The ironic thing about libertarians is how they believe their ideology is being overlooked and yet libertarianism is the hidden grammar of American politics. We have 'em on both sides of the political aisle, the Republicans (fiscal libertarianism) and the Democrats (social libertarianism). For all the talk the GOP has about preserving our Christian culture and for all the talk the Dems have about the helping the worker, the downtrodden, when it comes down to it the Republicans will always prioritize lower taxes and helping big corporations while the Democrats will always prioritize promoting sexual degeneracy and drugs.
That’s one of the most interesting things: libertarian economic policies have been in place for quite some time. Obviously, it’s not the entire libertarian program, but that’s because it’s unworkable as communism.
That’s the thing about ideology though, right? It’s immune to reality.
I stopped calling myself a libertarian in 2020. I saw, finally, that it didn't mean anything. There were libertarians telling me I should be forced to get the vax and others saying it was not merely ok, but desirable, for grocery stores to starve my family until we gave in and wore masks because, you know, they're "private companies". Then they told me it was all right for "private companies" like YouTube, Facebook, etc... to censor me and news they didn't like, which conveniently was the exact same stuff the state didn't like. Libertarianism ex nihilo is bound for the same end as Bolshevism or the French Revolution. The NAP is not the be all, end all of ethics and Rothbard was not the stay of philosophy. Without higher values to base these suppositions in, it is just a raft of dodgy assertions that you are free to abandon or reinterpret when you felt like it, and most will. At the very least, libertarians were totally out maneuvered by the state outsourcing it's oppression to "private" actors over the last few years, and they still have no answer to this reality within the framework they've contrived, so it doesn't even matter that their critique of the state is valuable.
Good points. Like most ideologies, libertarianism has several presuppositions that it requires to be true (man is rational, economic considerations are the key to happiness, being an atomized individual leads to human flourishing) that have repeatedly been proven false. Many such cases: both mainstream conservatism and liberalism suffer from this as well. Hell, any and all ideologies do.
The key is, does one abandon what doesn’t work in favor of what does, or does one double down? History shows us that far more often than not it’s the latter.
As a modernist ideology birthed from the Enlightenment, libertarianism is brother to progressivism, Communism, Socialism, Nationalism, neoliberal globalism, and all the other -isms that it claims to despise, and has many of the same premises even if it comes to different conclusions. And like all of those other ideologies, its virtues (the virtue of libertarianism is the declaration that there must be limits to the legitimacy of authority and that crimes are crimes even when committed by the powerful) begin to breakdown, and its arguments become incoherent, when they are amputated from their unacknowledged roots in Christian moral law. Christ tells us that each man is his own end, so we must love our neighbor as much as ourselves (but to love God most of all!). There are Christian libertarians who leave it at that. But the 'rationalist', metaphysical-materialist libertarian who believes the Non-Aggression Principle is the starting and ending point of all moral, ethical, and even aesthetic value, comes to believe that the collective doesn't exist even notionally, and that because each individual is an end in himself, we must love ourselves more than anyone else, even our own children, and that our temporary, deranged passions must be elevated above the commonweal, or even our own health. They see the slavery of the passions as freedom, just like the Bolshevik sees the slavery of the Soviet as freedom from the robber baron. Same premises, different conclusions.
The problem that I find with libertarians is they don't take human nature into account. Their ideas SOUND good on paper, but are completely at odds with reality. And I say this as someone who leans libertarian.
It’s a common issue with most ideologies: theory versus praxis. Libertarianism is as pie-in-the-sky unworkable as communism.
Libertarians have some good ideas, and the anti-authority instinct is healthy, but some others, like never using state power, are silly and bound to end in subjugation to those who will.
Yeah, man, it's the most mind-boggling thing when the Bill Kristol and David French types gnash their teeth and clutch their pearls at Republican politicians (mainly DeSantis) utilizing legislative power that is perfectly within their limits. They can't fathom that limited governance doesn't mean no governance whatsoever. Plus, oddly enough, they have absolutely no problem with Biden and his ilk flagrantly overstepping their bounds.
