The rise of a libertarian America

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Bishop!

These types of polls tend to ask simplistic questions in the first place so are therefore misleading at best; dishonest at worst. Any questions can be framed in such a way that get the desired results. The Worlds Smallest Political Quiz on the Libertarian Party website is a perfect example. According to that, we're all Libertarians!
I think not..

The raised poll result also interestingly coincides with the massive propaganda campaigns conducted by the Koch brothers and with the rise of the astro-turf Tea Party movement.
Add to that the explosion of corporate-funded economic 'think tanks' and organisations like the one in the OP, all endlessly promoting an anti-government message.
Their agenda is simple - lay the blame for the economic crash and every other ill on big government and away from big businesses.
Manufacture consent for deregulation and basically letting business do what they want in relation to wages, workers rights etc.


In light of all this, the blip is hardly surprising in my view.
Everyone wants less government in certain situations and asking a simplistic question based on this will skew the results. The vast majority still want social security, good education and fair taxation though; ie 'big government'.

I certainly wouldn't see that graph as signalling any sort of groundswell of support for Gary Johnson and his free market fundamentalism. The election results spoke pretty clearly in that regard.

KyussBishop

A good read on the cynical nature of Gary Johnson's campaign, how many of the founding people in the campaign assisting him have corrupt backgrounds, Gary Johnson's own contradictory policies, and his mismanagement regarding deals with the Koch's and generally as governor, and more:
http://nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle

He seems another flip-flopping politician (only running with the Libertarian party after being shunned by the Republicans), with a history of deeply contradictory policy positions, and heavy involvement and backing from various corrupt characters, looking to launch a platform through heavy emphasis on populist social policies, many of which are in direct contradiction to his previously stated policies.

There probably won't even be direct disagreement with this, just whataboutery that "Obama/Romney/other-politicians do that too", or attempts to smear the author.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I dispute the idea that the United States is increasingly libertarian and propose that it's actually more socially and economically liberal. There are a great many issues where libertarians and the left have common ground: foreign military intervention, prohibitian etc.. The divergance is on economic policy. The rejection of Mitt Romney, to me, was an endorsement of the Keynsian economic policies of the last 4 years and a rejection of Mitts Friedmanite future.

Despite advertising itself as the party of limited government, the GOP showed in this election cycle just how eager it is to ramp up military spending, deport immigrants, and interfere with women's reproductive choices. In doing so, it alienated minorities, young women, and foreign policy noninterventionists. It handed the election to Obama, despite his miserable first term in office.

Maybe it wasn't as miserable as you like to think? Maybe people saw a brighter future under Obama than under Romney? Yes, the repeated nonsense from the GOP on reproductive rights swung a lot of women voters but women vote on economic issues as well.

I believe that the real victors in this election were the libertarians. Gary Johnson won over a million votes, representing 1 percent of total ballots cast — that's the best performance by a Libertarian Party candidate in 32 years. Gay marriage passed in the states of Maryland, Maine, and Washington. Defying the federal government's War on Drugs, Washington and Colorado even legalized marijuana.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy into that. The progressive left has worked tirelessly on the issues of gay rights for many, many years. Even both Obama and Biden came out in favour of gay marriage during the campaign, I don't count either as part of the progressive left BTW. It wasn't that long ago gay marriage was political hot potato that no presidential candidate would touch. It really annoyed me that Obama in 08 didn't commit on it. As I said earlier, these issues are common ground for both the left and Libertarians. Maryland, Maine and Washington are blue states. Colorado is a swing state that went blue.

Fair dues to Mr. Jonhson he got a decent vote. I was surprised he go as many as he did.

Democrats who think that Obama's re-election represents a mandate for the brand of bigger government represented by Keynesian stimulus packages, Obamacare, and endless business regulation should really pause for thought. Earlier this year, the proportion of Americans saying that government should not favor any particular set of values (social libertarianism) and that the government was trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses (economic libertarianism) reached an all-time high:

I'm sorry but in very simple terms Obama got the mandate to continue as he had the last 4 years.

Can we see the questions asked to produce the results above?

