• Why Liberals Hate Libertarians

    Email Print
    Share


    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
    Share