Why is the GOP establishment so anti-libertarian in their policy?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Just look at how Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul himself were treated in 2012 by the party as a whole. Look how Rand is being treated once again by the GOP establishment and FOX news. Don't they know that treating libertarian Republicans like outcasts is just harming them going forward, especially since most new Republicans are libertarian or libertarian leaning?

[Indy Texas]

Libertarianism is an affront to all three of the legs that make up the GOP stool.

SoCons don't like them for their live-and-let-live social views on marijuana. On gay marriage, "let the states decide" isn't doctrinaire enough and actually being pro-SSM is a total nonstarter.

Hawks and neocons don't like them for being skeptical of an aggressive, large military and an interventionist foreign policy.

The business wing doesn't like them when they try to end "socialism" and redistribution that benefits the rich.

About the only thing the GOP establishment is okay with regarding the libertarians is their opposition to gun control.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I'm a non-libertarian Republican, and I think that the two ideologies have a lot in common, but that does not mean that a Conservative might as well be a Libertarian and vice versa.  I support an interventionalist foreign policy when necessary, believe that certain programs are necessary for national security, and think that the government does have a role in enforcing a certain moral code (i.e. not being able to kill unborn children), which puts me at odds with the Libertarian wing of our party.

[ElectionsGuy]

Small government, non-crony capitalism, and non-interventionism doesn't benefit their wealthy elite of business interests and defense contractors which fund them.

[RFayette]

Because the GOP is still the pro business party and now the pro-war party. Libertarians are a threat to the relationship between businesses and the state, along with the Military Industrial Complex

This is why there's a lot of overlap between "Constitutional conservatives" and "libertarians" as they have more common ground.

Libertarianism is a very hard philosophy to implement because there's no "big interest" vested in its success, apart from the Koch brothers, I suppose.

As a moderate libertarian, my viewpoints don't fit into any "segment" of either the GOP or the Dems; at this point, Rand and Kasich are probably the closest to my views, along with Jim Webb.

[retromike22]

This is a good topic but I think it should be moved to the U.S. General Discussion Board.

[YaBoyNY]

I'm a non-libertarian Republican, and I think that the two ideologies have a lot in common, but that does not mean that a Conservative might as well be a Libertarian and vice versa.  I support an interventionalist foreign policy when necessary, believe that certain programs are necessary for national security, and think that the government does have a role in enforcing a certain moral code (i.e. not being able to kill unborn children), which puts me at odds with the Libertarian wing of our party.

Republicans who are on the wrong side of things never fail to amuse me with such gems as trying to make abortion out to be murder.

Anyway, it's because Libertarianism is something you grow out of once you're older than 18.

[Free Bird]

I'm a non-libertarian Republican, and I think that the two ideologies have a lot in common, but that does not mean that a Conservative might as well be a Libertarian and vice versa.  I support an interventionalist foreign policy when necessary, believe that certain programs are necessary for national security, and think that the government does have a role in enforcing a certain moral code (i.e. not being able to kill unborn children), which puts me at odds with the Libertarian wing of our party.

Republicans who are on the wrong side of things never fail to amuse me with such gems as trying to make abortion out to be murder.

Anyway, it's because Libertarianism is something you grow out of once you're older than 18.

What else is killing a fully developed fetus?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Because the GOP isn't a libertarian party. Next question.

[Lief 🗽]

No one really takes libertarianism seriously outside of college campuses and the internet, and for good reason.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I thought libertarianism was one of the 3 legs of the stool.

Small government conservatives.
Social conservatives.
Military conservatives.

[Samantha]

Political parties don't actually represent ideologies, the represent special interests. The establishment within both major parties are the vanguard of those interests. The largest interests of the Republican Party are large corporations and the defense industry, neither of which would benefit from libertarian reforms.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Libertarianism is an affront to all three of the legs that make up the GOP stool.

SoCons don't like them for their live-and-let-live social views on marijuana. On gay marriage, "let the states decide" isn't doctrinaire enough and actually being pro-SSM is a total nonstarter.

Hawks and neocons don't like them for being skeptical of an aggressive, large military and an interventionist foreign policy.

The business wing doesn't like them when they try to end "socialism" and redistribution that benefits the rich.

About the only thing the GOP establishment is okay with regarding the libertarians is their opposition to gun control.

What he said.  Especially the highlighted part.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I thought libertarianism was one of the 3 legs of the stool.

