Did the Tea Party takeover/ruin libertarianism?

Certainly hurt its image.

 

I am back and forth on the economics. Used to really agree with free market; but with current business practices and laws, it's more questionable.

But socially, I am extremely libertarian and only disagree with opening up the borders. (Making them more open is great, making them completely open seems stupid unless other major countries do it as well)

 

Hm, well I wasn't into politics until 9/11; and started out rather conservative.

The main argument for more open borders, in my mind, is restricting the borders seems nearly as successful as restricting guns and drugs.

You have any good ones?

 

Debate over open borders often centers around the immigration debate more than the normal traveler.

 

Yes.

 

If you were to ask me, I'd say that conservatives have tried to infiltrate the TEA party. There are three main factions within the TEA party. The first whom I have little respect for are disenchanted Republicans who subscribe to the agenda set forth by W. et al. These people haven't realized that the policies which they support have done nothing but gotten us into trouble. The second group are what I'd call 'heritage' conservatives and their agenda probably mirrors that of people like Pat Buchanan and groups like the Constitution Party and the John Birch Society. The third group are libertarians, and while they hold some influence, I question how strong it is.

 

i can't see that the tea party influx has done anything more than create more yowling out of 'our elected representatives'. the bullshit is still thick, and nothing is happening. all hat and no cattle from my perspective.

the best i can tell about libertarianism as an overall philosophy is, if it were applied uniformly to all human endeavor, the natural selection of genetics would reoccur. human involvement in natural selection through economics and social tools appears to me to be a disaster, but, as always, time will prove that true or false.

 

This is not good! not good in the slightist.

 

if the tp will apply that philosophy to everyone, i'll sign on. no tax for anyone. if washington wants to get something done, then do like pbs, and beg for it. first, they'll have to have schumer, boehner, pelosi, reed, and some others to pedal a generator to run their station, though. that's a funny image....

or maybe go get a job, not that they have any qualifications to do anything useful.

 

The tea party didn't kill libertarianism, it is still alive and well. But it will never be popular. I laugh at those authoritarian shills who cower and freak out over libertarianism when nobody politically savvy even knows what libertarianism means. They'll always be a bottom feeder just like the rest of the third parties. As long as the status quo is kept up and the establishment never changes, anti libertarians will always have their way.

The tea party was basically hyjacked by the Newt Gingrich neocon right.

It was a good attempt to take the country back, if only they distanced themselves from Gingrich, Bachman, and Palin.

 

All it would take is one Congressperson or Senator for them to be taken seriously on a large scale (even if it was in one of the goofy states).

 

I don't know what to make of the tea party. There is the publicly stated platform, and then there are the members. If the publicly stated platform of reducing federal spending and eliminating government waste echoed what I hear from average tea party supporters, I could go along with it. Unfortunately, what I hear from average supporters seems more often to be a religious, conspiracy, us versus them, angry tone. The actions seem to be aligned with spiteing the other side rather than promoting good for all sides. Perhaps the loudest supporters whom I most often hear are really the fringe members, but some of the public spokesmen and women also make comments that go far beyond the less government/less spending platform.

In that sense, i think the core libertarian beliefs clash with the attitude of the average tea party supporter.

 

the economic part of libertarianism and amnesty go together, and only together. the biggest problem (and only logical problem) people have/would have with open borders is the free government handouts. with economically libertarian policies, there really wouldnt be a reason not to have open borders.

 

Totally open, no... But ALMOST totally, yes.

We could play those who don't treat their citizens well like SUCKERS, if we played the right cards.

 

Yes there would be, you're still talking about a flood of millions of workers coming in at once who would accept much lower wages than the native populace.

 

To have a free market, you have to have equal and free right to contracting, which necessarily requires completely open borders. That certainly eliminates any possibility of any experiments with libertarianism in this century, IMO. I mean, sure, you could do "libertarianism" with closed borders, but when you automatically exclude/inhibit/restrict 98% of the goods, ideas, labor, capital, etc., you can't really stamp an "L" on it.

The teabaggers are in no way different from the mainstream Republican party except that they're more shrill and bitchy. They may stamp their little feet harder, and yell "SOCIALIST!!!" all the time (funny how Bush wasn't "socialist" when he bailed out billionaires, but Obama is "Socialist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" when he watches them pay the taxpayers back.

Republican Teabaggers exist only so republican assholes can vote for other republican assholes and pretend they're not voting for the same republican assholes that crashed the country last time around. They may disagree on whether gays should be summarily executed or merely mocked and discriminated against- or on whether Mexican Americans should be put in prison camps or be given a chance to head for the border first. Or even on which nations, ethnicities, and religions "we" should start wars with next. But for the most part, mainstream Repubs and the nut suckers are one and the same.

 

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to define Libertarianism in a way that all Libertarians would agree to describe it accurately, both clearly and concisely?