The message is clear. Faced with a choice between the Republican and Democratic versions of big government, more Americans are saying "None of the above." Long may it continue.

The message is very far from clear. It's muddled beyond belief. The GOP and the Dems have been given a mandate from the people to fight and bitch in Washington.

1% of the population voted "none of the above". Not exactly a revolution.

Kinski

KyussBishop wrote: »

A good read on the cynical nature of Gary Johnson's campaign, how many of the founding people in the campaign assisting him have corrupt backgrounds, Gary Johnson's own contradictory policies, and his mismanagement regarding deals with the Koch's and generally as governor, and more:
http://nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle

I find Rocky Anderson to be a genuine progressive alternative, someone whose ideas I am for and who has a real track record of governing, as well as trial lawyer and human rights activism experience. But our politics today don’t allow a Rocky Johnson as a real choice, not yet anyway.

Rocky Johnson. I'd prefer to see his son Dwanye "The Rock" running things...he could whack opponents over the head with a 2x4.;)

The Bishop!

Brian? wrote: »

Can we see the questions asked to produce the results above?

These 2 apparently:

Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?


Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?


Link

Chuck Stone

From KyussBishop's link.

The road-widening cost the state $345 million, which Gov. Johnson covered by tapping a federal bond program giving the state 20 years to pay back the interest. So the "principled" budget-conscious libertarian governor and libertarian businessman went crawling to the federal government to rack up a giant credit card bill, then dumped the $345 million construction cost on "Robert the Bruce, King of the Scots" Once you realize Johnson is a conventional hard-right Republican, it’s not surprising that the people running his campaign are some of the GOP’s nastiest dirty tricksters.

http://nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle

Just another disgusting nanny state conservative masquerading as a Libertarian. I said it in another thread - the day a Libertarian gets near the reigns of power in the US is the day he's either sold out or gets assassinated.

Valmont

Whether it will result in any changes is one question, but I think it's undeniable that the libertarian movement is growing in popularity not just in America, but the world over. 1% is a piddling amount, but the important thing to look at for the sake of our present discussion is the increase on the last election. Add to that the fact that people don't vote for libertarians for reasons like "he's giving me a free phone" and the rise is obvious indeed.

Gandhi

I voted for Johnson in the election. Not because I thought he had a hope of winning, but to send a signal to the mainstream parties by showing up to vote and selecting "none of the above".

I have very little faith in either Romney or Obama (Obama being not as bad IMO), but was't going to join the "I don't bother voting 'cos they are all crap" crew.

KyussBishop

It's grown in temporary popularity because of the number of people being paid to shill Libertarian views online (similar to what you get with paid pro-Israeli shills), and through emphasis on populist social policies to take in liberal voters, while trying to obfuscate/deemphasize it's economic policies, to avoid turning them away.

The movement requires an absence of critical examination of its policies in order to survive, which means it has a short and temporary lifespan before it burns out and recombines with the GOP, as commentary online is generally wizening up to this and what the movement really stands for, behind all the neatly crafted lies.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's grown in temporary popularity because of the number of people being paid to shill Libertarian views online

You really have to elaborate on this one. Because I somehow doubt you can conclusively demonstrate the popularity of libertarianism is down to 'paid shills' (I wonder do you apply that label to the commentators at NakedCapitalism.com?).

KyussBishop wrote:

while trying to obfuscate/deemphasize it's economic policies, to avoid turning them away.

Could you please tell me what is obfuscatory about "End the Fed"?

KyussBishop wrote:

as commentary online is generally wizening up to this and what the movement really stands for, behind all the neatly crafted lies.

Somehow the thought of online commentators 'wizening' up to the resurgence of classic liberalism doesn't exactly spell doom to me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So if someone thinks the government is doing too much they are libertarian or have libertarian leanings? That's a huge leap. I think when you're examining the results of these surveys you're suffering from cognitive bias. You're seeing what you want to see.

As a matter of interest, when asked the question was the term government defined? Was it federal, state or local government?

I think the government Is doing too much when it comes to certain issues but nowhere enough when it comes to others. The issues change based on whether you ask me about the federal government or the state government etc. .

