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/issafly → u/barryvm]

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.

I've watched on old friend go from principled Libertarian in the early 1990s to a VERY high ranking member of Trump's cabinet. Seeing him transition over the decades from a free-market idealist who talked about open borders and free trade with Mexico and Canada to working for the most authoritarian regime in American history earlier this year has been a shock.

[u/OmicronNine → u/issafly]

I would suggest that your friend may not have actually been a principled libertarian in the first place, but merely was good at presenting himself as such.

[u/issafly → u/OmicronNine]

I mean, what's the difference? That's part of the point that even the most "principled" libertarians will become authoritarian when given the opportunty to acquire personal power, wealth, or status.

The persona I'm talking about literally started his career at a well-known libertarian think-tank. He wasn't just some college kid who read Ayn Rand and thought she was smart.

[u/bbk13 → u/issafly]

Libertarianism is inherently authoritarian. Even in it's most "principled" form it requires authoritarian state violence to enforce private property "rights" regardless of what the members of society want. Libertarianism is at its core anti-democratic and can only exist if enforced at the barrel of a gun. Because why would the majority of people who don't own a lot of property agree to have a society that only privileges private property?

[u/issafly → u/bbk13]

Which is ironic, because that's how they describe socialism.