[ajscherer]

When politicians say "small government" they really mean "low taxes", and when they say "liberty" that is measured as 100% minus the top marginal tax rate. Restrictions on people's behavior or privacy aren't really part of the discussion. When they say "spending" you can safely suffix that with "on someone other than me".

Seriously though, the Republican party isn't a libertarian organization and never has been. They've been marketing themselves that way lately, since they are a bit closer to the libertarian ideal than the Democrats (I guess not in this case though!).

[mtgx]

If you're talking about the "old Republicans" who may pretend right now that they are also libertarians (like Glenn Beck is doing for example), then I agree. But since the "Ron Paul movement" a lot of true libertarian people entered the Republican party and are still trying to take over it. The "real" Republicans are actually fighting them, though, because besides lower taxes they have almost nothing in common.

Also if you were thinking about Rand Paul, in a way he's his father's son, and unlike others who just pay lip service for liberty and such, he's actually fought hard against the Patriot Act, FISA, NDAA, drones and so on. He filibustered them for many hours, introduced amendments (which obviously got rejected), etc. However, he also seems to play way too much towards the overly religious base in the Republican party, and in that way he's also much like the "old" Republicans, which is a shame, and I think it makes even libertarians have second thoughts about him. The "always lower taxes" attitude at least could work on most libertarians, but the very religious side of him, kind of ruins it for libertarians, too.

[socialist_coder]

Yeah, it is a shame that Rand Paul still is in bed with the Religious / Conservative right. You nailed it.

[aclevernickname]

Rand Paul is nothing like his father. While Ron Paul fought hard against FISA, NDAA, PATRIOT, and Drones, his son follows the party line, but gives enough lip service to not turn off his father's supporters.

[breakbread]

I'd argue that he simply learned from his father that you can't actually get shit done by always falling back on your ideological principles.

[wyclif]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Rand Paul fought hard against CISPA, FISA, the Patriot Act, and drones.

[aclevernickname]

Rand Paul wasn't in office during PATRIOT's passing, so I suspect a troll.

[wyclif]

I didn't say Rand Paul fought against the bill when it was up for a vote. He has, however, been fighting hard against the expansion of the Patriot Act's provisions.

[RoryH]

People actually watch Glenn Beck!? That would explain alot!

[mwfunk]

Historically the Republican party has been libertarianish, at least in the sense that the guiding principles were minimizing the size and reach of government, keeping the government out of people's lives, and legislating at the most local levels possible (don't make a state law if a local law will do, and don't make a federal law if a state law will do).

This changed in the '60s- Democratic support for the civil rights movement caused a massive shift in the south, in which a huge number of voters (evangelical, socially conservative voters who had supported the Democrats since the end of the Civil War) switched allegiances from Democrats to Republicans. That period also saw the rise of Barry Goldwater, who also wasn't a traditional Republican- he was more of a demagogue who engaged in a lot of flag waving and and emotional oratory to get people riled up.

Ever since then there's been a cognitive dissonance within the GOP- the old-school libertarianesque beliefs wedded to the social conservatives and demagogues of the Religious Right (who aren't traditionally right-wing (or left-wing) at all, they've just latched on to the Republican party as being more amenable to being bent to their will).

This cognitive dissonance has reached epic proportions in the last 10 years, in some cases leading to polarization in the party (fiscal conservative/social liberals vs. those who are completely driven by religion and social conservatism). In other cases it leads to politicians who somehow try to appeal to both the libertarians and the Religious Right (Ron Paul being a prime example), and I just don't know what to make of that. The views of the world embodied by those two groups could not be more different, and seems impossible to reconcile in any intellectually honest way.

[dmix]

Anecdotally I've seen a notable upswing in the self-identification of republicans as "libertarian" in the last 6 months (when that's clearly not the reality).

[astrodust]

"Libertarians" are just hipster Republicans.

[TallGuyShort]

Republicans view Libertarians as closer to Democrats. That's a fairly unbiased sign that they don't correlate very well with either the so-called "left" or "right" designations.

[leot]

It's not clear what your second "they" referred to.

The left-right divide is best described as a tendency to support established power versus a tendency to support those who seek to overturn established power. Hence "conservative" (meaning "preserve the existing social order, or return to the social order of the recent past"). Republicans on the whole are, without a doubt, right-wing, since the best way to predict what cause they will support is to look at the causes of the already wealthy and privileged.

