As everyone knows, the Republican Party is in serious trouble with Latinos. If Mitt Romney gets any less popular with Hispanics, he'll disappear from their consciousness altogether.
The reasons for Latinos' antipathy toward the GOP include the endless insults that Republicans have lobbed at Hispanics, along with the fact that Latinos are not as socially conservative as people think.
Still, one would think more Hispanics would embrace that offshoot of conservative thought known as libertarianism. This philosophy, which holds that the individual is the basic unit of society and must be subject to as little governmental influence as possible, should really resonate with people who have roots in lands where the government crushes all free thought. It should also appeal to people who often have to pull themselves up from their bootstraps (to use a favorite conservative cliché) and start over in a new country.
But that hasn't happened. Currently, libertarians "are largely white, well-educated, and affluent." One could even say that "libertarians are mostly rich young white guys who, compared to most other Americans, live comfortable and financially secure lives."
Of course, there are Latino libertarians out there. But in general, talking Hispanics into espousing the Ron Paul agenda is only slightly easier than getting the pope to show up at the Stonewall Inn for a drink.
Libertarianism is still overwhelmingly the privilege of white men, who have a cultural advantage over other groups, regardless of what economic class they were born into. As such, they may believe they have achieved success solely through their own initiative. They may be blind to all the help they received, especially if their consciences are clear and they never discriminate against other ethnicities. They are certain they can do anything they set their minds to, because quite frankly, they often have done so (with society's help, of course).
However, this mindset blinds them to the fact that certain things -- and this is un-American to say -- are beyond their individual control. These can range from sudden health issues to global economic upheavals. They can also include the fact that the game is rigged to benefit the rich and that people's freewill decisions can be manipulated more easily than you think.
Perhaps Latinos, with our cultural baggage of Catholic fatalism and dictatorial governments, are more likely to know that a single person does not have unlimited power. Or maybe our emphasis on family provokes us to think beyond our individual needs. Or perhaps we realize that, despite a work ethic second to none, ceaseless labor and ambition are not always sufficient to get a person ahead in life.
Or maybe it comes down to the possibility that it's very easy to demand a libertarian system when one has gotten a good start in life and reaps the benefits of being on top of the socioeconomic pyramid. It's less common to advocate for that when you're still trying to claw your way upward.
In any case, I'm sure that if she had it to do all over again, Ayn Rand would have included at least one plucky Chicano objectivist named Hernandez in Atlas Shrugged.
Talk about a missed opportunity.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Come up with something a little less half baked please.
People who want to do what they want to do and not have to answer for it will go to extraordinary lengths to justify their selfish behavior.
Me I think that you wanting to tell everyone else how to live is the epitome of selfishness and insensitivity.
When you think about blinds pls think about Out door designer shade company.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_Shrugged_characters#section_1
If you think a book is a total waste, why discuss it at all?
If you are going to discuss it, basic simple personal honesty requires that you have an effing clue about what you speak of.
I don't "rely on" Rand's works for my vision of reality, but facts are facts. D'Anconia was one of the major characters of the work he asserted had no Latino characters.
The author is clearly challenged on keeping his facts straight.
Ron Paul is not the be all and end of libertarianism. He has continually moved farther and farther away from libertarian thought and is thorough-going social conservative. Once he kicks that leg out from underneath the stool of libertarianism is ceases being one. He is a paleoconservative, not a libertarian.
Duh! My favorite Atlas character has always been Francisco D'Anconia. I rather think he qualifies as at least a plucky Latino.
On a more serious note, libertarians do recognize that not everyone is a Francisco. The character I most personally related to was Eddie, Dagny's assistant, a dedicated worker who knew his limits. Anyone may need a leg up sometime in their life. Libertarians just believe that asking the government for help is asking for trouble. Libertarians oppose the coercive power of government. Instead they support the voluntary power of community. But community functions outside the realm of politics.
Politics is only one of the five branches of philosophy. It does not purport to tell you what you should value in life, only that you should pursue those values in a non-coercive way. I think most Latinos instinctively understand this at a cultural level. So I have to ask why are there so few Latino libertarians?
I have been a libertarian for more years than the Libertarian Party existed, it is now a world wide movement. It saddens me that so many still do not bother to investigate what it really represents. Most libertarian groups are a very diverse mixture of individuals, but who do not care to represent themselves by race, sexual preference or nationality. Further, for the author's information, Ayn Rand did have a Latino character in Atlas Shrugged. He was one of the three primary characters; a man of wealth who deliberately destroyed his wealth on principle.
As far as Austrian Economics not being viable, there is an important understanding that is missing from too many people's evaluation of economics. A market exists with humans interacting whether one allows it, wishes it, or supports the concept. How ethical and rewarding it will be depends on the atmosphere of self ownership and non aggression; this would include the inability of some to engage in state favoritism (mercantilism)as well as direct state tyranny. Libertarians alone have protested both forms of tyranny. If you truly favor collectivism (sorry the word irritates but it is what it is) go ahead. but do a little research before condemning that about which you are ignorant.
As a reality it doesn't work - at least how it has been explained to me in how they feel. Basically it lets the people take care of problems on their own - such as land use type issues (zoning). Libertarianism would say that it is OK to have that truck stop move into a residential neighborhood. They would say it is the owner of the property who then would bear responsibility to anyone should a negative effect occur. Essentially they would force people to sue to collect if the truck stop lowered property values. So not only do they impose a massive amount of responsibility on people who can never hope to compete with business interests in the courts but they also would spurn a massive growth in the courts - IE the government.
It just can't work in a modern society.