Libertarianism is a first world invention that can only exist in a vacuum, much like the one the later half of the 20th century existed in. It has no way of surviving contact with entropy and decline, as we can clearly see now because it's no longer the 1990s and your biggest potential problem with your neighbor isn't that he might build his fence too high.
Materialism is a dead end and helped lead us to where we are today. It's time to stop pretending otherwise.
I consider myself to be libertarian in attitude. I think reducing the size and power of the state and doing everything we can to keep government out of people’s lives are valid priorities. That said, the amount of delusional libertarian nonsense out there is astounding. Were these people not present for the last four years?
I get those desires and I think they’re healthy. But the older I get the more I realize that most people need to be told what to do and what to believe, especially if you want a cohesive society. Having GOOD things be promoted in a healthy way is the key. How to do this is for people much smarter than me to figure out, but ideally it wouldn’t be at gunpoint. Having leaders who don’t hate us would be a start, as would peaceful separation of the population into groups who don’t hate each other.
You may be more rightward than I am but this is a spot on attack on libertarianism. Yanis Varoufakis may be left of you, but I think you might agree technofeudalism is what we get out of all this "freedom."
The funny thing about being on the big, bad, scary “right” (as opposed to being a conservative), is the amount of overlap with the actual serious intellectual left. Funny, right?
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said you were disappointed in materialism generally, because I don't think a lot of what you complain about here is inherent to libertarianism.
The Amish have in practice, if not stated ideology, one of the more libertarian societies around - their rules are enforced by custom and social ostracism rather than force, and individuals in their community are free to exit. Not many would argue that they are excessively materialist or that they lack a sense of community.
Before the advent of the welfare state people were much more tied to their communities out of necessity, and they formed voluntary societies to help one another out. The growing dependence on the state and corresponding independence from family and community has arguably atomized us more than any nominal ideological shift toward free markets.
Good point but libertarianism rests on materialism whereas the Amish are deeply Christian. Custom and social ostracism is also at odds with atomized individualism, although maybe I’m misunderstanding something.
Some of the libertarian theories about government are good, ditto some of the economic theories, but a lot of the social theories, to me, are purely materialist and that is what I find lacking in them. Life is about more than stuff.
I don't think it does rest on materialism - there are devout Christians who are also dedicated libertarians, for example Dave Smith or Tom Woods. Pure libertarianism is a very limited and narrow philosophy that only deals with questions of when the use of force is justified, and IMO must be paired with other community-shared value systems for the formation of a healthy society.
Libertarians need not be individualists, either - they only need to be opposed to the aggressive initiation of force. A libertarian society that I would personally want to live in would be something like a tight-knit community with strong socially enforced pro-social norms in the place of legally enforced ones.
Huh. Tight-knit communities and libertarian aren’t things I’d often associate.
I get wanting socially enforced pro-social normal instead of legally enforced ones, but you can never get rid of a legal system man. Legal systems and codes developed to catch when social enforcement weren’t sufficient on their own. I get the sentiment but there’s also the practical reality to consider.
Yeah - you could even theoretically be libertarian and communist so long as your commune is a voluntary one!
I don't want to get rid of a legal system, just reduce its scope and the crimes it has the authority to punish. For instance, the state should be able to take down a cult that is abusing kids, but not a hippie commune growing weed for its own consumption - obviously there are gray areas in between these extremes that have to be adjudicated, but you get the idea.
In my mind, the biggest obstacles to social enforcement of healthy norms right now is (1) a complete abrogation of freedom of association by state and federal law and (2) state-mandated indoctrination in both and schools and the workplace, partially stemming from those same laws.
Mind you, the growing dependence on the state occurred as the result of Government implementing policies designed to undermine family authority and community cohesion while outlawing community functions such as Community policing or Lemonade stands.
The complete failure of Materialism to satisfy people's needs is the Single greatest indication of the failure of mainstream political discourse in the West (Couched as it all is on muh economics, muh freedumbs, and muh law).
That Libertarians' model for explaining the world sounds more delusional than the average Democratic Socialist's is the final nail in the coffin.
When I speak about how I hold mostly libertarian beliefs I define it as "I believe I have the right to make every decision about what happens to me regardless if the decisions are good or bad." If I choose to smoke then that is my problem. I must accept that I will experience respiratory issues or cancer. I should not expect people (read taxpayers) to pay for a potential lung transplant or chemotherapy because they had nothing to do with my decision to smoke. Even if someone offered me one outside a bar at 1am and I kept up the habit it's my fault for accepting it.
If you want people to help you because of a bad decision you made you need to ask them for help. If they say no that's tough luck/love then. Libertarianism is not about forcing people to rescue you from your shortcomings or failures.
There is liberty and in my experience a wonderful feeling in taking responsibility for everything that happens to you. Even if someone else may have been some of cause of your problems you need to examine the situation and find out how they got that much control over your life. If you own a car you should be responsible for fixing it. If you choose not to for whatever reason then you outsource that responsibility to a mechanic. If that mechanic rips you off find another mechanic or learn to do it yourself. Of course you can talk shit about that mechanic so long as it is truthful. Slander and libel are not incompatible with libertarian beliefs.
When people make jokes about "muh freedoms" it is both funny and ignorant. People seem to forget that complete freedom should be the starting point for any discussion. If you don't start there you have already ceded that someone else has control over you. As an individual that control should be willingly, sparely and ideally temporarily given and not automatically.
Complete freedom to what? To dk what? Even complete economic freedom with zero constraints could have bad effects. This is an honest question.
Also, re: charity or help. You talk about instances where people’s bad choices lead to problems—smoking in your example. Is that person a bad person if their only vice is smoking? Does this hypothetical person deserve to die? What about recreational drug users? Why do they, in a lot of libertarian and libertarian-leaning theories, deserve a safe space to do their drugs? Aren’t those a bad choice? What about people who have health or financial issues due to no fault of their own? The answer can’t be “Fuck ‘em,” can it?
I always appreciate the conversation so don’t take this as an attack, please.
It may be easier for me to reply to your economic freedom with zero constraints comment with an example or two. Generally my answer is if I earn or legally receive money (inheritance, lottery) I get to choose how to spend it without being unreasonably taxed. There are obvious parameters such as I cannot pay someone to set your house on fire but that shouldn't need to be said.
I won't say they are a bad person but I can say they are making bad decisions that can have serious consequences. Should it happen yes you deserve to die from cancer or lung issues caused by your choice to smoke. If people who care about you chose to help you out so be it. I shouldn't have to be forced to care with my tax money because of your $20 per pack habit (cigarettes are expensive up here). Someone chooses to have an expensive vice and expects me to poney up money when it goes wrong? Yes, fuck anyone with that mindset.
With regard to drugs I believe you are welcome to consume whatever substances you wish within your own home (or someone else's should you have permission). If your substance abuse renders you homeless then drug use in public spaces is not acceptable on the basis of "where else am I supposed to do it?". Drugs in public spaces should be banned.
Again , I need an example of "health or financial issue due to no fault of their own". My answer could vary from "actually that is their own fault" to "litigation/insurance" to "yes some things are outside of an individuals control and should be considered the exception rather than the rule/law".
I don't consider it an attack no. I may suggest we move the discussion outside of the comments section as it may get lengthy or go back and forth over days. That is up to you of course as you made the post not me.
I’m with you on the tax question, mostly. Some taxes are probably necessary. Most of what we are taxed on are not. They’re egregious and disgusting.
So the health/bad habits thing: I kind of agree. I disagree on drug legalization, and while people do have the right to be stupid, I do think it should be vigorously discouraged (not solely by law, but law as a part of it).
People with health or other issues: that’s what charity is for, and I think it’s a shame there isn’t more charity. I am not in favor of tax money being lavished on people who deliberately make poor choices. That’s what charity and other institutions, ideally, are for.
I appreciate the conversation my friend. Your comment sparked this post, after all.
Okay Eric here is an example: you have a child and it has a serious developmental disability. If you want to support her to reach her full potential it will ruin you financially. It was your choice to have a child no? In your libertarian paradise you will suffer the full consequences of your action, i.e financial ruin.
The ironic thing about libertarians is how they believe their ideology is being overlooked and yet libertarianism is the hidden grammar of American politics. We have 'em on both sides of the political aisle, the Republicans (fiscal libertarianism) and the Democrats (social libertarianism). For all the talk the GOP has about preserving our Christian culture and for all the talk the Dems have about the helping the worker, the downtrodden, when it comes down to it the Republicans will always prioritize lower taxes and helping big corporations while the Democrats will always prioritize promoting sexual degeneracy and drugs.
That’s one of the most interesting things: libertarian economic policies have been in place for quite some time. Obviously, it’s not the entire libertarian program, but that’s because it’s unworkable as communism.
That’s the thing about ideology though, right? It’s immune to reality.
I stopped calling myself a libertarian in 2020. I saw, finally, that it didn't mean anything. There were libertarians telling me I should be forced to get the vax and others saying it was not merely ok, but desirable, for grocery stores to starve my family until we gave in and wore masks because, you know, they're "private companies". Then they told me it was all right for "private companies" like YouTube, Facebook, etc... to censor me and news they didn't like, which conveniently was the exact same stuff the state didn't like. Libertarianism ex nihilo is bound for the same end as Bolshevism or the French Revolution. The NAP is not the be all, end all of ethics and Rothbard was not the stay of philosophy. Without higher values to base these suppositions in, it is just a raft of dodgy assertions that you are free to abandon or reinterpret when you felt like it, and most will. At the very least, libertarians were totally out maneuvered by the state outsourcing it's oppression to "private" actors over the last few years, and they still have no answer to this reality within the framework they've contrived, so it doesn't even matter that their critique of the state is valuable.
Good points. Like most ideologies, libertarianism has several presuppositions that it requires to be true (man is rational, economic considerations are the key to happiness, being an atomized individual leads to human flourishing) that have repeatedly been proven false. Many such cases: both mainstream conservatism and liberalism suffer from this as well. Hell, any and all ideologies do.
The key is, does one abandon what doesn’t work in favor of what does, or does one double down? History shows us that far more often than not it’s the latter.
As a modernist ideology birthed from the Enlightenment, libertarianism is brother to progressivism, Communism, Socialism, Nationalism, neoliberal globalism, and all the other -isms that it claims to despise, and has many of the same premises even if it comes to different conclusions. And like all of those other ideologies, its virtues (the virtue of libertarianism is the declaration that there must be limits to the legitimacy of authority and that crimes are crimes even when committed by the powerful) begin to breakdown, and its arguments become incoherent, when they are amputated from their unacknowledged roots in Christian moral law. Christ tells us that each man is his own end, so we must love our neighbor as much as ourselves (but to love God most of all!). There are Christian libertarians who leave it at that. But the 'rationalist', metaphysical-materialist libertarian who believes the Non-Aggression Principle is the starting and ending point of all moral, ethical, and even aesthetic value, comes to believe that the collective doesn't exist even notionally, and that because each individual is an end in himself, we must love ourselves more than anyone else, even our own children, and that our temporary, deranged passions must be elevated above the commonweal, or even our own health. They see the slavery of the passions as freedom, just like the Bolshevik sees the slavery of the Soviet as freedom from the robber baron. Same premises, different conclusions.
Liberty always requires an oppressor to be liberated from. God is the ultimate oppressor, I guess, if you stretch the logic out far enough.
The problem that I find with libertarians is they don't take human nature into account. Their ideas SOUND good on paper, but are completely at odds with reality. And I say this as someone who leans libertarian.
It’s a common issue with most ideologies: theory versus praxis. Libertarianism is as pie-in-the-sky unworkable as communism.
Libertarians have some good ideas, and the anti-authority instinct is healthy, but some others, like never using state power, are silly and bound to end in subjugation to those who will.
Yeah, man, it's the most mind-boggling thing when the Bill Kristol and David French types gnash their teeth and clutch their pearls at Republican politicians (mainly DeSantis) utilizing legislative power that is perfectly within their limits. They can't fathom that limited governance doesn't mean no governance whatsoever. Plus, oddly enough, they have absolutely no problem with Biden and his ilk flagrantly overstepping their bounds.
Ideology always sounds good until you have a country to run.
Libertarianism is a first world invention that can only exist in a vacuum, much like the one the later half of the 20th century existed in. It has no way of surviving contact with entropy and decline, as we can clearly see now because it's no longer the 1990s and your biggest potential problem with your neighbor isn't that he might build his fence too high.