Small government conservatives.
Social conservatives.
Military conservatives.

It is. It's actually a 4 legged stool as opposed to three.

[Leinad]

I'm a non-libertarian Republican, and I think that the two ideologies have a lot in common, but that does not mean that a Conservative might as well be a Libertarian and vice versa.  I support an interventionalist foreign policy when necessary, believe that certain programs are necessary for national security, and think that the government does have a role in enforcing a certain moral code (i.e. not being able to kill unborn children), which puts me at odds with the Libertarian wing of our party.

Republicans who are on the wrong side of things never fail to amuse me with such gems as trying to make abortion out to be murder.

Anyway, it's because Libertarianism is something you grow out of once you're older than 18.

Abortion is about whether the fetus is a life or not. If it is, it's technically murder and should be illegal. If it isn't, go right ahead. What irritates me is conservatives who also oppose birth control and sex-ed.

It's also not an issue only the religious right oppose, and the "pro-life" (both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are terribly loaded terms, by the way) movement hurts themselves by emphasizing the religious aspect of it.

But in general, I'm quite socially liberal. I'm in favor of legalizing all of these "victimless crimes" that conservatives think we need to restrict--anything where the only "victim" is the one making the voluntary choice to do this. This includes drugs, gambling, prostitution, et cetera. I'm also in favor of letting anyone marry anyone (with consent, of course), if we let the government stay in marriage to begin with.

----

Now, to your second part, which I'm actually more eager to rebuke.

How come libertarianism is considered a childish philosophy? It's in fact the simplest and, if I do say so myself, most logical mainstream political philosophy there is. Limited government. That's it. We mostly agree with liberals on social issues, often taking it further, and we mostly agree with conservatives on economic issues, again often taking it further in favor of limiting the role of government. We also have a non-interventionist foreign policy--again, this ties in to limiting the role of government.

It's a simple ideology, and just as valid as liberalism and conservatism. Is it more theoretical than practical? Yes, because we've never been given a chance to run the country due to the inefficient voting system. But it's still valid, and it makes as much sense as others. It's not contradictory, and it's well-defined along all issues.

To us, liberty is a more important value than enforced "equality" or enforced "morality," and the best way to achieve liberty is through reducing the influence of the government. I'm baffled that people think this is such a crazy thought.

[Samantha]

I'm a non-libertarian Republican, and I think that the two ideologies have a lot in common, but that does not mean that a Conservative might as well be a Libertarian and vice versa.  I support an interventionalist foreign policy when necessary, believe that certain programs are necessary for national security, and think that the government does have a role in enforcing a certain moral code (i.e. not being able to kill unborn children), which puts me at odds with the Libertarian wing of our party.

Republicans who are on the wrong side of things never fail to amuse me with such gems as trying to make abortion out to be murder.

Anyway, it's because Libertarianism is something you grow out of once you're older than 18.

Now, to your second part, which I'm actually more eager to rebuke.

How come libertarianism is considered a childish philosophy? It's in fact the simplest and, if I do say so myself, most logical mainstream political philosophy there is. Limited government. That's it. We mostly agree with liberals on social issues, often taking it further, and we mostly agree with conservatives on economic issues, again often taking it further in favor of limiting the role of government. We also have a non-interventionist foreign policy--again, this ties in to limiting the role of government.

It's a simple ideology, and just as valid as liberalism and conservatism. Is it more theoretical than practical? Yes, because we've never been given a chance to run the country due to the inefficient voting system. But it's still valid, and it makes as much sense as others. It's not contradictory, and it's well-defined along all issues.

To us, liberty is a more important value than enforced "equality" or enforced "morality," and the best way to achieve liberty is through reducing the influence of the government. I'm baffled that people think this is such a crazy thought.

Libertarianism has that reputation because of it's simplicity. Stripping the government down to a constitutionalist shell and trusting the corporations of the "free market" to regulate themselves and manage the economy in a benevolent manner is naive.

[Lincoln Republican]

Nothing personal, but libertarians are, generally, how do I say it politely, out there.

[YaBoyNY]

I'm a non-libertarian Republican, and I think that the two ideologies have a lot in common, but that does not mean that a Conservative might as well be a Libertarian and vice versa.  I support an interventionalist foreign policy when necessary, believe that certain programs are necessary for national security, and think that the government does have a role in enforcing a certain moral code (i.e. not being able to kill unborn children), which puts me at odds with the Libertarian wing of our party.

