Libertarians VS Donald Trump & MAGA

This week alone I've been seeing posts from people who at least at 1 point were definitely Libertarians, (like Tom Mullen) as well as people who still are definitely Libertarians, about how they should react and think about what's called, National Conservatism in America (also known as Donald Trump's MAGA movement) that back in the 1930s 1940s in Germany would've been called National Socialism: 

"Is the far-right totalitarian socio-political ideology and practices associated with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP) in Germany.[1][2][3] During Hitler's rise to power in 1930s Europe, it was frequently referred to as Hitler Fascism (German: Hitlerfaschismus) and Hitlerism (German: Hitlerismus). The later related term "neo-Nazism" is applied to other far-right groups with similar ideas which formed after the Second World War and therefore after the Third Reich collapsed.

Nazism is a form of fascism,[4][5][6][7] with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. Its beliefs include support for dictatorship,[3] fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, anti-Slavism,[8] anti-Romani sentiment, scientific racism, white supremacy, Nordicism, social Darwinism, homophobia, ableism, and the use of eugenics. The extreme nationalism of the Nazis originated in pan-Germanism and the ethno-nationalist Völkisch movement which had been a prominent aspect of German ultranationalism since the late 19th century. 

Nazism was strongly influenced by the Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged after Germany's defeat in World War I, from which came the party's underlying "cult of violence".[9] It subscribed to pseudo-scientific theories of a racial hierarchy,[10] identifying ethnic Germans as part of what the Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race.[11] Nazism sought to overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous German society based on racial purity which represented a people's community (Volksgemeinschaft). 

The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum and exclude those whom they deemed either Community Aliens or "inferior" races (Untermenschen)...

From Wikipedia

To give you a quicker, more modern, and simpler definition of what's called National Conservatism today: 

The modern version of what Germany was doing in the 1930s and 40s, is this big government, social culture war, where they want the national government to enforce their way of life onto everyone else in the country, through government force and where the rule of law and Constitution doesn't apply to them. 

And on economic policy, a mixture of national socialism when it comes to tariffs and raising taxes on individuals, private news organizations, and business's, whose politics they don't like. And they combine that with an oligarchic economic policy that's dominated by millionaires and billionaires and leaves the middle class out of the picture. 

This might sound like class warfare to some people. But that's what they impose on anyone who tries to speak out against them. They don't believe in the "free market". I'm not sure they even believe in a private market. They want a national market that's ideologically in bed with the national government. 

So if you are a Libertarian today and you are seeing MAGA people trying to get you on board to what they're doing and they'll pitch that by basically saying: 

"It's the Left and the real Conservatives and Liberals who oppose you and want to interfere with your way of life and obstruct you. The real enemy is the Left, as well as Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Not us. We need to eliminate the Left (at all costs) even if that means using illiberal, anti-conservative, anti-libertarian, policies and practices, to accomplish our goal of eliminating the Left and creating a real free society." 

If you actually are a Libertarian, you might say: 

"No way. Your brand of fascism completely goes against my libertarian ideals. I'm not a Libertarian to take out people I simply disagree with, through government force, or using violence." 

But that's not always the case when it comes to Libertarians and how they view MAGA. From Reason Magazine: 

"His (meaning Donald Trump) appeal to some who use the libertarian label is perplexing, then—except in that he's not Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris is also someone no libertarian could affirmatively wish to be president—except that she's not Trump.

Libertarians should have the courage of their claimed convictions to radically oppose the U.S. government status quo (which in the past eight years has been managed or represented by both Trump and Harris) and feel no obligation to positively affirm that either unlibertarian choice should reign. Not voting or promoting either is an appropriate option. Voting for or promoting Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver is an option as well. 

Even on specific issues that seem to animate the more right-leaning corners of the libertarian world, Trump is either terrible or not clearly exceptional: He ruled as an inflationist and intends to continue to; he has no real concrete ideas for shrinking spending or government's size and reach, and certainly didn't do so in his first term, while vaguely and improbably promising Elon Musk will take care of it in a second; Trump can be expected to expand government spending and control in the name of allegedly pro-worker industrial policy that will likely have no better effect on America's fortunes than past industrial policy efforts... 