1.2 million votes is a good haul, well done libertarian party. It's not a seismic shift though and predictions of exponential growth in the libertarian vote are premature to say the least.

Let's remember who was elected.

KyussBishop

Heh, I notice avoidance of entering any kind of debate with anything in the first half of the thread (most notably criticisms of Gary Johnson; guess silence was opted for rather than whataboutery).

The Kochs funding of astroturfing for Libertarians and the Tea Party is well known, so is no surprise that it's led to organized astroturfing online as well.

What exact issues/criticisms do people have with the Naked Capitalism site by the way? People are in a rush to be dismissive of it, but the closest thing to an argument anyone has posted thus far, is taking issue with the sites name (which even that was not explained).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chuck Stone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You will note that just 5% said increase stimulus spending. Does that mean 95% were happy with current stimulus spending as it was at the time the poll was taken? Probably not but the numbers are difficult to draw any conclusion from.

Also, if we dig a little deeper we will note that 46% of those polled were 'very worried' about stimulus money being wasted and 32% were 'somewhat worried'.

With the above in mind any perceived objection to stimulus spending may be heavily skewed by how the stimulus was being spent rather than an objection to the stimulus itself. IIRC, at the time, Americans were worried about too much stimulus/bailout for wall street and not enough for main street.

Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say.

William W. Watt

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chuck Stone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well that was a personal opinion/claim. I'd imagine a considerable percentage of people would have little idea what Keynesian economics amounts to.

Also, there was the notion that the US economy is on the up-turn regardless of who took the White House so perhaps people felt like the stimulus had done its job and averted economic meltdown.

If the public was concerned that the Obama administration had squandered the first stimulus bill, why would they "endorse" the same people doing exactly the same thing again?

As above I guess the notion that the ship had been steered away from the rocks made people more comfortable with its crew.

(Of course this is completely ignoring the GOP's mess of a campaign).

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'll get back to your other posts later but this has annoyed me now and I don't have a lot of time. The re-election of President Obama is an endorsment of President Obama and his policies of the previous 4 years, it's not silly it's simple fact. You're quoting surveys as if they are gospel, they are not. They are surveys. You want to know what really matters when it comes down to it? Obama was re-elected, he was given a thumbs up by the majority of voters on the job he had done.

No amount of surveys using loaded questions or even properly conducted surveys are a counter argument to that. Get over that now, it's not even in question. Obama won the election, 50% of people endorsed his policies therefore he has a mandate to proceed. That's how democracy works, an election is kind of like the surveys your quoting except everyone over 18 is included and it's legally binding.

As I said I will answer your other posts later.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

No amount of surveys using loaded questions or even properly conducted surveys are a counter argument to that. Get over that now, it's not even in question. Obama won the election, 50% of people endorsed his policies therefore he has a mandate to proceed. That's how democracy works, an election is kind of like the surveys your quoting except everyone over 18 is included and it's legally binding.

.

To proceed with what? What does he have a mandate to do and please be specific. When doing so bear in mind who has control of Congres.....

Brian?

jank wrote: »

To proceed with what? What does he have a mandate to do and please be specific. When doing so bear in mind who has control of Congres.....

Do you want an entire critique of his last 4 years as president? I am not talking about individual issues, I am saying by being re elected his presidency has been endorsed.

Memnoch

What kind of mandate did Bush have when he 'won' the electoral college by 500 very questionable votes after losing the popular vote to Al Gore? What kind of policies did he enact with said mandate?

Yet Obama wins 330 electoral votes and by more than couple of million in the popular vote and he has no mandate?

People need to get a clue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

So Obama after winning the election does not have a mandate from the people but Garry Johnson's 1% and a few poll results show that libertarianism is on the rise!!

Hard argument to make, good luck with that one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Who is not against the US governments overarching military spending? The government 'doing too much' is so general a statement that you can't determine individual policies from it, so opposition to their insane military spending can (alone) easily put you under the 'doing too much' category, or opposition to their infringement of civil liberties etc..