Materialism is a dead end and helped lead us to where we are today. It's time to stop pretending otherwise.
Materialism was always a dead end. It is long past a dead worldview and now we’re at the “maggots oozing through the leftover glop” phase.
This, so much.
I consider myself to be libertarian in attitude. I think reducing the size and power of the state and doing everything we can to keep government out of people’s lives are valid priorities. That said, the amount of delusional libertarian nonsense out there is astounding. Were these people not present for the last four years?
I get those desires and I think they’re healthy. But the older I get the more I realize that most people need to be told what to do and what to believe, especially if you want a cohesive society. Having GOOD things be promoted in a healthy way is the key. How to do this is for people much smarter than me to figure out, but ideally it wouldn’t be at gunpoint. Having leaders who don’t hate us would be a start, as would peaceful separation of the population into groups who don’t hate each other.
You may be more rightward than I am but this is a spot on attack on libertarianism. Yanis Varoufakis may be left of you, but I think you might agree technofeudalism is what we get out of all this "freedom."
Technofeudalism is about all we’re left with.
The funny thing about being on the big, bad, scary “right” (as opposed to being a conservative), is the amount of overlap with the actual serious intellectual left. Funny, right?
Libertarians are just Leftists.
Of a certain type, yes sir.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said you were disappointed in materialism generally, because I don't think a lot of what you complain about here is inherent to libertarianism.
The Amish have in practice, if not stated ideology, one of the more libertarian societies around - their rules are enforced by custom and social ostracism rather than force, and individuals in their community are free to exit. Not many would argue that they are excessively materialist or that they lack a sense of community.
Before the advent of the welfare state people were much more tied to their communities out of necessity, and they formed voluntary societies to help one another out. The growing dependence on the state and corresponding independence from family and community has arguably atomized us more than any nominal ideological shift toward free markets.
Good point but libertarianism rests on materialism whereas the Amish are deeply Christian. Custom and social ostracism is also at odds with atomized individualism, although maybe I’m misunderstanding something.
Some of the libertarian theories about government are good, ditto some of the economic theories, but a lot of the social theories, to me, are purely materialist and that is what I find lacking in them. Life is about more than stuff.
I don't think it does rest on materialism - there are devout Christians who are also dedicated libertarians, for example Dave Smith or Tom Woods. Pure libertarianism is a very limited and narrow philosophy that only deals with questions of when the use of force is justified, and IMO must be paired with other community-shared value systems for the formation of a healthy society.
Libertarians need not be individualists, either - they only need to be opposed to the aggressive initiation of force. A libertarian society that I would personally want to live in would be something like a tight-knit community with strong socially enforced pro-social norms in the place of legally enforced ones.
Huh. Tight-knit communities and libertarian aren’t things I’d often associate.
I get wanting socially enforced pro-social normal instead of legally enforced ones, but you can never get rid of a legal system man. Legal systems and codes developed to catch when social enforcement weren’t sufficient on their own. I get the sentiment but there’s also the practical reality to consider.
Yeah - you could even theoretically be libertarian and communist so long as your commune is a voluntary one!
I don't want to get rid of a legal system, just reduce its scope and the crimes it has the authority to punish. For instance, the state should be able to take down a cult that is abusing kids, but not a hippie commune growing weed for its own consumption - obviously there are gray areas in between these extremes that have to be adjudicated, but you get the idea.
In my mind, the biggest obstacles to social enforcement of healthy norms right now is (1) a complete abrogation of freedom of association by state and federal law and (2) state-mandated indoctrination in both and schools and the workplace, partially stemming from those same laws.
Mind you, the growing dependence on the state occurred as the result of Government implementing policies designed to undermine family authority and community cohesion while outlawing community functions such as Community policing or Lemonade stands.
Right. The libertarian social theories are really deleterious to cohesive culture. And they invite big brother to fill in the empty spaces. Very bad!
The complete failure of Materialism to satisfy people's needs is the Single greatest indication of the failure of mainstream political discourse in the West (Couched as it all is on muh economics, muh freedumbs, and muh law).
That Libertarians' model for explaining the world sounds more delusional than the average Democratic Socialist's is the final nail in the coffin.
