The Libertarian Divide

There is a huge divide in the libertarian party that is rarely discussed. This unspoken argument continues to weigh down those who are concerned with individual liberties.

The discussion is muddled with semantics, and meaningless labels. The realm of politics has been reduced to theater, and people have been conditioned to accept a diminished level of participation.

The issue of true liberalism is never properly articulated in the public forum. This stems from a general ignorance of classical liberalism verses modern day conservatism.

At this point, it is important to note that language in politics serves little purpose but to confuse, and has generally become ineffective for having a true debate. Genuine debate becomes stifled because of a serious inability to have meaningful conversations where both people involved in the discussion understand each others’ point because the language has been so drastically altered.

There are several different schools of thought in the libertarian realm, and it is most assuredly not an accident that these things are withheld from corporate-controlled media sanitized talking points.

Similar to the variety of Republicans that exist across the conservative spectrum, there are also many shades of libertarian philosophy. The tensions that are prevalent continue to plague the liberty movement mostly from a failure to realize the bigger picture.

Libertarianism appeals to many people across the party lines because of the emphasis on personal freedom, but the idea of true freedom with all its implications is a bitter pill to swallow for most because it suggests little to no government intervention. The real concept of a private citizen has been almost completely removed from the public mind. Domestication, social engineering practices have become the practices of the state to maintain control.

The private citizen ideal is now a foreign principal that few would recognize, and less would understand if it was able to manifest unfettered. In a truly liberal system the people are elevated above the government. The state is not supposed to be some god-like entity with unquestioned psychotic authority, but it is actually an instrument of the people.

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny and when the government fears the people there is liberty.”

The question of sacrificing liberty for security is not some impending decision America is on the verge of making, it has already been decided and it was a slow collective lobotomy orchestrated under the guise of progressiveness.

The real issue that more often than not gets diluted is that it is really about liberty verses tyranny. There’s going to be disagreements about certain issues like abortion, euthanasia, marriage, and drugs, etc.

This may be heresy, but Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy is not the be-all-end-all of libertarianism.

If the public is duped into being defined by these issues at the expense of striving for an overall state of legitimate classical liberalism then the tyrannical control freaks will always win by virtue of their ability to take advantage of people’s good will.

For example if people start saying, Rand Paul is a sell-out because of a stance on a certain issue like immigration and they effectively neglect his long record of liberty-minded policy then that must be examined as a symptom of corporate-controlled media propaganda designed to divide the people and create more in-fighting as a hedge against serious liberty growing at the grass roots level.

Rand Paul gets labeled an “isolationist” all the time, and somehow this term has been morphed to equate with a general sense of detachment from reality, the assumption being that if America ceases to have a policing presence in the world then all the country’s will collapse under the threat of terrorism, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The same liberal democrats that are criticizing Paul for wanting to reform America’s foreign policy were the same “conspiracy theorists” during the Bush years who questioned the legality of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

All in all everyone has to maintain a sense of perspective and refrain from getting locked into this senseless left right debate. Populist candidates like Rand Paul will always be painted as old fashioned racist conspiracy theorists, but the key to decoding the corporate propaganda, which will cleverly appeal to people in a manner that promises to grant more freedom to the people by means of some draconian liberal reform, is to gauge the end goal of the message—does the result of the promise empower the people, or is it simply a more oppressive measure decorated in pretty speeches? It will quickly become clear if the person in question supports liberty or tyranny.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s