The 2012 page for this question, did not contain the pdf with detailed data, but the 2010 one did:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/File/143630/Trends_On_Government_Size.pdf
http://www.gallup.com/poll/143624/Majorities-View-Gov-Intrusive-Powerful.aspx

The 'doing too much' result hit a high of 60% in 1995, and was sustained at a high level from 1993-1998, and the Libertarian party didn't seem to grow an enormous amount in that time; overall, the percentage who think government does too much, hovers between 41-60%, sometimes even with wild swings +/- 10% within the same year.

So, for many reasons, it's not a very reliable data set, and even the reliability of what the results mean is in question, since the question is so broad that there are an equally broad number of reasons for supporting the idea that government does too much (which doesn't require a particularly Libertarian leaning).


Straight away, if you look at the backing and political actors involved in the Libertarian Party and the movement in general, you see there is a big image problem there; there are all sorts of corrupt characters involved, with shady histories, vested interests, absolutely ginormous conflicts of interest in general, and with some, money flying out their arses into the laps of various politicians and into think tanks or lobby groups, many of them known for essentially lying and providing false 'research', and all other manner of crap.

Not only do few people heavily involved really bother to try very hard to hide all of that, but you have the even more extreme parts of the movement glorify the worst aspects of destructive self-interest/selfishness, and disparaging altruism; there are huge irrecoverable image problems all throughout the movement, and I doubt many in the movement itself really expect it to gain long-term popular support.

The Bishop!

KyussBishop wrote: »

sometimes even with wild swings +/- 10% within the same year.

So what did the sharp drop signify then?

It must have been the rise of communism according to the logic of the OP.

"Faced with a choice between the Republican and Democratic versions of small government, more Americans are saying None of the above."

Long may it continue comrades, long may it continue.:)

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

Straight away, if you look at the backing and political actors involved in the Libertarian Party and the movement in general, you see there is a big image problem there; there are all sorts of corrupt characters involved, with shady histories, vested interests, absolutely ginormous conflicts of interest in general, and with some, money flying out their arses into the laps of various politicians and into think tanks or lobby groups, many of them known for essentially lying and providing false 'research', and all other manner of crap.

I think it's fair to ask whether you can back up the substantial claim that the entire libertarian movement is afflicted with these problems. Because a string of baseless assertions doesn't prove anything. Please note, the libertarian party is not the same thing as the libertarian movement.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

Do you want an entire critique of his last 4 years as president? I am not talking about individual issues, I am saying by being re elected his presidency has been endorsed.

So therefore his "HE HAS A MANDATE" is more locker room talk than reality. Yes, he has a limited mandate where he must work with the house in order to get anything done.

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

What kind of mandate did Bush have when he 'won' the electoral college by 500 very questionable votes after losing the popular vote to Al Gore? What kind of policies did he enact with said mandate?

Yet Obama wins 330 electoral votes and by more than couple of million in the popular vote and he has no mandate?

People need to get a clue.

Now, now where did anyone say he has no mandate. Saying that he doesn't have an all powerful unlimited mandate does not equal saying that he has no mandate. The clear mandate from this election is more of the same, gridlock.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

I think it's fair to ask whether you can back up the substantial claim that the entire libertarian movement is afflicted with these problems. Because a string of baseless assertions doesn't prove anything. Please note, the libertarian party is not the same thing as the libertarian movement.

Out of this list, there are about 6-7 Right-Libertarian things linked that I can't dig up some dirt on, with a short amount of Googling (and a very good number of them have direct ties to the Koch family):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizations

Can you point me to some Libertarian organizations or whatnot, which you would judge as truly independent/uncorrupted?

It's interesting also, just how many of the organizations are climate change skeptics, and anti-science in general. It is usually claimed that "some Libertarians are scientists, thus Libertarianism is not unscientific", but there is a clear disdain for science from many, particularly where it comes to think-thanks writing junk-science reports, such as those funded by the tobacco industry, attacking cancer science.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

So therefore his "HE HAS A MANDATE" is more locker room talk than reality. Yes, he has a limited mandate where he must work with the house in order to get anything done.

He has a mandate in reality. It's a limited one as you say. I never said he was given carte Blanche to do as he pleased.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I really don't see the point of my replying, but here it goes.

Barack Obama won an election that made him President of the United States. It just so happens he had the same job for the previous 4 years. The people of the US, those who bothered to vote anyway, endorsed his previous policies by re electing him.