When I speak about how I hold mostly libertarian beliefs I define it as "I believe I have the right to make every decision about what happens to me regardless if the decisions are good or bad." If I choose to smoke then that is my problem. I must accept that I will experience respiratory issues or cancer. I should not expect people (read taxpayers) to pay for a potential lung transplant or chemotherapy because they had nothing to do with my decision to smoke. Even if someone offered me one outside a bar at 1am and I kept up the habit it's my fault for accepting it.
If you want people to help you because of a bad decision you made you need to ask them for help. If they say no that's tough luck/love then. Libertarianism is not about forcing people to rescue you from your shortcomings or failures.
There is liberty and in my experience a wonderful feeling in taking responsibility for everything that happens to you. Even if someone else may have been some of cause of your problems you need to examine the situation and find out how they got that much control over your life. If you own a car you should be responsible for fixing it. If you choose not to for whatever reason then you outsource that responsibility to a mechanic. If that mechanic rips you off find another mechanic or learn to do it yourself. Of course you can talk shit about that mechanic so long as it is truthful. Slander and libel are not incompatible with libertarian beliefs.
When people make jokes about "muh freedoms" it is both funny and ignorant. People seem to forget that complete freedom should be the starting point for any discussion. If you don't start there you have already ceded that someone else has control over you. As an individual that control should be willingly, sparely and ideally temporarily given and not automatically.
ok
Complete freedom to what? To dk what? Even complete economic freedom with zero constraints could have bad effects. This is an honest question.
Also, re: charity or help. You talk about instances where people’s bad choices lead to problems—smoking in your example. Is that person a bad person if their only vice is smoking? Does this hypothetical person deserve to die? What about recreational drug users? Why do they, in a lot of libertarian and libertarian-leaning theories, deserve a safe space to do their drugs? Aren’t those a bad choice? What about people who have health or financial issues due to no fault of their own? The answer can’t be “Fuck ‘em,” can it?
I always appreciate the conversation so don’t take this as an attack, please.
It may be easier for me to reply to your economic freedom with zero constraints comment with an example or two. Generally my answer is if I earn or legally receive money (inheritance, lottery) I get to choose how to spend it without being unreasonably taxed. There are obvious parameters such as I cannot pay someone to set your house on fire but that shouldn't need to be said.
I won't say they are a bad person but I can say they are making bad decisions that can have serious consequences. Should it happen yes you deserve to die from cancer or lung issues caused by your choice to smoke. If people who care about you chose to help you out so be it. I shouldn't have to be forced to care with my tax money because of your $20 per pack habit (cigarettes are expensive up here). Someone chooses to have an expensive vice and expects me to poney up money when it goes wrong? Yes, fuck anyone with that mindset.
With regard to drugs I believe you are welcome to consume whatever substances you wish within your own home (or someone else's should you have permission). If your substance abuse renders you homeless then drug use in public spaces is not acceptable on the basis of "where else am I supposed to do it?". Drugs in public spaces should be banned.
Again , I need an example of "health or financial issue due to no fault of their own". My answer could vary from "actually that is their own fault" to "litigation/insurance" to "yes some things are outside of an individuals control and should be considered the exception rather than the rule/law".
I don't consider it an attack no. I may suggest we move the discussion outside of the comments section as it may get lengthy or go back and forth over days. That is up to you of course as you made the post not me.
I’m with you on the tax question, mostly. Some taxes are probably necessary. Most of what we are taxed on are not. They’re egregious and disgusting.
So the health/bad habits thing: I kind of agree. I disagree on drug legalization, and while people do have the right to be stupid, I do think it should be vigorously discouraged (not solely by law, but law as a part of it).
People with health or other issues: that’s what charity is for, and I think it’s a shame there isn’t more charity. I am not in favor of tax money being lavished on people who deliberately make poor choices. That’s what charity and other institutions, ideally, are for.
I appreciate the conversation my friend. Your comment sparked this post, after all.
Okay Eric here is an example: you have a child and it has a serious developmental disability. If you want to support her to reach her full potential it will ruin you financially. It was your choice to have a child no? In your libertarian paradise you will suffer the full consequences of your action, i.e financial ruin.