To start, we need to understand and define libertarianism. It is the philosophy that thrives off of the individual, and a lack of government interference. In this system, the gov shouldn't tax much, shouldn't control the market, and the gov is not responsible to power beyond protecting citizens with things like police force and courts. We believe the government should stay out of our personal lives and the economy. In America this is by far the most constitutional political philosophy. It's nearly impossible to find a libertarian who isn't also a constitutionalist. This is because the constitution was built to tell the gov what it could do, and therefore it's a strict control over government and a libertarian's dream. Outside of America, libertarian isn't even a real word. Since america has its political names confused, liberal here is like conservative in most other places. From what I understand liberal in the general world usually means free markets, small government, etc. In other words, libertarianism is the american version of what liberal is elsewhere. We are fiscally right-wing, and socially left-wing. We are distant relatives to anarchy, and rivals with just about any far left/right system such as socialism and fascism. For more information on what libertarianism is, I'd recommend looking up an official party site, or research Ron paul. Now on with the myths
Libertarianism = Anarchy
I'll do this one first, since I just defined the philosophy. Sadly some people can't tell a difference between small government and no government. There's a huge difference. In a no gov world, nobody publicly runs something unless its off donations. People have no law enforced rules, just the consequence of action. Libertarians would suggest the world keep a police force, militia, or something for defense purposes and basic laws that preserve the people and rights. Honestly, I don't even know if Anarchy is even a political philosophy. It is a phase. If government falls, it doesn't fix anything. You have nomads who wander and eventually group around a leader or leader movement. This movement wipes out others, and grows until you have a new society and government. How is this libertarianism? This idea that they are the same is false. For those saying that these two are the same thing, I'll just ask them to prove it. They never have been able to. Some will bring up anarcho-libertarianism to justify the myth, but does that really make any sense? You can't have a small government, while having no government. Either you represent liberty and a force to keep that and unify it, or you represent nothing but your survival in a leaderless world.
Libertarians are atheists
This is inherently false. I could just point to myself, as I have a deist leaning philosophy of god, meaning I believe in a great god but not man made dogma or holy texts. However I can see where this myth stems from, and why it may have some small bits of truth. If someone is libertarian, there are 2 things that they probably have in their behavior. They are likely very individual people who don't cope with much unless they've brought it through a test of free thinking and reasoning. Second, they likely have had bad experience with things like government. Now lets say the church, or common religion was the government (as they share some traits) and lets say the libertarians find they haven't agree with what this church has said because it doesn't make any sense when they've reasoned with it. With the church being a frustrating and incompetent figure in this perspective, and the church hands out things that can't be made sense of, what else is the libertarian to do? They either form an opinion on god from their own thoughts and reasoning, or go to another religion to see if they can make sense of it, or announce that they believe in no god. So it makes sense that a majority of libertarians are either atheists, or believe in a minority religion or their own. However, to assume that libertarians are atheists is overgeneralized, and wrong. Pointing again to the leading libertarian figure, Ron Paul actually holds a catholic belief. Because of his religion, he believes that god gave all humans an equal right to freedom and liberty. Consider this myth dust.
Libertarians are conspiracy theorists
Did the government tell you this myth? I knew it! They are out to get us! Joking of course.
Joking aside, this myth is what made me want to make this list. Sadly this is where the nuts are in Ron's fanbase. You'll sadly see "end the zionist control" all over some ron paul videos. It's getting just as annoying to us libertarians as it is to the rest of the sane world. It's no secret that the gov holds secrets. However we've put most of that whole "reveal secrets" thing on the bottom of our list. Being mad at secrets doesn't make you libertarian, and neither does being a loon who shouts "Bush blew up the towers!". Ironically, one of the presidents who fought secrets the hardest was a democrat (Bill clinton). He just resulted in getting papers full of so many black lines that it wouldn't have even have made a fun mad libs game. Also, this guy laughs hard at anti-gov conspiracy theorists, mocking one of the 9/11 truthers at one of his speeches. Politics and conspiracy theories just shouldn't mix, and they really shouldn't be associated with libertarians. Our job is to stop the gov from taxing people and businesses to death, not getting them to admit where they're hidden alien technology is. We do focus hard on getting the federal reserve to stop hiding its spending, but who wouldn't? They're responsible for a lot of America's dept, and its no conspiracy that they're being irresponsible with it. Libertarians aren't conspiracy nuts. We fight for a smaller government for a better life. We aren't the same as those who keep UFOs on their youtube favorites. Those people are just riding on the anti-gov bandwagon, and they're giving us a bad name.
Libertarians are self-ish A-holes who want to kill the poor!
HAHAHA! This is just a joke. If this myth has implanted itself in your head, than you need to take a class on perspectives. This was likely made up from radical socialists or super welfare advocates who think that anything less than the government literally spoon feeding you is a crime. Whether or not welfare should exist is a complete debate that I myself have not made a strong stand on. The right-wing and libertarians view ranges from saying that there should be limited or less welfare, down to the idea that the entire system is theft from the successful people. I don't think anything in this range could be considered selfish, if you're a reasonable person. If there was no welfare, that doesn't make you selfish for supporting it. You can individually choose to donate or help poor people. There have been soup kitchens and free stuff for those who got on the worst side of luck. The idea of no welfare supports the idea that taxing people is theft, and really what else are you going to call it? It's moral to give to the poor. Can you say the same if you were threatened by jail to give to t he poor? That's the debate to it, and if you answered "it's immoral" to the last question, you're likely on the libertarian side of it. It's senseless to sit there and call anti-welfare a selfish position. It proves that one has lost reason, and chooses to only accept their side. Nobody sane wants to kill the poor, but whether or not they can be saved with welfare (and how much of it) is a good question. I don't think calling anybody names is going to solve anything, so I'm shocked that this myth still exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment