Why Liberals Hate Libertarians

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

I get my daily
dose of sarcasm and humor by watching late night shows like The
Daily Show, The Colbert Report and Real Time with
Bill Maher. The Republicans in D.C have provided the writers
of these comedy shows with reams of material to provide America
with its fair share of late-night laughter. Hidden among the usual
targets of Liberal wrath are the vulnerable but principled Libertarians
like Dr. Ron Paul, who are made to look like druggies who want to
sell off America's poor to the "evil corporations." The
treatment that Liberals afford on Libertarians makes me wonder why
Liberals hate Libertarians.

Dr. Paul made
an appearance on Bill Maher's show on Friday March 30th,
2007. When I saw his name on Bill's guest list, I was ecstatic because
no mainstream media body has so far given any coverage (except for
a short mention on the Fox News ticker) to this person who I consider
America's last hope. My fervor was subdued after I realized that
Bill stereotyped Dr. Paul to be just another "Lincoln-hating
pro-corporation thug."

Instead of
talking to Dr. Paul about his positions on the most important issues
facing America, Bill exploited the forum to express his disapproval
of the Libertarian beliefs and policies. Let's not forget that Dr.
Paul is making a run for the White House. Dr. Paul's positions on
issues ranging from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, national security,
border control, government spending and civil liberties mirror those
of majority of Americans. This could have been a great opportunity
for the country to know of a candidate who has been held in the
shadows by the media elites, who could put America back on track
to be what it is all about.

Ironically,
Bill Maher claims himself to be a Libertarian. Smoking pot and bashing
President Bush alone do not make you a Libertarian. It takes strong
convictions and faith in the concept of Liberty to stick to Libertarian
principles in a town like Ancient Rome (that I sometimes refer to
as modern day Washington D.C). Dr. Paul has proven the mettle by
proving his loyalty for Libertarian principles while surviving the
cut-throat D.C atmosphere for over three decades.

On the issue
of Civil War, Dr. Paul gave a very well balanced response as to
why we could have avoided America's bloodiest war. The problem is
that over a century of indoctrination by the federal government's
public education programs have kept the truth from generations of
Americans. Any concerned individual could learn the truth about
Lincoln by reading the works of Thomas DiLorenzo, who is just one
of several generations of scholars who have put scholarly integrity
ahead of career ambitions to keep the truth around for the future
generations to discover.

Abraham Lincoln
is the progenitor of generations of American politicians who have
indulged in needless slaughter and subduing of Individual liberties
to increment the powers of a centralized state. Their crimes are
covered by incentive-driven so-called intellectuals like Dorris
Kearns Goodwin
. Their voices are amplified by the fourth-estate
elites like Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner. When was the last time
we saw Dr.
DiLorenzo
or Dr.
Tom Woods
on national TV. From what I recall, I heard Dorris
Kearns Goodwin just last week on The Daily Show.

Libertarians
have always been the true advocates of the poor and the downtrodden.
Classical
Liberals
, from whom Libertarians have descended, have always
vehemently and unequivocally opposed the state-sponsored oppression
of the minorities in the overwhelmingly white western society. Yet,
Libertarians are made to look like right-wing extremists for not
condoning the gang-rape of the South by Lincoln and his thugs. I
wondered what Dr. Paul's views on the Civil War had to do with his
presidential bid. Was it just another attempt to smear an honest
and compassionate man who has been consistent about his compassion
for human life and freedom?

On the issue
of Global Warming, Dr. Paul responded well by raising the point
that a foreign policy sanctioned by the Oil Companies' lobby may
very well be leading to global warming, if it is for a fact. The
only reason Dr. Paul drew an approval from Bill and applause from
the audience was because he nailed the corporations; even though
for different reasons.

On the issue
of the Walter Reed scandal, Dr. Paul described it as a preview of
what government medicine would look like. For several weeks now,
Bill has claimed on his show that what happened in Walter Reed was
because the services are provided privately and free-markets were
to blame. How could it be a free-market scenario when droves of
veterans seeking health care are forced to avail services from a
taxpayer-funded, government-endorsed, sub-standard service provider?

This is the
problem with government sanctioned "privatization." Privatization
does not mean that the government gets to choose the service-provider.
Privatization means enabling the consumers to choose a service provider.
Privatization leads to the availability of choices and options.
Privatization means that the consumers have the right to accept
of reject. What happened in Walter Reed was a classic example of
how government leaves the consumers with only one choice and that
is the government's choice.

All this brings
us to a very important issue. Why do Liberals hate Libertarians?
Even Liberals like Bill Maher who live under the illusion of being
Libertarians have so much aversion for core Libertarian principles
that they miss no opportunity to spread a misunderstanding of the
philosophy of love, liberty and peace.

Liberals differ
from Libertarians mainly in two aspects: Government and redistribution
of private wealth and autonomy for private enterprise. Government
has always been the tool to promote coerced redistribution of wealth.
Liberals want to take it away from those who managed to generate
some degree of financial security and give it to those who weren't
smart or maybe weren't hard-working enough. Liberals despise private
enterprise because they are uncomfortable with the thought of someone
getting wealthy due to their enterprising attitude.

There is an
old Chinese proverb that goes as follows: "Give me a fish and
you will feed me for a day. Teach me how to fish and you will feed
me for life." Social welfare creates a sense of security that
keeps people from discovering their true potential. There are people
in our society who are comfortable with the thought that they will
be fed, clothed and sheltered no matter what. Such security paralyzes
people's ability to discover their true potential in this land of
opportunities.

Liberals and
pro-big government lobbies have been responsible for the explosion
of the size of our social welfare programs over the last century.
Some did it out of compassion; while others did it out of their
desire to cement the importance of government in our society. Liberals
blame the financially successful for the plight of those who just
failed to find a good reason to find a way out of their miseries.

Libertarians
realized that while not everyone is born with similar entrepreneurial
capabilities, the gifted few can prosper in a free-market atmosphere
and thus create opportunities for those have the will to work hard
and to become a part an economic machine marked by voluntarism.
While Liberals want to use the government to snatch the fish from
the fisherman and give it to the poor, Libertarians have always
taken the initiative to motivate the poor to learn how to fish so
that no one has to part with their hard earned wages, involuntarily.

In spite of
all the differences, Liberals and Libertarians have recently found
a common ground on the issue of war. Libertarians however must be
cautious and must abstain from jumping to the conclusion that Liberals
are for peace. Liberals have been selective about which wars to
support while opposing others. On the contrary, Libertarians must
be credited for being consistent on the issue of war. Libertarians
have always held only one position on war and that is to oppose
all government sanctioned murder and destruction of private property
by men in uniform.

Going back
to the fall of 2005, the Late Harry Brown interviewed Mr. Lew Rockwell
on his radio show. Harry Asked Mr. Rockwell about his appearance
at an anti-war rally. Mr. Rockwell pointed out that even though
there are several differences between Liberals and Libertarians,
Liberals are really good at issues related to civil liberties.

We must not
blindly assume that Liberals have been anti-war all along. Ask a
Liberal of the wars they support and the list would be as follows:
Civil War, Second World War and the recent war in Afghanistan and
so on. Ask a Liberal of the wars they oppose and the list would
be as follows: Vietnam War, the recent war in Iraq and so on?

Would Cindy
Sheehan have grieved for her son had he died in the civil war fighting
for Lincoln or in the Second World War, in the same manner she grieves
for his death in the Iraq war? After all, all three wars were unconstitutional,
built upon fabrications and unfairly forced on the other side. All
three wars led to unprecedented slaughter of innocent civilians
and destruction of private property. All three wars led to unnecessary
suffering. I hardly see any difference between the suffering of
the non-slave owning poor southerners during the Civil Wars and
the impoverished Vietnamese who were the targets of American-made
napalm bombs.

The harsh reality
is that Liberals opposed the Vietnam War and the recent war in Iraq
because of whom they were fought against. The Vietnam War was supposedly
fought against communists. It is no secret that the primary opponents
of the Vietnam War with the exception of true Libertarians were
liberals who were also communist sympathizers. For the Liberals,
the war against the Vietnamese Communists was like a war against
their own brethren.

The war in
Iraq was a war against Saddam Hussein. There has always been an
unprofessed admiration for Saddam Hussein among Liberals. Does anyone
recall Sean
Penn visiting Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war
? Even now,
during media appearances most Liberals admit very reluctantly that
Saddam was an evil man. For a couple of decades, Saddam Hussein
has been the socialist poster boy among the socialist-Liberals.
His terrorizing purges and needless slaughters are easily forgiven
by the American Liberals in the light of his tyrannical rule that
led to the socialization of a country's resources, which led to
wealth redistribution and accumulation of political power in the
fists of the few. Do I smell Soviet Union here?

The only group
of individuals who have a consistent track record of being against
war and slaughter are true Libertarians like Dr. Ron Paul and of
course the earlier leaders of the modern Libertarian movement like
Murray Rothbard and Harry Browne. Libertarianism enables an individual
to see through layers of government propaganda and agenda to realize
that the only true goal of the government is to emerge omnipotent
at the cost of individual liberties and freedom.

While Bill
Maher may have hampered Dr. Ron Paul's potential to reach out to
those who just cannot take anymore of the Republican-Democrat politics,
Dr. Paul's steadfastness for Libertarian principles has strengthened
the resolve of other Libertarians to stick to their guns and be
part of a growing movement for change.

Libertarians
are the biggest threat to the Liberals' socialist dreams. The Libertarian
advocacy for free enterprise and small-government just fails to
tango with the Liberal support for socialized infrastructure and
a tyrannical and powerful centralized government. Libertarians and
Liberals are as different as the two sides of a coin. The seldom
agreements that Libertarians and Liberals ever had were due to the
Liberals' own selfish interests.

The biggest
threat towards Libertarianism is posed by the loonies who claim
to be Libertarians. They taint the message of Libertarianism and
create misunderstandings that keep Libertarianism from being understood
as the solution for a decaying society. Sometimes I wonder if there
is an organized conspiracy against Libertarianism. While Bill Maher
has a hit TV show, neoconservative Neal Boortz who goes around claiming
to be a Libertarian has a well-heard syndicated radio show. All
the while, Dr. Ron Paul got a mention on the Fox News ticker and
a botched appearance on Bill Maher's show; while the great Late
Harry Browne never managed to get on more than a handful of radio
stations.

Among all the
reasons for concern, there is a reason to rejoice and celebrate.
The drums of Libertarianism are ever louder. I remember a few years
ago when I had to give a 5-minute warm-up session to people before
I uttered the word Libertarian. Now, I get straight to the point.
Even though people may tend to disagree with Libertarianism, they
are at least aware of an alternative to the Republican-Democrat
politics. An increasing number of people are discovering Libertarianism.
While Liberals and Conservatives hardly mention of change in their
numbers, I can confidently assert an increase in the ranks of Libertarians
by the day, based on the changing atmosphere that I can judge. Some
of it is due to the failure of the Liberals and the Conservatives
to deliver on their words. The rest is due to the hatred that Liberals
hold for Libertarians, which may be causing people to move towards
the philosophy of compassion and freedom.

April
12, 2007

Sumit
Dahiya [send him mail]
is a student at Florida State University. See his
websit
e, which focuses on south-Asian affairs from a libertarian
point of view.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • Podcasts