Did the Tea Party takeover/ruin libertarianism?

I don’t think libertarianism can be described in such a way that all libertarians would agree with it.

There are many shades and types of libertarianism just as there are many different types of Socialism or Christianity.

Such terms can be useful to give someone the ballpark but usually they need a bit more description to give a better indication of what type of ball game they’re playing and how they play it.

I think you can only get a handle on people’s views by talking with them – for example I’d say Indie was a right wing libertarian with a certain measure of Social Darwinist ideas. I’ve come to this conclusion from debating with him in a number of threads, because of his views on government, economics, his preferred social models and his views on letting the weak die.

 

I think there was (and still is) a strong right wing libertarian impetus to the tea party movement. But in a lot of ways it has attracted other more conservative (small c) and even religious factions that water down the right wing libertarian message.

I asked back in 2008 who might be the successors to the neo-con faction in the Republican Party.

Neo-cons fall, who’ll rise on the right?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=333692&f=36

I thought it would be the right wing libertarians because they could genuinely say they opposed (from the right) many of the unpopular measures of the neo-con faction that hadn’t been opposed (or not much) by many other right wing factions (such as the religious right and small c conservatives).

So I wasn’t surprised when the original tea party seemed to have a strong right wing libertarian feel

The tea party manifesto
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=391334

What has surprised me is how quickly the other right wing factions have been able to hid within it without getting their support of those disliked neo-con policies being thrown back at them.

I think this is because much of the right wing media have tried to portray this as a ‘re-boot’ of the right, a new beginning that doesn’t have any baggage from before, which in my view is complete hogwash.

 

When it's all said and done it is my contention that the MSM and Repubs both think the TEA Party folks started the party so that the Republicans could turn it into something of their own. It is my view they could not be further from the truth. And to that end both MSM and Repubs might want to check out the meaning of the word TRUTH in a dictionary.
TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. Both Repubs and Democrats have come up with new taxes for Americans over the years while special interest groups skipped to the banks giggling all the way because some of these taxes were not incurred by Big Business.

And for those of you NOT paying Attention, while the Tea Party is rather huge there is NO national phone number to call. There is NO national chairman or chairwoman. There is NO treasurer to send donations to. Why??? Because the Tea Party is a GRASS ROOTS effort. That's one of the things I really like about the Tea Party. I've never been to a Tea Party gathering or protest, shame on me. But official or not I consider myself a Tea Party Member. Those folks are right up my alley in their thinking. And I am NOT a Republican. Hoooaah!!

 

7point

But the problem is what does the ‘tea party’ stand for?

You mention one thing that “TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already” but what does that actually mean in policy terms?

As I said in the thread - The tea party manifesto
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=391334

I haven’t found one tea party member who seemed willing or able to explain what their ideas were.

A group of people braying for lower taxes is not a political movement it is a mob.

 

Me neither. I always get the "it's a grass roots thing, man" line which tells me about as much as it does hippie ideas to bring about world peace.

 

i want my medicare, but i don't want you to have single-payer healthcare, and i don't want any of it to be paid for by taxing millionaires or corporations



i think that about covers it . . .

 

here's one of my policy positions...

the kind of school buildings built here in the last 30 years are NOT necessary to education. a steel building with sprayed in insulation, plain desks-even government surplus furniture, and a sign out front like they have at the valero gas station would result in the same education. this would also leave money for some other 'essentials', like light, heat and security.

computers, led flashing signs with social messages, large brick buildings, huge gymansiums and sports programs are not, despite what all the breeders want, essential to a child learning how to write, use mathematics and learn logic.

i'm taxed to the tits. someone said to me the other day 'i work until june 28th to pay all my taxes'. then i see county employees here driving over the speed limit, teachers whining about layoffs...goddam government officials riding around in fancy cars with a driver and staff. go to your county offices and see...they've got shit there you don't have at home. so do the school administrators. a good portion of the people in this country go to the schools for 'whatever', and the school is way upscale to their home.

and we still have people who are sick and get little or poor care...people who are eating very lousy food in this country. insane. the schools are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

i'm a member of the TTTT party.

