Anyone not fully brainwashed yet with the political rhetoric shooting out of the anal gapes of the Obama and Romney campaigns should be familiar with the fact that there are third-party candidates in the running.
Even though these candidates do not have the faintest chances of winning any part of the electorate, the ideas of one, Gary Johnson and his Libertarian Party have been sticking to the youth of America. If you could also recall, Ron Paul was also a large activist of Libertarian thought who became quite popular during the Republican primaries.
And, of course, once these dudes decided that the legalization of pot would be part of their platform a ton of American youth, thirsty to light it up went all political for what seemed like a week (much like they felt they would shift the Earth by liking a Youtube video about Kony earlier this year). Yet, this minor part of the Libertarian platform is not at all the biggest thing to consider when forming one’s views.
The Libertarian Party favors a weaker federal government and a weaker state with less say on economic policies and trade.Furthermore they essentially believe that every person should have the right to do whatever he sees fit. This doesn’t at all encompass murder or anything like that, but rather it is more of a choice of a lifestyle. If one person, for example sees fit that they jog every afternoon, and then go home to smoke a blunt and drink 32 ounces of soda , then it is their choice and they have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies.
If you can see what I’m getting at here, many pieces of local and federal legislation like Obama’s mandatory health care bill and Bloomberg’s bans on soda, cigarettes and trans fats go against the fundamental theories of Libertarianism. The freedoms of choice established by Libertarian though would also imply that they believe in the rights of a woman to abort a fetus.
All this freedom seems like a whole lot of ‘MURICA to a lot of people. Its like the Libertarians are tossing around stuffed Chuck Norris dolls while flying on their bald eagles. However, is too much freedom a bad thing? For example, if everyone above a certain age is allowed to smoke marijuana, to what extent is it good for the entire nation. What about the health of a nation? If everyone is allowed to consume as much as they want and to fundamentally destroy their health at their own will, should anyone forcibly help them? Then, should we foot their health care bills when they fall ill and have to rely on emergency care they can’t pay for because they never felt they needed to purchase healthcare?
These are questions that never seem to be addressed by “Libertarian” junkies smoking pot on the stairs of an unemployment benefits office. However, the Libertarians that have considered these things are running into a problem any political party runs into: at what point are your strict ideologies worth ignoring for a more realistic path for society.? Maybe Republicans and Democrats could also learn from the problems of Libertarians and could stop flip-flopping on ideological extremes.
Freedom is great, but to what extent does too much freedom for the individual translate to less freedom for the collective?
*For more information, read the Libertarian Party website directly: http://www.lp.org/