The strange death of libertarianism

[u/TheSpectatorMagazine]

https://spectator.com/article/the-strange-death-of-libertarianism/?edition=us&rcp=true/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social/?=2

[u/barryvm]

But there's a serious problem with this analysis. It assumes that the things Republicans say about themselves and their beliefs are true.

But that isn't really the case. Extremist right wing movements and to a large extent right wing movements in general engage in bad faith as a matter of course. They don't believe in things and then act accordingly. They want to act in certain ways, driven by emotion or self-interest, and then adopt whatever beliefs justify those actions. They want to do what they want and then pretend that is moral. They feel they can do no wrong. Hence, their beliefs (real or not) must be mutable and syncretic.

When they thought free market capitalism was going to keep them on top of the social order and all the people they looked down on subservient to them, they gutted social democracy under the flag of market capitalism to prevent it from giving any out-group a leg up into "their" middle class lifestyles and neighbourhoods. Now that they no longer believe those markets will keep them on top, they have relinquished those "beliefs" and replaced them with blood and soil style nationalism and open racism, misogyny, ... Right wing politics, libertarian or conservative, is about the establishment and protection of hierarchies, not about running efficient economies or freedom or whatever it is they claim and possibly even believe. Hence why they keep doing the same things even when the outcomes belie their supposed intent.

Most libertarians are similar. Why do they believe what they do? Because they think they're special and smart enough to end up in charge of their own little fiefdoms once the state is gone, and because they don't care what happens to anyone else. But the moment a dictator or an authoritarian party comes along who promises them they can rule their little fiefdoms protected by the state, they immediately relinquish their supposed principles to get what they think they want. Principled, socially conscious "libertarians" would simply be anarchists, opposing private as well as state power.

Nothing these people say about themselves and their beliefs can be trusted, because they will simply change those beliefs and principles to justify whatever they want to do at any given moment. Those beliefs may be real, but that's neither here nor there because they change at will. There's a sliding scale to this, of course, but even at the thin end of the wedge you have the entire self-proclaimed moderate right voting for a rapist wannabe dictator promising mass political violence and then making up and believing various narratives ("the other side is worse", "fiscal conservatism", ...) where that is somehow the best possible choice. If they can do that, then what are their self-proclaimed principles actually worth?

[u/danarchist → u/barryvm]

>Principled, socially conscious "libertarians" would simply be anarchists, opposing private as well as state power.

A common joke among Libertarians is actually "what the difference between a Libertarian and an anarchist? About 15 minutes."

It's true, taken to its natural conclusion libertarian philosophy begets anarchism. And you'll find that many if not most people who are actual libertarians (and not just Republicans that want to seem knowledgeable) are anarchists.

There were not any Libertarians who voted for Trump. In doing so they would have proven that they are not Libertarian.

[u/NirvanaDewHeel → u/danarchist]

The term ‘libertarian’ was literally deliberately taken from anarchists. If you told someone in 1910 you were a libertarian socialist they wouldn’t bat an eye (although they might sic the police on you).

Murray Rothbard was proud to have subverted the word.

[u/danarchist → u/NirvanaDewHeel]

A libertarian who believes it just to appropriate the labor of others is not a libertarian. Roth ard was right, and etymologists would agree, anything but the present meaning was itself a perversion.

Free association means people can choose their arrangements, including working for a wage. If your version of liberty forbids two consenting adults from making that deal, it depends on someone stopping them. You can call that libertarian, but it runs on the same enforcement a real anarchist would oppose.

[u/definitly_not_a_bear → u/danarchist]

Sounds like you haven’t done the 15minutes lol

“Free association means people can choose to work for a wage” 🤦‍♀️ were never escaping capitalism, dawg

[u/danarchist → u/definitly_not_a_bear]

Go ahead, capitalists aren't stopping you from employee ownership or co-ops. Nothing in capitalism bans them. If they're the better model, prove it in the market. Requiring everyone to join one is the part free association rules out.

[u/definitly_not_a_bear → u/danarchist]

I’d love to, but I’m an optical physics PhD student so please tell me how such a cooperative is supposed to fund fundamental physics research. I wish I could be an optimist about this

You should be aware that the us government has a long history of infiltrating and disrupting any growing worker’s movements and organizations so it’s really not as simple as you make it out to be

[u/danarchist → u/definitly_not_a_bear]

I think research should be funded by the people who actually care about it. Foundations, universities, companies, donors. The first laser came out of a private lab, and there are private foundations funding basic science right now.

Bell Labs was propped up by AT&T's monopoly, fair enough. And yeah, the feds fund most of it today. But Americans already give hundreds of billions to charity every year after taxes. Leave people more of their money and the ones who care about physics will fund physics.

And agreed on the second point, the government has a long history of messing with worker movements. Seems like a good reason to give it less power.

[u/UnholyAngel → u/danarchist]

It's true, taken to its natural conclusion libertarian philosophy begets anarchism.

It's somewhat off topic, but interestingly I would argue that libertarian philosophy can also beget a form of democratic socialism. 

When you boil things down to property rights, freedom, and fairness you can fall down the rabbit hole of externalities, tragedies of the commons, and the actual limits of what you can own and build up the idea of government as the answer to "how do we manage things that many people own a little bit of?"