Libertarianism is a failed ideology that reached peak cohesiveness under Ron Paul, but even in his day, was still made up of everything from hardcore ancaps to social democrats. It was always the "catch all" party of anyone disillusioned by the two party system that wasn't an outright communist.
I tried to drill into people that A) the party will never go anywhere without a more strictly defined base which made the majority of the decisions, and that B) the party/ideology is HIGHLY susceptible to hijackers and infiltration by bad actors.
The first call was always met by stupid shit like "but we need the numbers" or that centralized power was inherently bad because muh anarchy (why people listen to anarchists, who have literally never managed to run anything remotely resembling a successful nation, is beyond me). Yet we would keep listening to our fringe groups, who were mostly there because they couldn't get their shit together enough to have a party, and we'd end up fractured and ineffectual again, and again, and again.
The second call was met with "Nuh uh!" basically. Would go completely ignored. And when some dipshit would start getting popular, only to have it come out that he was a complete sleezebag who didn't really give two shits about libertarian principles, we just wouldn't talk about it or pretend it didn't happen.
I quit bothering when we decided our presidential candidate should be a corrupt businessman who wanted to somehow turn the US into an isolationist state while simultaneously throwing the border wide open and demolishing anything that remotely resembled protections for blue collar/lower class workers.
You should be wary of anyone that claims to be a libertarian and is involved in politics.
Jinglebanger 0 points 5 months ago
Libertarianism is a failed ideology that reached peak cohesiveness under Ron Paul, but even in his day, was still made up of everything from hardcore ancaps to social democrats. It was always the "catch all" party of anyone disillusioned by the two party system that wasn't an outright communist.
I tried to drill into people that A) the party will never go anywhere without a more strictly defined base which made the majority of the decisions, and that B) the party/ideology is HIGHLY susceptible to hijackers and infiltration by bad actors.
The first call was always met by stupid shit like "but we need the numbers" or that centralized power was inherently bad because muh anarchy (why people listen to anarchists, who have literally never managed to run anything remotely resembling a successful nation, is beyond me). Yet we would keep listening to our fringe groups, who were mostly there because they couldn't get their shit together enough to have a party, and we'd end up fractured and ineffectual again, and again, and again.
The second call was met with "Nuh uh!" basically. Would go completely ignored. And when some dipshit would start getting popular, only to have it come out that he was a complete sleezebag who didn't really give two shits about libertarian principles, we just wouldn't talk about it or pretend it didn't happen.
I quit bothering when we decided our presidential candidate should be a corrupt businessman who wanted to somehow turn the US into an isolationist state while simultaneously throwing the border wide open and demolishing anything that remotely resembled protections for blue collar/lower class workers.
You should be wary of anyone that claims to be a libertarian and is involved in politics.