For Libertarianism To Be Taken Seriously ...
- Print print this page
- Discuss 83 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
With the national debt rising, military and entitlement spending skyrocketing, and the state expanding left and right, libertarianism is becoming increasingly popular.
People realize that the state must be scaled back. This is evident in the tea party and in Occupy Wall Street. While neither movement is libertarian, both borrow heavily from libertarian principles.
Unfortunate-ly, this libertarian renaissance may be just as fleeting as the liberal-progressive resurgence of a few years ago. The majority of the public seems not to take libertarianism seriously. By broadening our mindset, we libertarians can appeal to a broader section of the public without compromising our principles.
For one thing, libertarians should embrace environmentalism.
Environmentalists generally think in terms of how government can promote conservation, but this need not be the case. People can do plenty to save the planet without the government’s help — going vegetarian, purchasing carbon offsets, boycotting unsustainable businesses, and buying local manufactures, to name just a few.
We need to do these things and emphatically encourage others, because protecting the environment is important, no matter what your view of government.
Furthermore, the government is itself one of the worst polluters; there are few environmental problems that public policy does not cause or exacerbate. The Pentagon alone uses more oil than Sweden and enough electricity to power 2 million American homes.
Public roads and oil subsidies encourage the use of automobiles, contributing to air pollution and global warming. The nuclear power industry would not exist without massive, continuing subsidies. The government is no friend of the environment.
In addition, we should adopt a more consistent stance on immigration. Though most libertarians support open borders and legalization, a sizable minority wants to “secure the border” and deport all “illegals.”
This is fundamentally inconsistent. One cannot be against government intervention in people’s lives while calling for the government to restrict where people can live. Unless an immigrant is a violent criminal, the state has no business deporting him, regardless of whether he crossed the border legally. Libertarians need to recognize this; those that don’t cannot be considered libertarians.
We also need to warm to labor unions. While many unions — particularly public sector unions — seek government privilege, many others do not.
At its core, libertarianism is about encouraging people to find voluntary, peaceful solutions to their problems. Strikes and boycotts, the quintessential tools of trade unions, embody this mindset as long as they stay nonviolent. Libertarians should embrace unions while steering them away from the state and from violence.
Finally, libertarians need to stop defending big business.
When liberals talk about Walmart’s bad labor practices, Chick fil-A’s homophobia, or Exxon’s disregard for the environment, we often respond, “It’s their business; they have the right to do what they want.” This response is not exactly wrong, but it misses the point. Yes, Chick-fil-A has the right to discriminate against homosexuals; the point is that it shouldn’t.
Moreover, most big businesses benefit from government intervention in the market. Corporations over a certain size almost inevitably have a close relationship to the state. They donate more money to politicians than all other organizations combined, and in turn receive subsidies, favorable regulations and trade protections.
Without so many regulations and subsidies, it would be easier for small businesses to break into the market and outcompete their larger competitors. It is thus entirely appropriate for us to criticize big business.
Rather than alienate the anti-corporate left, we should embrace its opposition to big business but offer boycotts and economic freedom, rather than new regulations, as a solution.
Adopting these changes will serve the libertarian movement in two ways:
— First, it will attract new members. People will see that we are open-minded yet ideologically consistent, will gain respect for our movement, and will take an interest in joining.
— Second, it will allow us to build coalitions with other activist groups. Even if unions, immigrant rights groups, environmentalists and anti-corporate leftists do not become libertarian, they will be far more willing to partner with us on projects where we agree. That support will be invaluable in reining in the state.
Andrew Soboeiro, a Pinecrest High School graduate, is a rising sophomore at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 3 weeks ago
I hold my comments until I can complete my research. Andrew great Saturday I think I have some better answers to the questions your raised on logic issues.
One thing..Chic-Fil-A does not "discriminate" against homosexuals, the CEO does not approve of Gay Marriage, This does not make Chic-Fil-A homophobic in any way.
Ok next post will include agrees and rebuffs!
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Well, that's not really the point. We can debate about Chick-fil-A specifically in private; I shouldn't talk about it here because we aren't supposed to write opinionated things about stories we're covering (I wrote this article months ago, before the Chick-fil-A issue had resurfaced for most people). But the point is that companies have the right to discriminate, but still shouldn't.
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Ok now to my real response, I agree and disagree on some points, many conservatives agree with many of the policies of the libertarian party differing mostly on foriegn policy and not domestic.
So to the points mentioned. Environmentalism, when you hear this word most people instantly think of Green Peace with college age hippies tied to trees somewhere in the middle of a forrest. The GOP has been labeled somehow as ANTI Environment, though Im not sure how one can be anti-environment, the claims made by the left that reps want dirty air and dirty water are absurd, we all want a clean planet, the question is how to we balance between keeping the planet clean and maintaining a steady supply of natural resources which are critical to running our country. I personally maintain that carbon credits are simply a redistribution of wealth propagated by extreme liberal ideology. Buying local is always preferable.
So yes Libertarians could pick up this chant, but I would hope they would define Environmentalism properly and not as a way to keep our country from getting the resources it needs.
As to the Nuclear issue, while I feel you are correct on the subsidies, I also feel that had private energy companies been allowed to build more nuclear power plants that there would not be the need for subsidies, one of the few things the French ever got right was nuclear power. Nuclear is also clean.
As to the car deal, well when Ford can make a electric car that can go 120mph and drive for up to 500 miles without needing a recharge and when that recharge is needed it takes about the same amount of time as it would take to fill up and the gas pump then we will all trade in our ICE cars for these environmentally friendly buggers, though if truth is told those batteries are really nasty.
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 3 weeks ago
I think we have pretty well run circles around the illegal immigration conversation, I still maintain that a sovereign country has the right to regulate immigration as long as the laws do not infringe upon a persons God given human rights.
As to labor unions, there should be no public sector unions at all. As to the private sector unions, no one has ever had a problem with a union when the union actually did what it was supposed to do, defend the rights of the worker, however todays major unions are no longer bodies working for the betterment of the worker, they are political machines whos purpose is to elect politicians who will watch their backs.
As to the big buisness comment, I think the Libertarian party does a pretty good job on this, having said that, sometimes their is a plus to having a larger company. Thats an economics debate that will take way to long to talk about here, maybe next saturday.
What I would love to see the libertarian groups adopt is a better position to the welfare state, also please drop the legalize all drugs routine.
pinewoodnc 9 months, 3 weeks ago
"Unless an immigrant is a violent criminal, the state has no business deporting him, regardless of whether he crossed the border legally."
The problem with that is we need to have some form of immigration policies. This country is gaining rapidly in population and will most likely continue to do so. What if millions of people from every country in the world decided they wanted to live in the US and they could just get on a plane, come into the US and stay forever if they wanted knowing they would not be deported. Also, how would we know if all the people coming into the country were law abiding and not criminals in their own countries? It would be impossible to know that. There is no way this country could support nor is there room for never ending population increases.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@The_Anonymous Profit:
I actually would support alliances with groups like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club to the extent that they don't require more government spending or regulation (and they actually do have initiatives like this, believe it or not).
I would say that protecting the environment is a particularly important goal, and should be pursued even if it complicates the economy and the use of natural resources. I think people need to make tough decisions, and buy sustainably even if it cuts into their pocketbooks. But I would never use the government to force them to do so.
Regarding nuclear energy: I'm sorry, but if the government had invested as much money into solar and wind as it has into nuclear, and over as much time, solar and wind would be the dominant sources of energy right now. You're never going to convince me that a power source that has been kept alive only by the grace of the government is viable.
Well, we discussed immigration. Unless I misunderstood you, our positions are pretty much the same. Correct me if I'm wrong: you want the government to screen for criminals and diseases, but otherwise let everyone through. I've no real objection to this; I certainly don't want to die of cholera or domestic terrorism. But otherwise, keeping immigrants out is both immoral and unhelpful.
I actually don't have a problem with public sector unions. That's a much larger debate than we have time for right here; we can discuss it via email or in person.
What is a reasonable position on the welfare state?
Sorry, not dropping the legalization of drugs. People have a moral right to do what they want as long as they aren't aggressing against others; that includes the use of recreational drugs. I have no desire to use most of those drugs, but I won't have the government forcibly prevent anyone.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@pinewoodnc:
Where do you get this idea that the US is becoming overpopulated? The US is one of the least densely populated nations in the world. The US has 83 people per square mile; by comparison, Mexico has 148, France has 295, China has 363, the UK has 660, Japan has 873, and India has 953. Russia, Australia, and Canada are less densely populated than the US, but unlike the US, most of their frontier is uninhabitable. Overpopulation will never be a problem for the US in the foreseeable future.
As far as the fact that some immigrants may be criminals, you obviously have to screen out those who already have criminal records. Of course, some of them may later become criminals, but that's true of everyone; that doesn't mean we should put the entire population under surveillance!
MikeNC 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Andrew, are you a Libertarian? Diane
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Yes
Thatcher 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Andrew is obviously a very bright young man. Keep studying, and keep an open mind. Best of luck at UNC, and whatever grad school you later select. You will do well. Cheers!
buskwon 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Andrew , what is up with you and ILLEGAL immigrants? Why must you insist they commit a crime other than crossing the border ILLEGALLY before you consider them ILLEGAL? How many more ILLEGAL immigrants do you want to cross the border ILLEGALLY to see who murders or rapes someone?
Jpetracca 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Good article-
However, I think you're confusing libertarianism as a political philosophy and the perception of libertarianism by most Americans. Certainly, most Americans (especially modern liberals) view libertarians as against the environment, against immigrants, and pro-business. The separation, of course, is what libertarianism is all about: personal morality should not dictate state action. And if it does (or should) it should be limited to the smallest geographical areas possible, hence the importance and ingeniousness of federalism. Libertarianism, like other political ideologies, is on a pretty wide spectrum.
Moderate libertarians are very much against corporate statism and most libertarians are pro immigration (although, the focus is normally on expanding legal immigration so that we can have open or close to open borders). From a communications standpoint on environmentalism I agree. Libertarians shouldn't be ashamed of letting people know that government is one of the greatest offenders against the environment. Look at "the tragedy of the commons" for more profound examples.
The goal should not be changing what libertarianism is about but rather finding ways to simplify the often complicated theoretical justifications for libertarianism that can be consumed by the mass market. Essentially, the perception of libertarianism needs to change--not the ideology itself.
I'm also a young libertarian (rising senior at Colgate University). Always good to read about people thinking critically about libertarianism and political philsophy in general. I write a thing or two about libertarianism on my blog - http://blindspotpolitics.wordpress.com/
nothingspecial 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Right on target as usual AP!!
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@buskwon:
Because their violation of immigration laws is not morally wrong. Moving from Tijuana to San Diego is no different than moving from San Diego to New York; it's just that San Diego and New York happen to be in the same tax farm. If someone doesn't have a record of violent crime and isn't carrying deadly diseases, he or she should be let into the country.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants are not murderers or rapists; you can't persecute all illegals for what a small minority do.
@Jpetracca:
I don't view this as changing what libertarianism is about. Indeed, I see this as the logical extension of libertarianism. Even if the government is reigned in, we'll still have problems with the environment, labor relations, and so forth; we shouldn't wait until then to try to solve these problems. We should practice finding peaceful, non-governmental solutions to these problems now.
I agree that many libertarians hold these views and it's a matter of public perception, but we need to be better at making it clear. Libertarians should be more actively involved with environmental groups, unions, and immigrant rights groups. Rather than distancing ourselves from them, we should try to shape them into libertarian organizations.
buskwon 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@ Andrew , I am sorry but I am afraid we are never going to agree on this issue, you said (The vast majority of illegal immigrants are not murderers or rapists; you can't persecute all illegals for what a small minority do.) the fact that they are here ILLEGALLY makes them ILLEGAL. They are breaking the law , I am sorry but you cannot pick and choose what laws you want to abide, (unless your name is Obama:)
JD 9 months, 3 weeks ago
by JD
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@buskwon: Yes, clearly we are never going to agree, as you seem to believe that laws are moral simply because they are laws. I can never respect a position so base.
buskwon 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@Andrew , how about me and you go rob a bank tommorrow then steal a car then drive to california and hold up a bunch of marijuana dispensaries , we can then get stoned (really stoned) and drive to your homeland (Mexico). After all they are just laws .
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@buskwon: Laws must be subservient to morality. Obviously laws against theft are moral as long as they include reasonable definitions of property. Laws restricting movement across borders, whether of people or of goods, are not moral, because it's completely arbitrary to restrict such movement. If the government can tell a Mexican not to live here, it can tell me not to live in Sanford.
Tell me: do you think the Founding Fathers were right to revolt against the British Empire? Because they broke hundreds of laws in doing so. Or did you think it was legal to shoot at British Army soldiers?
Incidentally, I'm not from Mexico; I'm from the US. Not that that matters.
buskwon 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@Andrew , I am not against immigration , I am against ILLEGAL immigration , I am not telling Mexicans they cannot live here , I am simply saying if you want to live here you need to go through the proper channels LEGALLY, If you simply cross the border ILLEGALLY you are slapping the face of all immigrants who came here LEGALLY. If you want to live in America and live the American dream then do so LEGALLY . There is a right way and a wrong way , The wrong way is ILLEGAL.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
You didn't answer the question: is it ever justifiable to break laws that are immoral. If so, then it's just a matter of determining whether American immigration laws are moral (and I'm quite convinced they are not). If not, you apparently hate the Founding Fathers and would like to reinstate the British Empire.
Determining that laws are unjust and then breaking them is exactly how America came to be. The right way is not always legal.
JD 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@Andrew
I enjoy your stories and commentary. If I may, I think Buskwon's point (You didn't answer the question: is it ever justifiable to break laws that are immoral.) to illustrate, is that during the time in US history when slavery was legal, it was morally ok. And thus all the people in the underground railroad were lawbreakers who deserved the full extent of punishment dictated by law. All those escaped slaves were lawbreakers. Everything is ok as long as a law says so. Right Buskwon?
pinewoodnc 9 months, 3 weeks ago
A.S., Hundreds of thousands of immigrants have come to this country legally and did what was necessary to become citizens. If we open our borders and let whomever wishes to come here, we will have no control over who comes into our country. Certainly it would be an insult to the people that have come here legally and did what was required of them to become citizens. Also, you talk about other countries having larger populations which is true, but some are also extremely overpopulated such as India and China. If the US just throws open their doors and lets anyone that wishes to come here come, how long do you think it will be before we are overpopulated? How many people in other countries do you think would come here if they could? Then we would see overpopulation. The people of other countries know our immigration laws. They choose to ignore them which makes what they do illegal. Illegal is illegal.
pinewoodnc 9 months, 3 weeks ago
A.S., what is your definition of immoral? There are many things done today in this country that would be considered immoral. Certainly having laws to govern and control who comes into our country to live is certainly not what I would consider immoral. I don't understand your use of immoral?
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@pinewoodnc:
"Hundreds of thousands of immigrants have come to this country legally and did what was necessary to become citizens"
The injustice is that anyone has to go through the Byzantine immigration system. The fact that some people have navigated it does not justify it. Illegal immigrants have not done anything wrong; they've simply refused to comply with an inane bureaucracy. The fact that some people are subservient enough to comply with it does not change the equation.
India and China are overpopulated not because of immigration, but because of out-of-control birthrates. Immigration actually helps bring birthrates under control. Immigrants send money back home to their families, where it is a great source for development (remittances are far more effective than foreign aid). Economic development lowers birthrates, bringing population under control. Thus allowing more immigration will actually reduce global overpopulation.
The U.S. is nowhere near the point of overpopulation. It simply isn't a reasonable thing to worry about. Your contention is a bit like saying that if we keep driving cars, we'll eventually lose the ability to use our legs. That may be true in the distant future, but for the moment it isn't remotely a problem. The US is not close to facing overpopulation, and most people's legs work fine. Let's worry about real problems.
Yes, illegal is illegal, but illegal is not always wrong. Or do you also want to reinstate the British Empire?
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@pinewoodnc: One of the most basic principles of morality is the non-aggression principle. This holds that it is wrong to initiate the use of violence against someone; violence may only be used in self-defense. It is on the basis of this principle that we can condemn rape, murder, and theft; they are wrong because they involve the initiation of violence.
Removing an immigrant, legal or illegal, from a country clearly requires violence; the process of arresting, detaining, and deporting an immigrant is inherently violent. But the problem is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants have never initiated violence against anyone. Some are muderers or rapists, but the vast majority have not attacked anyone. Thus deporting an immigrant, illegal or legal, is the initiation of violence against that person, and is thus fundamentally immoral.
buskwon 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@ Andrew , earlier you said, (Sorry, not dropping the legalization of drugs. People have a moral right to do what they want as long as they aren't aggressing against others; that includes the use of recreational drugs. I have no desire to use most of those drugs, but I won't have the government forcibly prevent anyone.) If you have no desire to use most of those drugs , what drugs do you have the desire to use and are obviously using. This is 2012 not 1812 , The stakes are much higher and terroism is a real threat , I am sure you will say terrorist do not use the Mexican border but why make it easy for them? I love the founding Fathers but I do not want to start a civil war. We have laws for a reason and they need to be followed. If you do not like the laws start your own revolution and see where that gets you. Oh and by the way you need to pack your muzzle loader with black powder and not refer.
pinewoodnc 9 months, 3 weeks ago
All I can say is that the world you are imagining is not reality. It would be great if everyone did the right thing and was nonviolent and moral. Unfortunately, the world is not that way. All the aggression and wars exemplifies that. Man must have laws to keep from total chaos. If there are laws, then they must be enforced. You may not agree with them, but without them, we will certainly self-destruct.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
"What drugs do you have the desire to use and are obviously using?"
Ad hominem; try again.
Opening the borders could well reduce terrorism, comrade. How many people will want to bomb America if they have relatives living here?
"I love the founding Fathers"
Apparently you hate them, since you seem to believe that their revolution was fundamentally flawed. The Founding Fathers distinguished between what is legal and what is right; you seem to believe they're the same thing. You have nothing in common with them.
"you need to pack your muzzle loader with black powder and not refer."
Ad hominem; try again.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@pinewoodnc:
Actually, the vast majority of people go through their lives without raping or murdering anyone.
At any rate, I wasn't saying it was impossible to abolish violence; I was saying it's wrong to initiate the use of violence. We should oppose aggressive actions by the government, because those actions are ipso facto wrong. Restricting immigration is an act of aggression; it should be opposed.
pinewoodnc 9 months, 3 weeks ago
So you are saying that if a person commits a crime (robbery, assault) then the police (a government agency) should not do whatever is necessary to arrest the perpetrator? Certainly that action would be considered "aggressive" by your standards. If we are attacked (9/11), then we should do nothing to protect ourselves because that would be considered an aggressive action by our government? I don't understand why you consider immigration laws as aggression.
buskwon 9 months, 3 weeks ago
@andrew , Opening the borders could well reduce terrorism, comrade. How many people will want to bomb America if they have relatives living here? , I guess that is what the terrorists were thinking when they ran 2 planes into the world trade center. can you Say SUICIDE, The terrorists don't give a rats ass if they kill family members as long as they can kill some Americans with them .(WAKE UP ANDREW)
WFB 9 months, 3 weeks ago
Libertarianism is just a clever way to convince hippies and disaffected youth to adopt far right economic doctrine.
Smoke weed and have sex with whoever you want, but please don't try to prevent the Invisible Hand from fisting you.
Kennon 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Thanks for the article. Whatever makes you think Libertarianism is not taken seriously? I've been a teen in public office for the last few years--believe me, we're taken seriously.Yes, it's true some alleged libertarians don't know what they're talking about--don't join them!
For info on what people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues arre actually doiing, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization @ http://www.Libertarian-Internationa... ....
Courseaire 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Long live Robin Hood!! Andrew - Good luck at UNC and am looking forward to you growing and maturing. You have a great inquisitive young mind in need of experience.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@pinewoodnc: No, it would not be aggression to arrest someone who commits a violent crime (robbery, murder, etc.) because that person has aggressed against other people, and arresting him or her would be defending society against aggression. Aggression is the INITIATION of the use of violence; it's perfectly acceptable to use violence in self-defense.
Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, have not aggressed against anyone. They simply crossed a border without some bureaucracy's permission. This has not caused physical harm to anyone. It is thus NOT appropriate to use violence against them.
@buskwon: There are always going to be crazies who are willing to blow themselves up to kill other people, but these people will always be a tiny minority. The only way terrorists were able to pull off things like 9/11 was with funding and support from much of the Middle Eastern public. Free trade and open borders would dissolve this kind of support. If Middle Easterners have relatives living in the US, receive remittances from the US, and buy American-made products, Al-Qaeda's recruitment would go through the floor.
I'd also like to point out that the 9/11 terrorists were mostly LEGAL immigrants, meaning that even if current immigration laws were enforced, and all illegal immigrants kept out, 9/11 would still have happened.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@wod101st: "Andrew, you will do well at UNC because you already have the mindset of a liberal socialist"
Wow. Just… wow. I've had people misunderstand me plenty of times, but I don't think I've had anyone take away the exact opposite message from one of my columns before. You really need to work on your reading comprehension, my friend.
Illegal immigrants do not, on the whole, rely on handouts. Some do take more than they give back, but the vast majority are hardworking and earn their keep. Indeed, illegal immigration has been very good for the American economy. It has brought new ideas and skills and has helped reduce inefficiencies in the labor market.
Your contention that illegal immigrants will increase unemployment betrays a lack of even basic economic understanding. Jobs are created by demand, and if you have more people living in a country, you have more demand.
According to the CATO Institute, reducing the number of low-skilled immigrants in the country by 30% would cost the economy $80 billion a year. By contrast, offering these immigrants some form of legal status would add $180 billion a year to the economy. (c.f.- http://www.cato.org/publications/trade-policy-analysis/restriction-or-legalization-measuring-economic-benefits-immigration-reform )
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@Kennon: Well, I think this comment war sort of demonstrates why we're not taken seriously. The left sees us as apologists for big business while the right sees us as drug-addled hippies. Perhaps this area isn't representative, but you can still understand why I might fear it.
At any rate, I wouldn't want libertarianism to be a fad. We should make the movement as consistent and comprehensive as possible to give it maximal staying power.
cantstandya 9 months, 2 weeks ago
When you graduate and have some boots on the ground experience, not thoughts of how it should be, but how to survive with what is, your article is a combination of the many ideas and wishes posted on a daily basis, they fall on deaf ears, wanting the world to be a perfect place is a futile gesture, you are to be commended in your efforts but learn to lower the bar on some of your exspectations. You will also find many you are advocating for will turn their back to you once they achieve their goal, do not be used.
cantstandya 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Would have to ask Andrew if he drives a car, drinks bottled water, or if he ever has used styrophoam cups, plastic garbage bags all of those are bad for our mother earth, being so environmentally concerned you also should look to the sky, our space program has left a mountain of trash flying around up there also. You really should research Ralph Nader he like yourself was full of ideas, many very good ones, yet he was shunned by both political parties for being too honest in his approach, but good luck with your endeavours.
JD 9 months, 2 weeks ago
You really should research Ralph Nader he like yourself was full of ideas, many very good ones.
Cars not blowing up on rear collisions is good indeed. But flint bumpers were so cheap who could blame manufacturers?
MikeNC 9 months, 2 weeks ago
JD: by 1805, Slavery in Northern States had been abolished. I've had a clue as to the concept of Libertarians beliefs. But I was clueless that there are actually two forms of Libertarism. When Chomsky was asked if he would support Ron Paul, he replied, No. So I pose the same question to you Andrew. Diane PS, you quoted Cato and note Cato said Immigrants, not Illegal Immigants.
cantstandya 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@Andrew- have a pretty big jump on you in years, but you are to be commened, matters little if I agree or not with your ideas. What is impressive is that you are thinking into the future, a rarity in some today in your age group.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Yes, I supported Ron Paul. I wrote a column about it: http://www.thepilot.com/news/2012/feb...
The CATO study was about illegal immigrants specifically. The study's conclusion was that offering these immigrants legal status would increase economic production by $180 billion a year; that would be a meaningless statement if in reference to legal immigrants.
Iam 9 months, 2 weeks ago
I agree with cantstandya that wanting the world to be a perfect place is be commended. However, Andrew, don’t lower the bar. Don't sell out. Be flexible. If you find that the Libertarian party is not a viable path, forge another. Keep your ideals but be flexible in how they might be brought to fruition.
I wish you all the best as you continue your studies. Perhaps you’ll still turn up in the Opinion section of the Pilot even after you’ve returned to school? I hope so.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
This doesn't have anything to do with wanting the world to be a perfect place. The purpose of this article is that there's one principle-- non-aggression-- that needs to be applied in the world, but that doesn't mean that all other issues just disappear.
There is no utopia. It doesn't matter how good technology gets, how rich the world becomes, or how moral everyone is, there will always be problems. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve things and apply basic moral principles to the world.
Courseaire 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew - You remind me of Neville Chamberlain. Unfortunately, the world is a violent place and the "non-aggression principle" will not work. The Mid-East people have been fighting for thousands of years and don't have any plans to stop. For your way of thinking, a Utopia is required.
MikeNC 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew: Lots of interesting theories here. May I suggest in the future, reduce your thoughts to just one or two topics. I think it would open up more dialogue and debate.When so many theories are thrown into one column, it means responses get lengthier, more scrolling down and reading and debate gets lost in translation. I called Mr. Nagy a few weeks back, to let him know how much I enjoyed your columns, even though I may not agree with a number of your issues. Many of us, note how intelligent, thought provoking and above all "respectful" you are to those who may disagree with you. Keep up the great work, limit you topic discussion, and you will light up future forums. I see a future Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams in you. Diane
ScottBieser 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Hello Andrew. I've been an advocate for libertarianism for more than 35 years now and I'd say that libertarianism IS now, finally, being taken seriously. It's no fad or flash in the pan, but we do have a long ways to go, of course, before becoming mainstream. So, I'm always happy to see new, bright, young libertarians appearing on the scene.
I have observed that both conservatives and progressives seem to be captives of deep-seated fears of an "evil other" who they're convinced will eat us alive if we don't stomp on them first. For conservatives, the "other" is usually dark-skinned foreigners; for progressives, it's corporate oligarchs. There are dangers from these quarters, of course, but libertarianism offers are more clear-eyed and proportionate view of these and also of the greater danger of statism.
MikeNC 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Scott: "the other" dark skinned foreigners. That line is kind of out there subject to speculation as to if you are inferring bigotry, or if you are simply implying what some view as an out control situation along our SOUTERN border. Could you clarify? I'll go along with the Fear factor. I do fear an expansion of Socialistic idealogy, especially with this current administration. I do fear, organizations such as the EPA, that I feel our out of control. I do fear Unions and Politician cronisim. I do fear a climate within our education system, that advocates Liberalism and demonizes other beliefs. Diane
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@Courseaire: The libertarian case does not rely on some utopian notion that people are inherently nonviolent. It is based on two simple premises: 1) that aggression is immoral, and 2) that people respond to incentives. If you have a system of free trade, open borders, and globalization (which we're certainly moving towards, though it's a slow process), there will be an incentive to not use violence. Few people are going to make war on another country if they rely on trade with and remittances from that country. There will always be exceptions, of course, but as a general rule free trade and open borders make for far better security than any military policy.
"You remind me of Neville Chamberlain." What, exactly, do I have in common with Chamberlain? Am I claiming that we should appease dictators and tyrants? No, I've never said such a thing; this is a completely specious comparison.
The non-aggression principle holds that the initiation of the use of violence is wrong; it says nothing against the use of violence in self-defense. It would be perfectly appropriate for Britain to go to war with the Third Reich, as the Third Reich was attacking Britain. It is not appropriate, on the other hand, for a country to invade another country that hasn't done anything to it (such as the American invasions of Vietnam or of Iraq). It's a very simple distinction, my friend.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@MikeNC: Thank you! As a general rule, I do limit my columns to single topics (indeed, my last column was very specific: the words people use to describe government). But I appreciate the advice, and thank you for your kind words.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@ScottBieser: Well, I certainly hope you're right about libertarianism being taken seriously. Still, I think it's good to shore up the movement and make it as comprehensive as possible while remaining consistent.
I think liberal/progressives and conservatives have the same mentality: if I want something, the government has to procure it for me. Take the issue of job creation. Both liberals and conservatives want the government to give them jobs; they just disagree on how. For liberals, it means the government should create public works projects, essentially laundering money to the unemployed in exchange for "work" no one asked for. For conservatives, it means the government should get rid of all the people who might do the job better or for less money, namely undocumented immigrants. Neither position is any more legitimate; both are based on an entitlement mentality.
Lucius 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Some good points, mostly lame. For example, "Yes, Chick-fil-A has the right to discriminate against homosexuals; the point is that it shouldn’t."
They have the right to discriminate? What is this, a reworking of Jim Crow aimed at gays? The owner of this company has the right to say whatever batsh.. thing comes into his head; but where does his company get the 'right' to refuse service to gays, blacks, Catholics, Muslims or anyone else he may not like? What kind of society are we to have when a business can turn someone away because of their sexual orientation? Wasn’t the civil rights movement the attempt to do away with the widespread discrimination blacks faced? They have the right? Bah!
The libertarian answer to all things is the free market. 'Let the market decide.' So the fundie owner decries gays and people come out of the woodwork to support his crackpottery. So, that worked out pretty well, huh?
Here's another brilliant piece of lameness...."Public roads and oil subsidies encourage the use of automobiles..." No Way!! And what does Mr. 'rising college sophomore' libertarian propose as a substitute for the automobile? Horse and buggy? Hydrogen powered jet packs?
And "Unless an immigrant is a violent criminal, the state has no business deporting him, regardless of whether he crossed the border legally." Really? So, someone who commits the crime of entering this country illegally is of no concern tot he state? Wow.
"When liberals talk about...Exxon’s disregard for the environment, we often respond, 'It’s their business; they have the right to do what they want.' This response is not exactly wrong..." Excuse me, but yes, it is exactly wrong. Exxon's (and big energy's) desecration of the environment across the globe is wrong. Period. They do not have the 'right' to pollute the water and air and land and cause human beings to become sick or die because of their irresponsibility. And it is the purpose of government to REGULATE their operations to insure that human beings can be assured some measure of protection. And, since you advise libertarians to ‘embrace environmentalism,’ this position is utterly self contradictory.
It is impossible to take libertarianism seriously because it is intellectually bankrupt and divided against itself.
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 2 weeks ago
I didnt not get to throw this in last time, I wrote a response, but for some reason my phone didnt submit it,
Andrew, while we agree and disagree on many points, our conversations are always informative and in the spirit of the pursuit of knowledge.
Having said that, on the legalization of drugs, I must say that that is the line, some of you know, some of you dont know, andrrew does not, that I am a recovering drug addict. While I never used many of the drugs we have laws against I had friends who did. Mary Jane is a natural substance, it comes from a plant and while there have been things done to alter the plant and make it more potent, the fact remains it is a plant.
Cocaine, Crack, Meth, PCP, LSD, Acid, Heroine, etc etc are demonstrable substances that should be removed from our planet. Andrew from your perspective you are arguing a valid point, however, until you have experienced what it is like to be addicted to these substances you really have no ground to base this argument on. These substances steal your soul. They destroy the body physically and mentally. Many millions of people across the globe never recover from their effects.
I can relate Green to beer or other substances like that because for the most part people are responsible with them, and while yes you can become addicted to alcohol, it is a far different addiction to say Meth.
So in this instance whether you protest or not, im sorry to say but this stance is morally and logically wrong.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@Lucius: What you are missing is the distinction between saying that something is wrong, and saying that the government should put a stop to it. I agree that discrimination , pollution, and so forth are wrong, but I object to using the government (or any other form of organized violence) to stop them. My answer is the boycott; it can get the job done, and unlike the government, it's moral.
"What do you propose as a substitute for the automobile? Horse and buggy? Hydrogen powered jet packs?" Who was saying this? I never said we should abolish the automobile. What I said is that the government shouldn't subsidize it. It's a very simple distinction, my friend.
You need to learn the difference between a real argument and a strawman.
Yes, the government should leave immigrants alone and deal with real problems. Immigrants, legal or illegal, are on the whole a social and economic benefit to this country. The government's only responsibility is to make the immigration system less Byzantine so they don't have to come here illegally.
cantstandya 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Although the article is composed by such a young man his aspirations of changing the world are to be commended, not in agreement with some of the content but in keeping an open mind will give some thought to some of the subject matter. Illegal immigration is just one of the things that I cannot be moved from my stand on, allowing this to continue is financially unfeasible, the exspense of taking on so many who come here with nothing and end up on our government programs, they have every right to apply for citizanship but only through legal channels, sneaking in accross our borders and then protesting and telling us, not asking, that they will stay no matter what. Being sympathetic to a cause and allowing them to stay is breaking our laws, I think we all should abide by the current laws and if they are changed then so be it, I found Obama's approach un American and self serving when it came to allowing certain illegals to remain here.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@The_AnonymousProfit I enjoy our conversations as well. It's always good to have a debate, and I certainly respect you particularly.
I'm sorry, but I can't justify an expansion of government power against something that is not aggressive. I take your word for it on how terrible these substances are, and like I said I have no desire to use them. But the reality is that no one is forced to start using drugs. I can choose to get high or not just as I can choose to eat meat or not; it's up to me.
Saying that the government needs to "protect" us from drugs is paternalistic; it essentially says that human beings have no ability to be responsible for their own actions. It's also no different from saying that the government needs to protect us from alcohol, tobacco, or unhealthy foods. Either we have the right to make decisions about what we put in our body, or the state needs to regulate our entire healthcare and food systems.
cantstandya 9 months, 2 weeks ago
With the drug use in this country being illegal it has caused more crime than if some were legalized, people are not going to stop their desire to take drugs, they will purchase them somewhere some how, thats where the criminal element comes into play. The largest clientele the drug cartels have is right here in the U.S. with their marijuana trade, most who are going to smoke it are already doing it, it is not the use that causes so much of the problems but the sources they get it from. Many other drugs are far more dangerous and that would be the responsibility of those who care to indulge, if their choice is to take drugs and shorten their life then so be it. We spend so much in funding drug enforcement when in reality it has proven fruitless, just like smoking, you can only quit when you are ready and if not the alternatives are printed on the cigarette pack.
MikeNC 9 months, 2 weeks ago
I should of said "issues" rather than topic. Diane
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
"Illegal immigration is just one of the things that I cannot be moved from my stand on, allowing this to continue is financially unfeasible, the exspense of taking on so many who come here with nothing and end up on our government programs"
Actually, the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not end up on government programs. Some do, of course, but we can't punish the lot of them for the actions of a minority. As the CATO study I cited explains, deporting illegal immigrants would rob the economy of $80 billion a year, while offering them legal status would give the economy $180 billion a year more. Thus we're all better off with the illegal immigrants than without them.