From Reason Magazine

And from Libertarian author Yaron Brook: 

"I'm not willing to give up in the name of fighting the Left my liberty over here in order to fight... I have 2 parties over here that are trying to take away my liberty. I get to choose? Maybe you guys over here want to take away less of my liberty than the Left. But I'm not willing to give up any of my liberty. And I'm willing to fight to preserve it. So we should have this discussion and debate and I should be in a position to at least try to convince you to leave me alone. 

Leave the individual to be free to pursue his own life. And don't impose your values on him. And as long as you do that, I don't care what values you pursue, I don't care what traditions you follow, you can follow any traditions you want. As long as you don't force me to follow the traditions that you think are appropriate." 

More from Yaron Brook on this subject: "When National Conservatives Echo Socialists... 

Source:Yaron Brook talking about what's called National Conservatism.

From Yaron Brook

I think Libertarian blogger Tom Mullen had a great line about how Libertarians should try to deal with Donald Trump and MAGA: 

"He's (meaning Donald Trump) like a machine gun on a swivel with no one at the controls, spraying bullets in all directions. Sometimes he hits something you want hit, sometimes he hits something you don't want hit. The key is to applaud the good things, criticize the bad things, and above all know when to duck."

A meme with a related sentiment has been going around that still makes me chuckle when I see it...

Source:Tom Mullen is a Libertarian blogger.

From Tom Mullen

The Libertarian argument against Donald Trump and MAGA, against the American Nationalists, or the Anglo-Saxon-American Nationalists... I think is very simple: he's not 1 of you. And that should explain the other reasons why you shouldn't support him. Sure, he wants lower (if not zero taxation on corporations) and would like to eliminate certain Federal departments and agencies. But, if you are a Libertarian, you also believe in the U.S. Constitution. And you don't want an American dictator in this country being able to do whatever he wants, simply because you like some of the things that he's done. 

And once America has a dictator, he could literally do everything that he wants. Including taking people out (not just the Left) simply for opposing what he's doing. Which could include Libertarians as well. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Bloomberg View: Nick Hanauer & Eric Liu: 'Libertarians Are The New Communists'

Source: Reason Magazine-

Source:Bloomberg View

Nick Hanauer and Eric Liu, argued in Bloomberg View, that "Libertarians, are the new Communists, because both Libertarians and Communists, argue for policies that are doomed to fail." I agree that both lets say anarcho-libertarianism, which is essentially a form of anarchism and communism are doom for failure. Communists, argue for a superstate over the individual. Anarcho-Libertarians, (The New Anarchists) argue for the individual over everything else. They consider arresting suspects of kidnapping, (to use as an example) well as kidnapping. That somehow the police don't have a right to arrest people. And that if someone is kidnapped, is up for them to free themselves, or people to voluntarily help them out. Mainstream Libertarians, believe in law enforcement and even national security, to protect the innocent from predators.

Both communism, or as I prefer Marxism, (jury still out on the definition of communism) and anarcho-libertarianism, are doomed to fail. One would bring total unitarian state domination over all individuals. Because they view individual freedom as dangerous to the state and as purely as the freedom to make mistakes. But lets go over to the other side and anarcho-libertariansm. If you want to know what an anarcho-libertarian state looks like, look at Somalia. Look at Afghanistan certainly ten years ago and still to a certain extent today. Look at Iraq ten years ago. This is what countries look like when they can't, or choose not to govern themselves. But they fail for different reasons and are completely different from one another. One, puts all of its faith in the supremacy of the state over the individual. The other has essentially no real role for a state at all, which leads to chaos.

As an actual Liberal, whether you want to call me a Classical Liberal, or a Real Liberal, I prefer just Liberal, or Liberal Democrat, I have a lot in common with Libertarians and libertarianism. I talk with them on a regular basis and we tend to agree on probably all of the social issues and perhaps 9-10 of the economic issues. It is really just the role of government, especially the Federal Government and America's place in the world, where we tend to disagree. Actual Libertarians, both Conservative Libertarians and Left Libertarians, Social Liberals even, aren't looking to eliminate the state and even all taxation. They simply want to send a lot of this power back to the states and private sector in the areas of social insurance, to use as an example and I agree with them on that. To call Libertarians, "The New Communists", is an insult to Libertarians and even Communists. Because both factions are nothing alike and have nothing in common.
Reason Magazine: Are Libertarians The New Communists?

