...but they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe.
I think this is (slowly) starting to change. There seems to be a weird nexus on the other side between the libertarian right and the populist left. Prison reform is one example. Perhaps a slow acknowledgement that some of the laws governing social policy just don't make sense in the 21st century.
Years ago I remember reading an article claiming that, according to some Pew research poll or another, the most common (maybe not a plurality) political disposition among Americans was socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Unfortunately, neither party caters to this segment. The Democrats are socially liberal and (historically, at least) fiscally liberal; the Republicans tend to be socially conservative and (based on the last couple of decades at least) fiscally batshit crazy liberal, despite having a platform calling for the exact opposite of that.
The libertarians might be the Republicans' salvation, in that many of them actually do resemble the mythical socially liberal/fiscally conservative politicians, at least if you squint hard enough. While I don't agree with them 100%, I would definitely rather have the libertarianish Republicans being the dominant force in the party than theocons, who just seem utterly repugnant to me.
On the other hand, the Democrats could benefit hugely if any disaffected libertarians switch parties. I don't see any more cognitive dissonance between libertarians and Democrats than I do libertarians and Republicans, honestly. For whatever reason people think of the Republican party as being the natural home for people with libertarian tendencies, but that doesn't seem any more set in stone than the South voting solid Democrat.
Most people don't remember this, but the South voted Democrat consistently prior to 1964. When the Democratic party supported the Civil Rights Act, the evangelical voters switched en masse from Democrat to Republican. The evangelicals weren't any more married to the Democrats than the libertarians are to the Republicans, IMO. In both cases, neither party really represents the values that the voting bloc really care about, so their loyalty is more based on expediency than alignment of political principles.
It is important to distinguish between libertarians who are fiscally conservative (spend money on necessities, not foreign wars, etc.), and libertarians like the Koch brothers, for whom libertarianism is a way to get the government off their businesses' backs.
I am still trying to find an "ism" that resembles my views: spend money on roads, borders, police, education, social services, and healthcare; cut spending on the military, drop the second amendment, and step away from being the world police. Oh, and in the next 10-20 years spend about $500b/year on solving global warming. Then leave social issues the hell alone, such that as long as people are not directly harming each other, leave them the hell alone.
Sort of a mix of libertarian (socially liberal, fiscally conservative), with democratic ideas for healthcare (100% covered single payer, very good safety net for poor, unemployed), and the green party's concern for the environment. Oh and find me a politician brave enough to say something about the gun situation in the US.
Maybe, but not tax and spend liberal. I actually want lower taxes via reduced military spending. I don't think the Dems in the US would go for that. Thanks for the perspective.
I think the main issue there is that all of those "positives" you support cost a lot of money to do well...more than would even be saved by knocking off 3/4 of the military budget.
No matter how you cut it, "taxes fund civilization". All of those things you want the nation to fund collectively (and I agree that many things are vastly more efficient to fund collectively) require taxing and then spending said tax revenues.
I'm not disagreeing or trying to be pedantic. I actually agree that there are adjustments that ought to be made to the overall national budget including less expenditure on military infrastructure and elective military campaigns. But I think the whole "but not tax and spend" thing is a cliche at this point because everyone has different priorities and opinions on what counts as "important" and what constitutes wasteful "tax and spend".
> I don't think the Dems in the US would go for that.
Every non-office-holding Democrat I know would go for it. The problem is that it's political suicide to actually suggest it, because most people don't realize how exorbitant our military spending actually is, so voting for a cut means you go on record as anti-military. That's not an easy rap to beat.
It's one of those downsides to democracy. No one has the power to just do it.
Despite Rand Paul being obligated to pay lip service to the traditional Republican base, I think you'll find his positions to be rather in line with the socially liberal fiscally conservative point of view; he gets tarred by the Jeb Bush Karl Rove crowd and then gets hammered from the left by the Barbara Boxer types. In reality he's got a good blend assuming he can overcome the propaganda against him. Of course no candidate is perfect but I would take a libertarian leaning conservative over a nanny state 'liberal' any day. The problem is that the issues that really matter are generally obfuscated by a machine with vested interests in maintaining certain issues that incite deep divisions in the American public.
I think a Hager vs Rand Paul election would be far better than a Hillary v Jeb race that folks seem to be predicting.
I think you are right and have perhaps expanded on what I was alluding to. However, I think calling the libertarian movement the Republicans' salvation might be a mistake. I'm not sure there is a leader within that leadership sect that is not, in fact, batshit crazy on other aspects. From what's available in the media, it seems that a lot of Libertarians place a considerable amount of weight on "personal freedoms" that include really anti-science perspectives like "don't do vaccinations" or "it's okay to legislate the bible in schools". I'm glad you pointed out the fact that the South voted Democrat once upon a time. I think the Civil Rights Act was a prescient event in American Political Discourse, and an event that put what, at the time, was the libertarian wing in the Republican Party on the wrong side of history. In any case, and maybe the point of what I'm saying, is that party dominance on issues is not permanent. It changes over time.
Prison reform, drug policy, foreign policy... there are lots of areas of overlap. But these are groups with who have diametrically opposite views regarding the basis of society. I don't know if and how long they'll be able to work together.
Yeah I'll for sure concede that point about how long they're gonna work together. In some respects, I wonder if the GOP is supporting some of the more populist agendas just to win elections and not necessarily because they actually believe in the principle. I'm just trying to be more of an indeterminate optimist for some issues. But you're right, the point remains.
Abolitionists were once thought of as being on the lunatic fringe. Now we accept their position as philosophically correct. As for libertarians, I entirely agree with those that point out national sovereignty as being inconsistent with humanist values.
However, just because you are philosophically correct, that doesn't mean you aren't part of a lunatic fringe. The differentiating factor is how you interact and propose to interact with society at large.
I think this is (slowly) starting to change. There seems to be a weird nexus on the other side between the libertarian right and the populist left. Prison reform is one example. Perhaps a slow acknowledgement that some of the laws governing social policy just don't make sense in the 21st century.