Immigrants, legal or illegal, are a benefit to this country. We should be looking for ways to make it easier for them to enter and obtain citizenship, not deporting those who come illegally.
cantstandya 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew, You obviously have not sat in a waiting room of a doctors office that accepts medicaid, or worked in the construction industry where many end up in, many have documents trouble is they are fraudulent and appear to be legal yet until recent years were never checked very well, so many have received free childbirth after entering this country, many more evade taxes since their documents have to be altered from year to year, although your article is one that covers several issues this is one I feel you are not so well informed on.Statistics are one thing, the reality is that we have allowed this migration to go on without enforcement for so long and now have so many here that they refuse to leave, breaking the laws and demanding them to be changed, not the way it is supposed to work. This is not a racial issue but one of what is legal or not. Your youth has kept some not so favorable responses from being made, overlooked you might say but this site is full of those who think much like you, but this site only reflects a very small number of American citizans, next time you want to see how main stream America feels on immigration you may want to keep your eyes on the WRAL Golo site, there you will get a dose of reality on this subject.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@cantstandya: I'm not interested in whether mainstream Americans want illegal immigration to continue; I'm interested in what actual effects illegal immigrants have on the country. The fact of the matter is that immigrants, legal or otherwise, contribute far more to the economy and to society than they take. The CATO study demonstrates the economic side of this; I haven't even gotten into the social part of it. Take, for example, the fact that American citizens increasingly have to speak Spanish. This is unquestionably a benefit. Not only does it make international travel much easier, but there is evidence that being bilingual makes you more intelligent because it exercises your cognitive skills. The fact of the matter is that illegal immigrants benefit the country. Whether "mainstream America" understands this is a red herring.
Courseaire 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew - Your main source of information seems to be the Cato Institute, a conservative Libertarian organization - hardly an unbiased institution. You need to get out more or expand your source material to encompass all teachings, both liberal & conservative..
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@Courseaire: So do you actually have a problem with CATO's methodology, or are you just criticizing the study because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions?
I actually have done a lot of research on the subject from many different sources. The CATO study is just the most accessible to the general public (i.e.- it's explanations are easy to understand). I'll amass my other sources and post them here.
cantstandya 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew- I find your comments on illegals to be abit bias, for whatever reason that is I could not disagree with you more, when you have completed your education and venture into the real world give yourself the opportunity to serve your country in the military, rub elbows with those who have not had the educational benefits you have been blessed with, then you will have gone full circle and become entitled to comment on what is wrong with this country, as of now you are fortunate to have seen the good side of life, finding fault with very little other than the government, the same government that affords you and others to obtain that education, like it or not even with you, or whoever helps pay your tuition the state and federal government plays a hand in making that possible, it is not yours to give away to any illegals or the undeserving. I find it odd that one of your age is so profoundly supportive of illegals and actually would question your motives, the more you keep up the rebbutlas on this subject the less I find myself interested in your article, starting to sound alittle self serving.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@cantstandya: "when you have completed your education and venture into the real world give yourself the opportunity to serve your country in the military" etc.
This is clean kam. We aren't debating whether I've had as many life experiences as you have (obviously I haven't), we're debating whether illegal immigration is a net benefit or a net cost to American society. The hard data show they are a net benefit; unless you have a legitimate objection to those data, you don't have an argument.
"the more you keep up the rebbutlas on this subject the less I find myself interested in your article"
I don't care whether you're "interested;" I care about the truth. If my rebuttals somehow weaken your opinion of me, so be it. I'm not going to let you post things that are blatantly untrue without a response.
Here are some of the sources that have influenced my thinking that are available online. Obviously it's not exhaustive:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/22/the-immigration-question
http://mises.org/daily/2135
http://archive.mises.org/15171/the-costs-of-immigration/
http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Oh, and there's this: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-26.html
The_AnonymusProfit 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Everything comes down to 1 basic question.
What do you want to do for yourself, and what do you want someone else to do for you.
Once you have honestly answered this question then you can speak on your philosophy.
cantstandya 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew-It seems as if your internship with the Pilot has developed more into a forum for your advocating for the illegal Hispanics, and that is now understandable to me, ethnicity for all of us makes for a strong bond, being Irish I also have problem with our immigration policies, many Irish are denied entry into this country every year, fully immunized and the funds to support themselves,yet they are turned away and made to wait for years, so yes I am a strong opponent of this one "chosen" ethnic group gaining citizanship by illegal means. Enjoy your day in the spotlight that the Pilot has made possible.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@The_AnonymusProfit:
It's very simple: I want to be allowed to make decisions about what I put into my body for myself. The government shouldn't be able to force me not to use those drugs anymore than it should force me not to eat ice cream. I have no desire to use those drugs, but that should be my decision, not some bureaucrat's.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@cantstandya:
"It seems as if your internship with the Pilot has developed more into a forum for your advocating for the illegal Hispanics"
No, my internship at The Pilot is a job. Steve Bouser published my columns years before I worked here. I could always express these opinions.
I'm actually not hispanic, but that's not relevant. I advocate for illegal immigrants because it's the right thing to do. I don't identify any one group that should gain entry (the example I used of people speaking Spanish was meant only to be illustrative). Whether an illegal immigrant is from Latin America, China, India, southern Africa, or Eastern Europe, I am in favor of giving him or her citizenship. It's not an ethnic thing, and you insult my intelligence by insinuating that.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
According to Webster's: "red herring: something that distracts attention from the real issue."
This describes every argument that attacks my age, naiveté, and purported racial bias in favor of hispanics (even though I'm not hispanic). None of it addresses the real issue. I could be the most naive, most racist person in the world and still happen to be right about this.
Make arguments, not sound bites.
cantstandya 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew- It seems as if you and the staff at the Pilot have used this media outlet as a forum for your own personal beliefs, you criticize the government, you advocate for illegals, you just about have displayed a real distaste for many things of todays world, you base your opinions on research that could come from anyone of a number of sources, you just seem to have chosen the ones that suit your agenda, the likelyhood of getting the Pilot to do a rebuttal as to the many reason for not allowing illegals to become citizans is pretty remote, unlike yourself I do not use Hispanics to be illustrative, I use them due to the fact they are the problem, when they have overwhelmed our population by sneaking in like thieves in the night I do have a problem with that. Sort of disappointing to find out that the Pilot pays you to write articles that are so bias and promotes illegals to feel they are welcome no matter how they get here. As far as you being Hispanic that I do not know, names are very deceiving, one thing for certain you have landed in the right location to spread the word, this site is full of those who are in step with your thought, I just am not one of them. And with that said, we really have no more to talk about. But I wish you well, and we all have opinions.
cantstandya 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Her is an idea, secure the borders by using more force, meaning whatever it takes,round up deport any who are illegally in this country, using whatever funds they have of their own to pay for this, have a document verification system that is as fool proof as the paper used for our currency , fine any employers who hires them and have a bounty on exposing those that are not caught by any of the above means, and the next rally held by these illegals should be met with buses escorted by ICE agents who will enforce our laws on the spot, and bring legal action on any who have given them a safe haven to reside in. Refuse medical treatment for those who are pregnant, unless it is deemed a legitimate emergency, after the child is born of illegal parents all should be deported, that is how to deter many from entering illegally, by making the return trip so miserable they will not want to go through it again, treating them as humane as possible but also as the criminals they are. Hope that clears up the solution,pretty basic stuff.