Liberty.Me: 'Let's Talk- Left-Libertarianism: Sheldon Richman & Walter Block With Lucy Steigerwald'

Source:Liberty.Me- debating left-libertarianism.

"What is libertarianism? Why is there a constant dialogue about left versus right? Are these distinctions useful?

Sheldon Richman and Walter Block explore these ideas.

Pour a glass of wine with Lucy as she navigates the intricacies with these two giants.

Sheldon and Walter continue the debate here:Liberty Me. " 

From Liberty Me

I believe I covered this last week, but a so-called Left-Libertarian is a Social Liberal. Individual freedom, plus social justice. And they have our own definition of social justice and it’s not about collective results and that everyone should have the same. It just means that you have a social insurance system for people who are truly in need. Not to take care of everyone indefinitely, but to help people who are in need get themselves on their own feet. Rand Paul, Gary Johnson and others, are Left-Libertarians. Right-wing compared with Progressives and Socialists, but left-wing compared with classical Libertarians and Conservatives like Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell.

Non-aggression individual freedom. The ability for people to be free to live their own lives. Not to do whatever the hell they want and live in anarchy. But to manage their own personal and economic affairs, as long as they’re not hurting any innocent person. The right to self-defense, but not the right to attack any innocent person. So a Left-Libertarian believes in a limited government and that governmental power should be limited to only what government should be doing that the individual can’t do for themselves. And should be decentralized as much as possible. That you don’t have a big centralized central government, without much responsibility for anyone else.

So to me anyway, a Left-Libertarian is a Conservative. At least in the sense of how conservatism was defined up until the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives came onto the scene in the 1970s. That government should be limited and keep taxes down and with a large private sector. But an insurance system for people who truly need it. Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater himself, fifty-years later and perhaps even back then would be a Left-Libertarian. To the right of FDR Progressives, but to the Left of Ron Reagan and even Ron Paul. Reagan, on social issues and Paul on economic policy and foreign policy.  

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Lew Rockwell Show: John V. Denson- Strategy For Peace

I'm not going to touch the thing that John Denson said implying that Britain, started the war against Germany. That is just the type of thing that you have to listen to when you listen to Lew Rockwell. As well as things like the CIA and Lyndon Johnson assassinated President John Kennedy.

But as far as what this is supposed to be about a Strategy For Peace, looking at it from a Liberal Internationalist perspective the policy for achieving that I believe is fairly simple. Harder to execute and perhaps even harder to get passed. But at risk of quoting Ronald Reagan, you do that by being strong at home. You don't waste tax dollars on the military, but you're strong enough to the point both militarily and economically that another country would be crazy to want to attack you, or attack one of your embassies oversees. Because they know you could either destroy them militarily, take out their current regime, or economically bankrupt you, or a combination of all of those things.

Instead of trying to police the world by yourself, or taking our regimes simply because you don't like them, (2003 Iraq War comes to mind) you work with your allies to keep potentially dangerous, or dangerous regimes at bay and in a box. You work with the people on the ground who you can work with in those states to see if they can knock the current regime out of power. You also incentivize those rogue states to improve their behavior. To not be so authoritarian with their own people. To not invade other states, to not fund terrorists. And you work with your allies so these rogue states don't become so strong that they become such a problem that a military option could never be on the table.

A lesson from the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. Don't attack and invade countries that aren't threats to you. Don't try to fight for people who aren't willing to fight for themselves. Some countries are destined to fail and fall simply because the people there aren't willing to do what it takes to see that their country can succeed, or at least become stable. And that is when you sort of have to let nature take its course. Even if that means a new authoritarian regime that you don't like comes to power there. Like the Communists in Vietnam. We stayed out of Cuba for the most part at least during their civil war and we should've done the same thing in Vietnam and perhaps Korea as well.

Peace is not easy which means it is not easy to achieve. America has its own experience with their own civil war when the Unionists  won the battles and the war. But where the Confederates won the aftermath and whatever peace that both sides were able to achieve. With the brutality that the Confederates were able to get way with against the former African slaves. But you can achieve peace when you don't try to do everything yourself. You play your part and allow and demand that your allies do the same thing. You live by the standards and human rights that you say you want for the rest of the world in your own country. And you're strong enough to make it clear that it would dangerous if not suicidal to try to attack you.

Lew Rockwell: Christopher Cantwell- 'Top Ten Reasons Libertarians Aren't Nice to You'

Source:Hang The Bankers- because the truth, honesty, and free speech, are more important?