The left roots for the underdogs, the right roots for the top dog. This explains why, today, the left more sides with Palestine and the right with Israel. Why rightwing-types are more likely to defend the rich (low taxes helps most those who pay the most) and leftwing-types to defend the poor. Why in Soviet Russia, the "right" were those who supported the ruling party, and the "left" were those who supported the opposition.

Yes, the more-left(/less right) party currently controls the White House and 1/2 of Congress. This doesn't mean that they have become the established order that the left should now oppose, since the established order is much bigger than mere politics.

[mr_overalls]

Interestingly, the right hand is the strong one for ~90% of people.

The terms "right wing" and "left wing" date back to the French Revolution and the preferred seating positions of the nobility and the reformists in the Estates General. I'm really stretching my powers of speculation, but given that the nobility would have received training in arms, is it coincidence that they would have preferred a seating position that allowed the easier use of their sword-arm when directed toward the center of mass of the opposition party?

[nilved]

Yes

[TallGuyShort]

To be clear, my second "they" referred to Libertarians. They're not on the "left-to-right" axis but on the "you're-both-missing-the-point" axis. (That is of course, my own opinion - I'm just saying that "hipster Republicans" is far from accurate).

[Legion]

> Republicans view Libertarians as closer to Democrats.

When all you have is a right, everything looks like a left.

[rory096]

I disagree with this. Closer to Democrats than what? Republicans view their party as an amalgamation of a number of distinct ideologies. To say that any given one is "closer to Democrats" means nothing except in respect to your own vantage point within the coalition. When your average Republican hears "libertarian" he's much more likely to think "Ron Paul," with all the connotations that includes, than "Democrat."

(Source: Until recently I served on the State Central Committee of a major swing state's GOP.)

[TallGuyShort]

Fair point. My statement was based on the typical experience I have where my republican friends see me (a libertarian) as the pro-marijuana, anti-war, pro-gay-marriage guy, and my democrat friends see me as the anti-tax, anti-welfare guy. They tend to (quite naturally) see the philosophical differences between themselves and equate me with their primary opposition.

[homosaur]

Closer to Democrats than your average "modern" Republican who believes in morals-based law, huge military, aggressive military actions, continuation of victimless crime, etc. It's the mouth breathing idiot Republicans that only listen to Rush Limbaugh and such. They view anyone who is their enemy as affiliated with "liberals," whatever that means, not the ones that actually have a clue about government.

That might not be the majority but it's certainly the loudest group.

[dmix]

And "anarcho-capitalists" are hipster libertarians?

[homosaur]

Those are just first year liberal arts students frustrated by party politics. Also punks.

[dmix]

Huh? Liberal arts students = capitalists? I'd personally guess they'd lean more anarcho-syndicalist/socialist.

But definitely agree about punks. Or punks with jobs. Also cypherpunks, crypto-anarchists, etc.

[homosaur]

You're right, I misread your post.

I think what happens is that the deeper you go into the left, if you are of a generally radical anti-mainstream bent like I was entering school, you're attracted to leftist ideology because of the fairness aspect of the politics. It's a great time to read Howard Zinn and get pissed off about government, but I think as people who still hold that anti-government bent get older, they do tend to lean Libertarian. I know lots of ex-punks that are hard paleoconservatives now.

I went to all the left-wing anticapitalist protests and was routinely mistreated and violated by police and government. While my politics have moved center, I still maintain that distrust of the system because I know when you are outside of it, you're going to get mowed down. As I've gotten older, I care less about unfairness and more about interference. I've found unfairness can be overcome while interference cannot.

In short, I've found that while I've pretty much abandoned any desire to become a communist hobo, I still have a starting point of extreme suspicion and distaste for central authority.

[javert]

> Liberal arts students = capitalists

Anarcho-capitalists are _not_ capitalists. So liberal liberal arts students can be anarcho-capitalists, despite not being capitalists.

Actually, the term "anarcho-capitalism" is completely invalid. It's like "blue-reddish" or "big-smallism."

[nsmartt]

Libertarians and Republicans have very little in common. This is blatantly false.

[astrodust]

Tell that to Rand Paul, Ron Paul, or Paul Ryan.

[aclevernickname]

many of us were Libertarians before it was cool, so, yeah, I guess you make a strong point. does this mean I have to give up my hacker card and start wearing skinny jeans and ironic facial hair?

[aclevernickname]

Hacker News: Where you can troll the hell out of libertarians, but don't you dare make fun of a hipster.

[angersock]

You want to back that up, or are you just that ignorant of politics?