non-existent North American Union and banking conspiracies.
Hey at least your open to our ideas.. that’s all we can ask of you. 😀 I’ll keep a watch out for your optimistic view of Ron Paul and what he can do for our great country.
When I was young, libertarian concepts seemed righteous. The idea that “the only legitimate function of government is to protect its citizenry against the aggressive acts of others” was pure. True liberty.
As I got older, I learned that there’s a lot more to life (and government) than liberty. Libertarians serve a valuable purpose, but they don’t have viable solutions to the tough questions. Real world extension of libertarian thought breaks down in practice. It’s an ideal, not a solution.
We’re still the freest nation on earth. And we still have the right and power to correct abuse in government. … The pendulum swings left to right as times change. The effects of one president are negated by the next.
And so the sky is always falling, but it never quite does. The wheels turn slowly, and people suffer as a result, but our government works.
“First, let me apologize for using “Ron Paul” in a headline for a second time this week. I realize that it’s a cheap traffic driver…”
Please, Ron Paul supporters, don’t buy into this idiot’s desparate need to “drive traffic” to his website.
You guys are better than this. Let him figure out some other way to be meaningful.
Where do people get the silly idea that you cannot be a “real libertarian” if you want to protect America from illegal aliens crossing our borders?
It is possible be a libertarian and a conservative.
It is possible to be a libertarian and a liberal. After all, most liberals are Classical Liberals. Most liberals today are just socialists who want to elect their dictators.