They then went and muddied the waters by electing a GOP congress that had stone walled Obama on economic reform.

I will take these facts over any amount of surveys you produce telling me 65% of democratic voters want smaller government etc. . They are no better than pre election polls. By your logic we should simply ask Gallup who the next president is going to be and not bother with the election. I suppose eventually that would happen in your libertarian paradise as everything would be privatised, but I can't see it as a great idea.

You never fully answered me earlier on the social issues either. There is no indication that social liberalisation has anything to do with increased libertarianism. In fact every one of the states that you mentioned voted for Obama.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Oh it's a campaign funded by many more than just the Koch brothers; the Koch's just play a significant part in astroturfing for Libertarian interests, particularly with the Tea Party, and they fund arseloads of money into various high-profile think tanks, that the Libertarian movement in general depends upon for support. Do you actually disagree with any of that? It doesn't seem overly controversial.

There have been widespread online campaigns in general to promote Libertarian policies, that have been very organized (which isn't something that just happens spontaneously, in large numbers), and online astroturfing is one of the primary new areas where money is being spent to influence public opinion, which can be seen by even a cursory glance at the history of pro-Israeli propaganda online, and private contractors in the US intelligence/PR industry (exposed in the wake of the HBGary scandal), that expressly provide services for online astroturfing.

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

In the very same set of Gallup survey questions you use to back this up, the past stats between 1993-1998 show the population saying government are "doing too much" in high numbers, comparable to now; that didn't correlate at all with an upsurge in the Libertarian movement.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As others have said, you cannot say that this somehow a symptom of the country moving towards a libertarian position - at least without breaking down exactly what people are talking about issue by issue and then comparing across issues. For example, given the efforts by lawmakers in Virginia and other states to heavily regulate abortion to the point of mandating medical procedures that should be at the discretion of a physician (Vaginal ultrasound, for example), there are plenty of women who would identify as democrats but who would bemoan government regulation in this case. However, they may also support government action around subsidies for child care or workplace regulation - something that libertarians would ostensibly disagree with.

In addition, I fail to see how marginal support for a candidate somehow indicates broader public support for a political agenda. Ralph Nader won close to 1.9 million votes in the 2000 election, and this was hardly a harbinger of things to come for the Green Party or environmental concerns. Nor would any non-partisan observer try to attribute support for environmental regulation solely to the influence of the Green Party.

The bottom line is, just because some voters converge on certain key issues with a minor party (or even a major party) does not magically translate into some kind of fundamental political shift in that direction.

Denerick

I think Permabear is suffering from wishful thinking here. Sure, the American electorate as a whole is more socially liberal than it was 10 or 15 years ago, but the fiscal issues are rather complicated. For a start, most Americans seem to be completely ignorant about basic facts about the extent of government spending. The amount spent on foreign aid, 'pork barrel' discretionary spending, and certain federal social programmes are trivial (And the expense is more than justified in terms of improving America's soft power abroad and in terms of basic poverty reduction) The big ticket items are, as ever, social security, medicare, and the military. There does seem to be some support for cutting the latter but cutting the former would probably create a political revolution! Most of the people whining about higher tax rates and/or black people getting cash from the federal government will only concede the middle class entitlements from their cold dead hands! So I do think Permabear will have to go back to the drawing board if he really thinks the nation is going the way of Ron Paul.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

Libertarianism is just a popular fad amongst the young and immature.

Once Ron Paul is gone it'll fade away just like ralph nader.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Interestingly, the article you link to notes:

But the terms no doubt mean something different to just about everyone who uses them. A more precise verdict would be that the majority of the country remains slightly right of center when it comes to supporting lower spending, decreased debt and smaller government. But America appears to have shifted left of center in allowing more liberal policies on drugs and the institution of marriage. So, left on social issues and right on economics. If you eliminated the desire to tax the rich, it would sound like we had a center-libertarian nation.