Republicans who are on the wrong side of things never fail to amuse me with such gems as trying to make abortion out to be murder.

Anyway, it's because Libertarianism is something you grow out of once you're older than 18.

What else is killing a fully developed fetus?

A fetus isn't sapient until it's born.

[Mr. Reactionary]

How come libertarianism is considered a childish philosophy?

Typical Team Blue vs. Team Red monopoly tactic.

It's harder for the left to demonize libertarians as evil thugs (since they don't fit within the "blood for oil" or "iz muh body you old white man" talking points), so the only way to prevent possible Democrats or liberals from defecting is to just dismiss the ideology off-hand. Like how whenever someone says "hey, maybe we should ask ourselves if this particular law is necessary" the typical bs lefty response is to start shouting "SOMALIA" because apparently you can either want all government (minus abortion regulations) or no government whatsoever. When a libertarian points out how stupid and hackish that logic is, its much easier to just double down on "you don't know anything. You're so immature. Your beliefs are extreme because they aren't our beliefs you child. Libertarianism only works in regards to issues WE care about."

[All Along The Watchtower]

Because Libertarianism isn't a popular ideology - outside of the Internet, George Mason University and among undergrad Econ majors, and maybe some Young Republicans clubs.

[YaBoyNY]

How come libertarianism is considered a childish philosophy?

Typical Team Blue vs. Team Red monopoly tactic.

It's harder for the left to demonize libertarians as evil thugs (since they don't fit within the "blood for oil" or "iz muh body you old white man" talking points), so the only way to prevent possible Democrats or liberals from defecting is to just dismiss the ideology off-hand. Like how whenever someone says "hey, maybe we should ask ourselves if this particular law is necessary" the typical bs lefty response is to start shouting "SOMALIA" because apparently you can either want all government (minus abortion regulations) or no government whatsoever. When a libertarian points out how stupid and hackish that logic is, its much easier to just double down on "you don't know anything. You're so immature. Your beliefs are extreme because they aren't our beliefs you child. Libertarianism only works in regards to issues WE care about."

Yes. As we all know, defections to the Libertarians are a very real and present threat for Liberals and Democrats. This is evidenced by the fact that Libertarianism is a huge ideology with a huge following and a huge, credible threat to the Democratic and Republican parties.

Also, that quote is a bit odd. Democrats and liberals don't apply Libertarian principles. Rather, Libertarians apply liberal principles. Remember who came first.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm a non-libertarian Republican, and I think that the two ideologies have a lot in common, but that does not mean that a Conservative might as well be a Libertarian and vice versa.  I support an interventionalist foreign policy when necessary, believe that certain programs are necessary for national security, and think that the government does have a role in enforcing a certain moral code (i.e. not being able to kill unborn children), which puts me at odds with the Libertarian wing of our party.

Republicans who are on the wrong side of things never fail to amuse me with such gems as trying to make abortion out to be murder.

Anyway, it's because Libertarianism is something you grow out of once you're older than 18.

Interesting. I realized liberalism was something to grow out of once you're older than 13, when i was 13

🎤🎼🎶🎼🎵 It's the ciiiircle of ideology,
And it mooooves us all
Through liberalism to libertarianism
And anarchism and fascism
Till we leave college
As a tedious moderate
It's the circle,
The ciiiircle of idealogy 🎼🎧🎬🎶🎵

[King]

They're adults.

[Ronnie]

No one really takes libertarianism seriously outside of college campuses and the internet, and for good reason.

This.  The ideology itself has so many holes in it that it's completely untenable in practice.  Unfettered "free market" capitalism simply has not existed on any meaningful level because capitalists have always used the government to help achieve their ends.  

[YaBoyNY]

I'm a non-libertarian Republican, and I think that the two ideologies have a lot in common, but that does not mean that a Conservative might as well be a Libertarian and vice versa.  I support an interventionalist foreign policy when necessary, believe that certain programs are necessary for national security, and think that the government does have a role in enforcing a certain moral code (i.e. not being able to kill unborn children), which puts me at odds with the Libertarian wing of our party.

Republicans who are on the wrong side of things never fail to amuse me with such gems as trying to make abortion out to be murder.

Anyway, it's because Libertarianism is something you grow out of once you're older than 18.

Interesting. I realized liberalism was something to grow out of once you're older than 13, when i was 13

What a clever comeback.

Of course, I shouldn't expect some sort of witty retort requiring more than five seconds of thought from a Libertarian.