"People often complain about libertarians being rude and obnoxious. It’s not nearly as widespread a problem as some would make it out to be, and contrary to popular belief, this did not begin with me. To the extent that it does exist, I have become to many this sort of picture of the asshole libertarian who doesn’t give a shit about your feelings or opinions. So I figured I’d put this list together of why libertarians aren’t nice to you. Even libertarians who are nice to you, I think will get a kick out of it, because despite their outward appearances, they are every bit as frustrated with your statism as we are. Feel free to bookmark it and produce it every time you hear someone make this complaint

From Lew Rockwell 

"Statists often complain about how rude we are. Well, there are reasons for that.Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren't Nice To You:Christopher Cantwell." 

Source:Shane Killian- only Communists and Socialists know how to argue for statism and even they aren't very good at it.

From Shane Killian

Contrary to popular belief (and yes I feel like a geek for saying that) I'm not a Libertarian.  Anyone who doesn't believe that will have all the evidence they need after they read this post.  I know this is shocking and for anyone who is feeling completely overwhelmed feel free to get loaded on their favorite alcoholic beverage or perhaps something illegal to help calm them down. I hear marijuana has now been decriminalized in Maryland. I'm not interested in eliminating the Federal Government, except for perhaps three departments.  Just don't ask Rick Perry which three those are.

There are several reasons that I'm not a Libertarian.

One:  Unlike Alex Jones  I'm sane, don't live in a mental hospital and am not an escaped mental patient.

Two:  I'm not a big enough asshole to be a Libertarian and view everyone who doesn't agree with me  one-hundred percent of the time as a statist or big government lover, as we saw in Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign.

Three:  Referring to number one, I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the United States Government.  We were actually attacked by foreign terrorists, as all of the hard evidence indicates.

Four:  Referring again to one, I don't believe Barack Obama is a foreigner, born in another country. I not only know where Hawaii is but I can find it on a map.  Like ninety-percent or more of the rest of the country I believe Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. His Hawaiian birth certificate is a hell of a big clue, the smoking gun, if you will.

The stereotype of Libertarians is that they are pot addicts who may have done time in prison for non-pot related activities.  They are like from another planet where government doesn't exist and have the idea that because they didn't vote for the administration in power they don't have to follow their laws or rules.

As long as Libertarians are viewed through this stereotype as people who want to destroy government, at least where they live, they'll always be viewed as anarchists or escaped mental patients who don't deserve the keys to a big wheel let alone the keys to the car that governs the nation. But Libertarians aren't interested in political power, right. Just the power to be left alone. So I guess they have no real incentive to change their ways.

Lew Rockwell: Laurence M. Vance: Libertarianism vs. Liberalism vs. Conservatism

Source: Wikipedia-

Source:Lew Rockwell

This is an interesting discussion to have because as a Liberal myself who actually understands liberalism it burns me when I hear people who aren’t Liberals get called Liberals. And I’m think of the MSNBC talk lineup or Far-Left publications like The Nation and many others, Salon and AlterNet would be others. And when I hear liberalism being talked about like it is some big statist ideology that is socialist or communist in nature and even has things in common with what is called Islamism a big government ideology supported by radical Islamists and I’m know that is not liberalism at all.

I’m sure Libertarians get tired with being lumped in with people who are supposed to be Conservatives. Even though they really aren’t that conservative at all and I’m thinking of the Religious-Right and other rightists on the Far-Right. Libertarianism is very different from conservatism even, but similar. And it is sure as hell different from fundamentalist Christianity or the Bible Belters who claim to be real Conservatives. Even though aren’t interested in conserving freedom, but taking the country back to a certain way of life from the 1940s and 50s.

If you are talking about real Conservatives like Barry Goldwater and today Rand Paul they have a lot in common with Libertarians, but not everything. They are not so much interested in eliminating the safety net or welfare state as they are decentralizing it. And getting it out of Washington even though they wouldn’t of created it. Where of course the Classical Libertarian wants to eliminate it all together, Ron Paul comes to mind. And the Conservative Libertarian tends to have things in common with Classical Libertarians on social issues. That this is not the business of the Federal Government.

