Whatever happened to libertarianism?

I often think of myself as a bit of a libertarian. "Keep the government out of private lives" and all that sort of thing. But when I look around at libertarianism, as it's currently defined, I don't recognize it. What I do see is "freedom for me, but not for thee", religiously inspired interference and a rather strange obsession with selfishness. It's Conservative/Right Wing Christian Prosperity taken to extremes!

The other side of it is that distinctly odd version rendered by Ron Paul. As I've said before, he's not so much about liberty as he is about preserving his power over others. For him, the government has no role in pretty much anything. For me, it has a role in ensuring that everyone can enjoy the benefits of liberty. He's a bland extreme of what the Republican Party has come to stand for. (He's very strange; he's bland and excitable. He's blandly excitable?) One thing I notice is that his base support consists of conspiracy nuts, white supremacists, apocalyptic doom-mongers and people who seem to think the world will end pretty soon. Either that or the United Nations is some sort of Illuminati. (Believe me, it would first have to conquer "competence".) In other words, the very people who need the protections proffered by The Constitution, and the very same people who seek to destroy it in order to preserve it.

None of this is libertarianism. Not as I understand it.

I don't want the government telling me what I can do, and they don't. They provide a means to enforce the contracts I enter into, and they provide roads and the like. (At an exorbitant cost! I live in NJ...) But they also provide a valuable service in at least making a superficial attempt at ensuring that my neighbors can't pollute my land, directly or indirectly; they ensure the air we all breath is somewhat breathable and the water isn't contaminated with mercury or other vile chemicals. They're not so good at much of what they do, but that's a different topic. You see, in a complex society you need rules. You can't simply trust everyone to abide by "the commons"; there are too many people who are willing to push all their livestock onto the village green and destroy it - as long as they're okay. When people take advantage of the facilities, to the detriment of others, rules have to be introduced, along with an enforcement mechanism. The scope of those rules is a matter for debate, and indeed America is having such a debate, albeit in simplistic and binary terms. But I don't think anyone can argue that rules aren't needed at all. Well, Ron Paul and Grover Norquist, perhaps. But those two are clear idiots and despite their being so powerful, can ultimately be dismissed as idiots.

Having said that, the discussion these days isn't about freedom versus government; it's about the restrictions the government should be imposing. One side wants moral restrictions and the other is floundering trying to figure out an answer. Occupy Wall St is dangerous not because of who is in it, but because it took a right wing mantra and turned it around. And made it effective. The Tea Party lost its power because it couldn't figure out what it was for; what it was against was pretty clear (to a point...). And so on. No one, and I mean no one, is really talking about liberty as a fundamental concept. Not Ron Paul, not Newt, certainly not Mittens or Rick Santorum. The President talks about fairness without mentioning that that is the basis for liberty; without fairness, without equitable and fair treatment, you do not have liberty. Ask the people in the Arab Spring about that! And that fairness isn't about economic fairness; it's about ensuring that people do have a chance. It's up to them to take it or not; it's up to them what they do with their lives. But you don't abandon people simply because it's too tiring or irritating or doesn't fit your definition of The Constitution. That's not libertarianism, nor is it freedom for all.

What the heck happened to libertarianism? It's been taken over by totalitarians.

Carolyn Ann