Again, how does broad public support for large entitlement spending - which accounts for over half of the federal budget - square away with being center-libertarian? And - again - without defining 'smaller government', it's a bit of a stretch to say that the country is turning libertarian: as I noted, smaller government means different things to those who identify as liberals or conservatives - whereas 'smaller government' is a general principle of libertarianism. Finally, that is a honker of a caveat in the final sentence there - taxing the rich at a higher rate seems profoundly un-libertarian, no?

KyussBishop

The results cut heavily against the notion of a center-right dominance, at least when it comes to social issues.

That sums up the article pretty much; more socially Libertarian, sure, but that does not mean more politically/economically Libertarian.

And, crucially, Obama won with 60% of voters telling exit pollsters they supported the president’s call for higher taxes on the rich.

As southsiderosie said, that doesn't sound much like Libertarianism.

But Americans appear to remain more receptive to conservative viewpoints on spending, debt and the size of government. A bare majority, 51%, of voters last Tuesday told exit pollsters that government should do less, with 43% saying it should do more.

Seems to be based on the same "government should do less" non-policy-specific generalization that was dissected earlier.


I'm curious, where could you find actual in-person grassroots support for Libertarianism in the US? Is there actually anyone trying to promote it, outside of online commentary, think-tanks/lobbyists, and financial institutions?
I don't think the Tea Party is very active or credible anymore, and it's actual grassroots activism like that which tells you just how real the movement is among everyday people.

InTheTrees

When republicans have to drop their insanely intrusive ideologies about marriage, abortion, drugs, crime, medical care etc etc; It can seem very libertarian.

But it isnt. Its just what happens when right wingers try to be more social.

RGM

As someone who voted for Gary Johnson, I am deeply pessimistic about the future of Libertarians and third parties in the US.

The Republican party will adjust, slightly, if needed, to swallow enough Libertarian support to keep on. It is the same with Democrats and the Green Party. Third parties will never be allowed to live long enough to be a real problem for the parties that have a monopoly on the current system.

Some people seem to think this is acceptable, and that adjustments in the talking points of the Republicans and Democrats qualifies as "influence" from the third parties. It isn't, and it doesn't. Getting someone to tell you what you want to hear... kind of... is not an accomplishment.

Rand Paul, the supposed heir to the Ron Paul throne, endorsed Mitt Romney this year.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Duck Soup

Slight clarification on the notion of electing a Democrat President and a Republican House of Congress. The Democrats actually got more votes in congressional contests than the Republicans. The resulting distribution of seats is largely as a result of re-districting done after the 2010 mid-terms, when Republican dominated legislatures and committees created new boundaries that favoured Republicans. Just thought we should clear that up.

RGM

Duck Soup wrote: »

Slight clarification on the notion of electing a Democrat President and a Republican House of Congress. The Democrats actually got more votes in congressional contests than the Republicans. The resulting distribution of seats is largely as a result of re-districting done after the 2010 mid-terms, when Republican dominated legislatures and committees created new boundaries that favoured Republicans. Just thought we should clear that up.

In order to really clear it up, you should point out that both parties engage in this activity and Democrat-led bodies have done the same thing, including for this election.

Duck Soup

RGM wrote: »

In order to really clear it up, you should point out that both parties engage in this activity and Democrat-led bodies have done the same thing, including for this election.

Absolutely. My point is that the Democrats got more votes in the presidential, senate and congressional races. While we're talking about mandates and all that.

KyussBishop

Very interesting history of Libertarianism's modern foundations (from the same author of an article I posted earlier), as a collection of industry-funded think-thanks/lobby-groups, constructed in large part by big corporations, for the express purpose of creating a pseudo-intellectual political/economic framework, to help lobby for their interests:
http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/milton-friedman

Fits rather nicely with my post linking to the list Libertarian organizations a few days ago, as it's some of the organizations (and people) I did brief dirt-digging on there, that are written about in this new article.

False, whitewashed history is as much a part of the Milton Friedman mythology as it is the libertarian movement’s own airbrushed history about its origins; the 1950 Buchanan Committee hearings expose both as creations of big business lobby groups whose purpose is to deceive and defraud the public and legislators in order to advance the cause of corporate America.

A good summary of what Libertarianism really is, which becomes extremely apparent when you dig into the consequences of its policies, and its modern history.