Why is libertarianism so monumentally unpopular yet so over represented among the upper class/elite?
>But the real story is happening in the two quadrants whose views aren’t represented by Republicans and Democrats. The lower-right quadrant is where you end up if you’re “socially liberal but fiscally conservative,” like Howard Schultz. That quadrant is a ghost town, representing a mere 3.8 percent of the electorate. Meanwhile, the upper-left quadrant — those voters who are socially conservative but liberal on economic issues — is packed. A full 28.9 percent of the electorate resides in what Drutman calls the “populist quadrant,” outnumbering even the conservatives in the upper right, who clock in at 22.7 percent.
>If you’re in that quadrant, you might be frustrated by the Republicans’ embrace of corporate tax breaks and spending cuts, but you’re probably also wary of Democrats who want open-door immigration and rapid social change. You might want working families to get a fair deal, but you’re also proud to be a patriotic, often religious American. In short, you’re a populist. And you’re politically homeless.
>This is the “silent majority” that actually matters. But Schultz can’t see its members, because their worldview is so far away from the ambient neoliberalism that thrives among big-city cosmopolitans such as himself. Schultz is simply projecting, assuming that voters are dissatisfied with the two-party system for the same reasons he and his fellow elites are. But as Drutman’s research makes clear, there are two kinds of voters who can feel unrepresented by the major parties. The disposition that calls itself “centrist” tends to locate itself in the neoliberal quadrant — even though voters in the populist quadrant are far more numerous and just as underrepresented by the two-party system.
because the elites dont give a fuck about the people
John Thomas
So you mean like a nationalist who is also kind of a socialist? :0
James Cooper
Yeah but no one seems to even try to stop them from fucking up the country.
Daniel Powell
>rich people dont want to pay taxes, why?? Because they are selfish, duh
Dylan Parker
basically this, it's genuine incompatibility with wealth generation scams, nation-wrecking and general homofaggot drama that drags on forever and needs lot of "coverage"
the rich don't want us actually resisting them or anything
Because it’s now pretty clear to everybody that it’s impossible to stay in the lie left quadrant. Socially liberal leads to activism, which leads to gubmint initiatives and taxes taxes taxes.
Daniel Long
Capitalism fosters and protects these elites. And dont you DARE to TAX them, that would be communism!!!
Mason King
The elite in the early-mid 20th century seemed to be more comfortable with paying higher taxes
Kevin Bailey
as a liberal libertarian I don't, in fact I want people to face the consequences of their own decisions, like maybe black families would finally react with alarm when their kids start to idolize criminals and criminality instead of just making a fat, blubbering scene in court when their kid gets 298 years in prison
Every Hillary voter belongs in the top left. Left Libertarianism is an even faker and gayer political alignment than Libertarianism. I wish Trump voters were as based as the National Jew is trying to make them out to be.
Brody Wright
Intelligence and libertarianism go hand in hand. Want proofs?
i think you have a misapprehension of what liberal means, here let me lay that shit out
>violent crimnals, throw them away >non-violent criminals, actually try to fix them
like this. what the hell are we even doing putting non-violent criminals with violent ones? they shouldn't even be in the same moral tier, let alone the same facility, it is literally asking for trouble. it is so obviously asking for trouble I sometimes wonder if doing so is a scheme to modulate or control violent crime for some purpose, because they have what looks very much like a college or factory floor for violent criminals
>weed nigger can go after 15 minutes >armed robbery nigger stays forever
left libertarianism is popular it doesn't matter how unfeasible it is.
A radical libertarian left or right wouldn't believe in punishment. THere's a reason that they started handing out 2-3 year sentences to murderers in the 60s and 70s they honestly believed that "being nice" to everyone including violent criminals would stop crime.
Joshua Gutierrez
>A full 28.9 percent >This is the “silent majority” am I supposed to take this guy's analysis seriously?
Jayden Garcia
It's a reference to a phrase in a Nixon speech that's why it's in quotes, he doesn't mean they're literally the majority, rather that they are an important voting bloc.
Nathaniel Bailey
I understand what it's referencing, but it's a terrible analogy
Alexander Smith
>(((nationalreview.com))) and that's where things took a turn for the trashcan
Julian Brooks
~30% is a large voting bloc an order of magnitude more important that the 3% that believe in libertarian propaganda
It seems like a pretty good analysis to me.
Jordan Nelson
Um, not enough people are starving. Shit will never hit the fan if people are fed.
This is basic shit.
Christopher James
>The elite in the early-mid 20th century seemed to be more comfortable with paying higher taxes Because USSR spreading communism was a thing. Cold war era taxes went to the military-industrial complex fighting proxy and not-so-proxy wars against communist states. World communism was an actual and very serious threat to ruling elites - if America became a commie land, they would be literally killed. Even greedy people are willing to give up some money when the alternative is death. Now that nothing challenges the ruling class they no longer have to pay up.
William Fisher
and socialism protects them even more - no upward mobility and MUCH tighter ideological constrains
there is no real democracy where people would be able to truly govern themselves and decide the policies
Carson Reed
Not a radical then, I guess. I think a logical outlook would be best, yes everyone is a human being but also crime has always existed and always had to be dealt with. To believe non-punishment of the worst offenders would actually be functional is to believe it hadn't been tried before, which it actually had been, the unacceptability of that state of society is why nearly every society has independently reached out to create law and order of some kind. But of whatever kind, violence is always punished.
The only kind of radical libertarian that has ever existed of your description are the Ik Kung (written "ǃKung"), a nearly uncontacted african tribe that was "studied" (more like hounded) by a pair of Christian missionaries who were pretending to do real anthropological work. Their actual interest was tabula rasa, to show that without god man is just like Cain - what was actually happening is they encountered a society so radically libertarian that being murdered was your own fault for being a weak fag. But even this tribe recognized reality, for instance if you murdered a child they'd cover you in pitch and burn you alive in front of everyone. Even the damn savages have rules. No, these breakdown of sensible rules and boundaries are intentional, they're no one's politics but those who want the West to fall and even they would never apply them in their own, future communist countries. Nah, it'd be straight back to murderers getting one between the eyes and a grave with a prisoner number if even that. "Suddenly" it would be all no-nonsense, wouldn't it? They would just get the people on drugs off drugs and throw murderers into an incinerator like they're fucking supposed to.
(((lolbertarians))) = left libertarians (which are just communists) Libertarians = Hoppean Anarchists/Anarcho-Fascists
Samuel Harris
This chart is from research where you had to be anti-white sjw to have a high "socially liberal" score
Angel Sanchez
> This is the “silent majority” that actually matters This is why democracy is a meme. Retards will vote for regulations and taxes, and shoot themselves in the foot