What separates libertarianism from liberalism and I mean real liberalism not what MSNBC puts up, which is supposed to be liberalism, but actual liberalism, is Liberals do have a role for government in the economy. But a limited role to protect workers and consumers from predators and to help people who can’t for whatever reasons take care of themselves. But also help them get on their two feet so they can take care of themselves instead. And we are much different on foreign policy, but we are very similar on personal issues. Civil liberties and other personal freedom issues.

The main differences between Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals and even Socialists has to do with the role of government in people’s lives. Libertarians would give you the smallest government and Socialists the biggest government. With Conservatives and Liberals somewhere in the middle. But with different roles for government. And if even these governing philosophies are similar, they are different enough where that should be acknowledged as well.
The Film Archives: Ron Paul- What is Libertarianism?

Libertarian Party: The Libertarian Party's 41 Year Campaign to Abolish the Federal Reserve

Source:Real Life Journal

President Richard Nixon, the Federal Reserve and War on Drugs, probably are reasons for the creation of the Libertarian Party in 1971-72. But you could probably go back to the New Deal of the 1930s, the creation of the Federal highway system of the 1950s and the Great Society of the 1960s, as other reasons for the Libertarian Party. The Christian-Right comes about in the mid and late 1970s, the New-Left in the Democratic Party from the late 1960s and 1970s that you see as part of the Green Party today. These are all reasons for why we have a Libertarian Party today. Because there isn't a pure anti-big government party in America between either the Democratic or Republican parties. Both parties have anti-big government factions, but aren't purely anti-big government.

The Republican Party has the Christian-Right, Neoconservatives and even Conservative Republicans who support thinks like Social Security, Medicare and environmental regulations. The Democratic Party has the New-Left, Far-Left really. A combination of Democratic Socialists who want to bring Sweden to America as far as how our economic system looks. And they even have people farther left than that who sound more like Marxists when it comes to free speech in that they don't seem to believe in it. The whole so-called political correctness movement that wants to ban offensive, or critical speech towards groups that they believe are vulnerable. As well as people who want to use government to tell Americans by force what they can eat and drink. Nanny statists on the Far-Left.

These are all reasons for the Libertarian Party today. And I'm not a Libertarian even though I'm completely against big government myself. But whether you're a Libertarian or not at least we have a party in this country that believes in individual freedom completely as a party. They don't have factions, or groups that believe in both economic and personal freedom. But they believe in those things completely as a party. The believe in the U.S. Constitution as a whole and don't just speak about aspects of it that they like as they're trying generally in secret to weaken aspects of the Constitution they don't like, or constantly trying to amend it and strip protections from the Constitution that they disapprove of.

Libertarian Party Conference (1980) Murray Bookchin & Karl Hess

Source:Real Life Journal

I find it interesting that a self-described leftist who has both socialist and anarchist leanings would be at a Libertarian Party conference. But that is exactly what you have in this video with Murray Bookchin speaking at a 1980 Libertarian Party conference. But I guess if you’re a true Libertarian you believe in free thought, free expression and free ideas. Even if they don’t completely agree with your own ideas and views. Murray Bookchin, sounds to me like Noam Chomsky ideologically. Professor Chomsky is a self-described Libertarian Socialist. Which almost sounds like an Oxymoron, but Chomsky takes the libertarian ideas when it comes to social issues and social policy. And is a Democratic Socialist when it comes to economic policy and foreign policy.

The New-Left in America might be a lot further along had they went the Noam Chomsky route when it came to their ideas. Instead of being about big government all the time and everywhere. And today even now questioning whether free speech is a good thing, because it also allows for the opposition to speak freely. With their whole political correctness movement. But instead said say, “that capitalism and private enterprise are risky things. So you need to limit for-profit enterprises and tightly regulate them. While having a big government there to take care of people when they fall through the cracks of the capitalist private enterprise system. But that personal freedom should be vast and for everyone.” Instead of using a big government to try to protect people from themselves.

Had the New-Left in America taken the Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky and even Bernie Sanders route when it came to both economic and social policy, as well as foreign policy, instead of always being about a big state and that individual freedom is always dangerous whether its economic, or personal and that freedom of choice gives people the freedom to make mistakes that government has to pay for, then they would find that they have a lot in common with the Libertarian Party, libertarian movement as a whole, classical Conservatives and even Center-Left Liberals who are the real Liberals. And they would have a lot more support politically in America. Because they wouldn’t sound like Marxist Communists fascist statists.