The other day my dad texted me about the new Argentinian president. Saying they had sworn in a "libertine"* president. I'm pretty sure he meant "libertarian".
I'm skeptical of politicians whom anyone labels as "libertarian" because I've seen how rarely it pans out.
The media, which always lies, calls Argentina's new president "libertarian", or "far-right libertarian". Which is it?... because it can't be both. Not as a politician, anyway.
Politics is about how you interact with the outside world when you have power. You are either libertarian or you're not. You could have inner thoughts that were "far-right" or socialist, and as long as all your actions respected everyone's equal and identical rights you'd be libertarian. Despite your inner thoughts and preferences.
I have preferences that are "conservative" and others that are "liberal", but only where those labels align with respecting basic rights. I'm not going to send government after (or otherwise attack) you just because I don't like something you do. As long as you aren't violating anyone else, whether I like what you do or not isn't of any consequence.
But if, as a politician, you implement policies that don't respect human rights, then you might just be "far-right" or socialist or something else, but it's something other than libertarian. Actions speak louder than labels.
-
*Libertines seek pure freedom. Libertarians are founded on liberty.
There may be some overlap, but not as much as some want you to believe.
If I were a libertine, I would either be much happier or much less happy, depending on how insurmountable the obstacles were.
