When I look at my little plot of land on the political graph, I tend to find myself more on the libertarian end of things, though lately I've been wondering if the libertarian end of the graph is still truly libertarian.
There's an old observation that remains true today: If you line up 100 libertarians and ask them what libertarianism means, then you're going to get 100 different answers. This is absolutely true, but what always confused me is that there are libertarians out there who sound a lot like radical leftists and support leftist policies to boot. As I've written before, any association I had with the Libertarian Party dried up completely when, during the 2024 election, they elected an outright leftist extremist in Chase Oliver, who was pro-vaccine mandate, pro-trans-children, and pro-open borders.
As I wrote then, the Libertarian Party is not a serious one:
I could probably write a short book about all the ways that the Libertarian Party is a disappointing entity on the American political stage, but suffice it to say, the Libertarian Party...isn't. It's a joke with no punchline. It's Monty Python's "Camelot" but without the charming musical number.
It's a bunch of hippies screaming angrily about fringe issues next to a man wearing a dress and makeup making arguments as to why he should be able to touch children, while an awkward kid who thinks he's a "communist-libertarian" tries to convince everyone that more taxes for a Universal Basic Income is a great idea.
Read: If the Libertarian Party Was Libertarian, It Would Win Elections
I think you get 100 definitions of "libertarianism" because the party that's supposed to represent it seems to think libertarianism should extend to ideas about the concept of liberty, not just governmental and economic policies.
Today, the libertarians are angry with Trump because he's taking some economic steps that aren't exactly something Milton Friedman would approve of, and I don't blame them. I'm a fan of the free market as well, and some of Trump's decisions don't exactly scream laissez-faire, though I will say that I do believe some corporate restrictions are perfectly fine because, at the end of the day, a corporation that controls everything is a monopoly, and that's not good for liberty either.
But what got my gears grinding today was the fact that Reason put out an article that mainly complained about Trump's economic policies, which, okay fine... disagreeing with Trump on economic policies is a normal and healthy thing to do, especially in Friedman-inspired circles.
But tucked into the final paragraph was an angry foot stomp about his immigration policies:
A decades-old Catholic social teaching is known as the "seamless garment of life," which references the tunic Jesus wore at the crucifixion. The faithful are supposed to revere life in a seamless manner by opposing all policies that undermine the dignity of human beings. These days, Republicans are pursuing a seamless garment of big government, from police-state immigration tactics to their interventionist economic policies. With both parties now hostile to limited government, Americans can only expect civic life to get worse rather than better.
"Police state immigration tactics" is a really bizarre way to describe the removal of illegal aliens.
Of course, ICE's job, when done seriously and effectively, was never going to look pleasant or pretty. It's a lot of masked men in military gear restraining, handcuffing, placing people in unmarked vans and cars, and taking them away. However, these aren't U.S. citizens. These are people who came into our country illegally and have no right to be here. They encroach on the liberties of the U.S. citizen through economic weight, criminal activity, and disrespect for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through various modes of interference, both passive and direct.
If I'm looking at libertarianism from its definition, it's not a group of people who support anarchy. Libertarians still believe in laws and the enforcement of them; we just don't want a whole bunch of them. We prefer our government to be small, but run efficiently and with minimal cost. We want the government to stay out of our way for the most part, and only intervene as a necessary evil when someone threatens our life, our property, or our freedom.
That means the government steps in and removes the illegals. It means it steps in and forbids the Islamic takeover of territories. It means it forbids the enforcement of mandatory injections of chemicals.
But that's just my definition of libertarianism. It appears my understanding of it is either way off, or theirs is. If it's mine, then perhaps I've never been a libertarian all along.