 

^^^ agree and yet . . .

the tea party argument is small gov vs large gov

whereas i think it should be good gov vs bad gov

besides, truly good government should shrink on its own, once the "incentives" [read "corruption"] have been removed . . .

 

Well the Tea Party was started in 08' because of Ron Paul. It flourished for a short time. Then, it was hijacked by neo-cons. That is what happened my friends.

 

I think that might be a good analogy. The TEA Party started as a result of regular folks...possibly NOT liberals or democrats but rather folks that might actually work for a living at REAL JOBS sick and tired of the then current status quo.

Fast forward 2 or 3 years and Republicans tried to hijack the Tea Party for their own perverse goals. If I was a Tea Party type I wouldn't want ANY old guard Repubs anywhere near it for fear they would fuck it up.

I can't describe the Tea Party better than that. If that ain't good enuf go get a frontal lobotomy then come back and ask me.:beatdeadhorse5:

 

Libertarianism is the belief that an individual has the right to life, liberty and property and that the government's duty is to protect the individual so long as his/her actions don't harm another. To be blunt, the government has not business being in your bedroom than it has being in your wallet!

People should be allowed to start businesses if they so desire. What businesses must do is compete on a level playing field with everyone else. There should be no special favors in the form of corporate welfare! Corporate welfare is something that takes may different forms. It doesn't just have to involve money! It can involve lobbying the government to pass laws which favor one company over another; for example!

Many people mistakenly believe that big business and big government are adversarial of each other when in fact, the two go hand-in-hand! They need each other! The vision that Ronald Reagan had for this country was NOT how a true 'free market' operates!

 

That's true; that's true; now, against Keynsian cycles you must spend. And the free market will get everyone to spend bitterly at the gas pump. SOme livelihoods will take over the buy-out of all business's and the government will have to impose stiff fines on all the Lackies who don't work and merely "ride the gravy train". General transportation business; the general energy business, the general public medium business, and the general library information business.


Did I see you on the bus today?

 

That sounds like a good foundation upon which a 'good' government should be built.

It's beginning to get more complicated now. When we start talking of 'level playing fields' we are likely to have great difficulty in achieving agreement as to how government should be involved or if government should be involved, and in what ways.

Does big business really 'need' big government? Big government does indeed 'need' big money to operate, but in what way does big business depend on big government, or government at all? I've always found business, both large and small, to depend on the consumer, or customer base, in association with a desirable product or service.

If nothing else Reagan pointed out one extremely pertinent fact, and that being that government is not the solution to our problems, but government IS the problem.

Are any here truly Libertarians?

 

People are a product of there environment. Now do you see the problem you stupid humans

 

Reagan talked a good game; but when it came to 'delivering the goods', he fell short. Under his regime, you saw an increase - not decrease - in corporate welfare, encroachments on civil liberties increased, our military became involved in conflicts that were questionable and while in some what we prospered, we also regressed.

With regard to corporate welfare, big business relies on government to pass laws and regulations so as to protect its position in a given market and prevent competition from encroachment. In order to enforce the regulations, more government agencies need to be created thereby increasing the size of government. For instance, when the oil companies lobby to protect their industry, they set up laws that prevent other forms of energy (wind, solar, hemp, etc.) form being produced, but in the process, additional government agencies are needed to see to it that the laws that the corporation worked to create are enforced.

 

Are you trying to say that government is the solution, not the problem?

 

Yeah, there's nothing libertarian about the tea party - I don't think anyone could deny that it was hijacked in its infancy by the GOP. Now it's become just another batshit crazy right wing (far right wing) isolationist, xenophobic, racist, Neo-McCarthyistic branch of the GOP - and it's certainly hurt them in the eyes of "moderates" (a species of unicorn?) whatever the hell that means (and it makes me smile, smile, smile).

 

No they are just the dark side to it in the end they make us appreciate the good side of it

 

No, quite the opposite! What I'm trying to say is that Reagan talked a good game when it came to talking about free markets and so forth, but when it came down to 'delivering the goods', he fell short. Moreover corporate welfare, which is not a free market activity, increased not decreased under Reagan!

 

Then we do agree that what Reagan said was true? And if so, should we not put our efforts toward acting upon his words rather than denigrate the messenger?