Thatcher 9 months, 2 weeks ago
I said so several days ago, but it bears repeating. Andrew is a very bright young man, who has held his own on this thread without ever being disrespectful. I give him lots of credit. You will do very well in undergrad, and grad school. Best of luck to you. Cheers!
Lucius 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@ Andrew. Well, let's see...I was a Philosophy major at BC and took courses in Logic so I'm pretty clear on what constitutes both an argument and the straw man fallacy. And I did not commit it. Indeed, I'd suggest that by setting up the government as your all purpose bad boy you are in fact using it as the straw man to knock down for whatever purpose you conceive of.
"I never said we should abolish the automobile. What I said is that the government shouldn't subsidize it." And how, pray tell, does the government subsidize my car and truck? I bought them, paid the taxes and insurance and registration fees. Other than its immoral and unjustifiable subsidies to Big Oil, which at most only indirectly affects my ability to drive, how does the gov't subsidize my use of these vehicles? And since the government built the roads we all drive on, and that constitutes a public good, why shouldn't we pay for their maintenance? Should their care be given over to private corporations whose only priority is their bottom line? Or perhaps they should just fall into disrepair? Neither of these makes any sense.
Re: your position that boycotts are effecive. If Big Oil is being subsidized and is polluting the environment and we object to this state of affairs, I'd like to know how the Armerican public can boycot Big Oil. Stop buying gas, plastic goods, oil, etc.? Sorry, but that makes zero sense. Boycotts are short term protests by a minority of committed activists. Big deal. During the civil rights era boycotts were effective because they were aimed at local businesses. But how do we boycott Exxon-Mobile or Monsanto? The idea is ludicrous.
cantstandya 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Being patronized by a few people on a site that prohibits any inflammatory rebuttals is a safe haven, but when one offers up an article that is just shy of being a Libertarianism manifesto. The problem would be the sources of the research, and the wisdom of the one who is interpreting what they read, shutting down our energy usage is a wonderful idea, just who will be the first to walk to work, cook their food over a wood fire, stop bathing to keep our water sources clean, turn off all the computors that are using electric supplied by nuclear power plants, and God forbid the TV, especially during football season. At first I thought the article had some substance but after some later comments realized it was just some youngster banging on a trash to get a pat on the back for what appeared to be community involvement, instead it's some radical who feels the need to be noticed, and the mindset of the Pilot to allow this rambling message to be in print shows a lack of journalist out looking for a real story.
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
For those interested in the benefits of bilingualism, you can find them here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-benefits-of-bilingualism.html?_r=4&src=me&ref=general
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@cantstandya: "And with that said, we really have no more to talk about" Typically, when someone says this, he or she doesn't go on to make two more posts.
Nothing you have said here does anything to further the argument. You just rant about rounding up undocumented immigrants and how you think I'm a lunatic. You're quite good at making ad hominem attacks and asserting your opinions over and over, but have no ability whatsoever to actually make a convincing argument. But what can I expect from you?
@Lucius: You most certainly did strawman me. At no point did I claim we should abolish automobiles; your "horse and buggy" rant is demeaning to both of us.
Subsidies to oil companies and the construction of public roads most certainly are subsidies to car use. I shouldn't even have to explain that, but I will, since you clearly don't get it: cheaper gas and free roads means people can use their cars more easily. Obviously this encourages people to use cars; anyone with even elementary logic can see this.
Boycotts have brought down huge companies many times. The Bank Transfer Day boycotts forced Bank of America (one of the largest companies in the world) to change its policies. GM was brought down in the '30s by a strike (which is essentially a boycott by workers). There's no question boycotts can have a profound effect on the economy if aimed carefully.
@Thatcher: Thank you! Glad to know there are some people left with working cognitive skills.
Thatcher 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew, I would hope, in your future studies, that you would read everything that Milton Friedman ever wrote. Not for me, but for you. You will do well. You have the gift. And you will succeed. Cheers!
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
@Thatcher: Thank you!
CSmithson 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew, Exactly 20 years ago I was a rising sophomore at UNC-CH. I found the political culture there quite interesting, to say the least. Having been employed since the age of 14 and thus having paid taxes since then, I found myself with a much different perspective on taxation and the role of government than the vast majority of fellow students who had yet to really participate in the system.
Libertarians (big or little "L") and Republicans weren't too numerous on campus. If anyone was openly libertarian or Republican, they were not treated too kindly by many of their fellow students either. Still the same?
AndrewSoboeiro 9 months, 2 weeks ago
I mean, pretty much every group is represented. The majority is still liberal, but there are large libertarian and conservative minorities.
Of course, I don't consider libertarians and conservatives/Republicans to be in league. Libertarianism is no closer to conservatism than to liberalism.
cantstandya 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Being a pretentious little nerd with no more exsperience in life than what you are told or have read makes you pretty much a follower, a spineless individual with no thought of your own, we had many like you in the 60's, they burned their draft cards, ran to Canada or off to college, just anything to avoid conflict, you even deny your own ethnic background, you are either adopted or you are Hispanic, there is no getting around it. You have made a name for yourself with the help of a media outlet that sits on the fence whenever they choose to stay out of controversial subject matter, answer to anything that is subject to debate is met with the "Comments No Longer Accepted" , you should fit right in.