Libertarians - becoming Dems?

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds that property and liberty are the only fundamental rights, and those are to be interpreted as negative rights: they merely require others not to interfere with one as they choose to exercise the right (or not); they never require the active assistance of others. A libertarian thus believes helping others is not a duty, but charity. Your duty is not to interfere with others as they use their property, as long as they don't interfere with you. Robert Nozick's 'night watchman' state is perhaps the best known development of this philosophy in the 20th century.

Libertarians accordingly value very small government, believing most taxes are simply the theft of one's property by the government. They are anti-paternalistic; they would abolish the government agencies that tell us what to do or restrict our liberty to use our own property. So the FDA, the DEA, the Department of Education, the Department of Transportation, etc - all would disappear under a consistent libertarian regime. If you want to drive, pay for the roads yourself; if you want to use drugs, you're free to do so (as long as you don't harm others); if you want to engage in dog fighting with Michael Vick, go right ahead (as long as you use only dogs you properly own).

Libertarians have traditionally joined the Republican Party when they seek actual power (they have their own party, but it holds no high elected office). Ron Paul is probably their best known politician - a libertarian who joined the Republican party so he could get elected to Congress, and is now running for President - and has appeared on both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, so breaking through into a modicum of the popular consciousness.

Libertarians have usually joined the Republicans because traditionally that was the party of smaller government spending and power - the party that emphasized, as traditional conservatives did, that government, like all humans, is flawed and is liable to abuse the power it holds, so it's best not to give it any more than necessary, in order to preserve liberty.

Reagan talked this way in 1980, but in fact considerably raised government spending. Much of that was due to a defense spending spree, and libertarians can countenance that, so many swallowed Reagan's increases; but they were not happy, and led the charge to ensure that Gingrich's ingenious plan to recapture Republican control of Congress, the 1994 'Contract With America', would trumpet smaller government and cutbacks in federal spending, as well as balancing the budget.

Gingrich's Contract was successful in getting Republicans control of the House, but once in power, the Republicans soon proved even more adept at deficit spending than Democrats, effectively lying to their libertarian supporters. Clinton presided over balanced budgets and even a surplus, but as soon as Republicans gained control of both the legislative and executive branches in January 2001, deficit spending soon hit all-time highs. Much of this (as under Reagan) was supposedly justified by defense spending (especially after 9/11), but in fact the Republicans have turned this into a partisan kleptocracy and plutocracy of the highest order. And the war in Iraq, a clear violation of libertarian principles (Ron Paul opposed it from the start), is simply the best means for the widespread looting of the federal treasury by criminals with Republican connections, aided and abetted by the current administration.

Libertarians value social liberty as well as the economic liberty of laissez-faire capitalism, so they have always co-existed uneasily with the religious fundamentalists within the Republican Party. So, those libertarians who actually want to have power and/or vote for a winner, look at the two parties and ask: which is now closer to my ideals - the party which has always emphasized social liberties and is the last to actually achieve balanced budgets and opposes military conscription and corruption, or the Republicans? The result: many libertarians are becoming Democrats - and the change in 2006 election results shows it. In the libertarian-leaning West, the Democrats made significant gains in traditional Republican strongholds - as e.g., Jon Tester, running on a largely libertarian-friendly platform, won election to the Senate from Montana - as a Democrat.

As the nation as a whole grows richer and markets better regulated and personal freedoms more precious than the question of where the next meal is coming from, I suspect libertarianism will become more and more popular as an ideology. The party that embraces it more thoroughly should thereby gain and retain power - and at the moment, that looks like the Democrats.