Why does libertarianism feel so 20th century?

[helmuth_hubener]

Why does libertarianism feel so 20th century?​

Imagine you are defending a castle. When the north wall gets assaulted, you defend the north wall. When the east wall gets assaulted, you defend the east wall. It is not that you changed your opinion or priorities. It is not your choice to make. Your actions are reactive: you defend whatever your opponent chooses to attack. You have little choice.

There is a castle called The Way Things Used To Be. TWTUTB. The defenders are broadly called conservatives or “Right”. They also tend to call the place Castle Normalcy. Then there are the constant attackers. They are called progressives or “Left”. They call it Castle Oppression.

It is important to see that the Left cannot be defined simply as people who want socialism. It is rather the people who want that castle to fall, and will attack any of several entirely different walls of it. Sometimes they attack the economic wall through socialism, then ease up on that, make a temporary truce with a market that was only halfway regulated to death, and attack something else.

So when they choose to storm the wall called “religious morality”, the defenders erect defenses of “social conservatism”. When they choose to storm the wall “private property”, they defenders erect defenses of “fiscal conservatism”.

They are very often different people but it is fundamentally not a different thing. It is just defending whichever wall is under attack. It is not their call.

Who are libertarians? In many ways, they are people who want a different castle. They have a complete political philosophy. They have their own set of disagreements with, for example, social conservatives. They want a castle where no one legislates religious morality. They have a neat Nolan Chart telling you they are really not the Authoritarian Right. But mostly all this wanting of a different castle is just wishes. It bears little relation to reality.

In reality, the horn sounds, and the ground shakes under marching boots. Another wall is under attack. Libertarians sigh, and they man the walls of “private property”, engaging in “fiscal conservatism”. It is that wall they defend. You could say they would gladly redesign and partially even demolish many other walls. Especially that religious wall tends to really irk them. Even their own wall, “private property”, or more precisely, “19th century-type economics”, they would not leave entirely unchanged if it was up to them. There are holes to patch there, certainly.

But it is not up to them. The bugle sounds. The attack is commencing. The real choice is to join the attackers, join the defenders, or buzz off. And in 90% of the cases, they choose to defend the wall of economics. Private property. Free markets. Capitalism.

Well, it seems for the last 10 years, it is primarily not the wall of economics being stormed. It is immigration and the ethnic makeup of Western nations. It is culture. It is how people see each other and behave toward each other with regard to race, sex, and sexual orientation. It is “minorities”. It is way beyond mere tolerance now. It is not that you must let people be gay anymore, it is more like having a whole gay pride month, and heteronormativity must be condemned, and you must be ashamed if you are a cishet white male and and…

The economic wall seems a bit deserted now. In fact, even the currently most active defenders, the Alt-Right, took some stones from the economic free-market wall to strengthen one of the walls currently under attack: buttressing nationalism through protectionism. This leaves libertarians less than happy.

When it was the economic wall being attacked by socialism, the white working class was also promised some goodies. Now that it is the culture, race, identity wall, the white working class is reviled. Maybe it will change again. One could easily see how Corbyn and Sanders could put economics in focus again, ease the hate on the white working class, present them as victims of capitalism, tone down all this rhetoric that if you are not 100% as accepting of transsexuals as a liberal intellectual then you are a monster, tacitly accept some of the lifestyle conservatism of the white working class, so do this regrouping and enlisting white working class allies, and storm the economic wall again. Then libertarians will have a fight on their hands again.

But now it seems they are out of this battle.

So let me ask you libertarians something while you are at rest. Basically you are considered the political philosophers who have a particular strength in economics. Figure out how to defund the Left! Find a way to make being an SJW a poorly paying job.

It is other people on the walls now, most notably the frog-men. Libertarians could use this pause in fighting for some strategic thinking.


-- https://dividuals.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/why-does-libertarianism-feel-so-20th-century/

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The economic wall seems a bit deserted now. In fact, even the currently most active defenders, the Alt-Right

The alt-right isn't defending the economic wall at all, rather to the contrary.

the Alt-Right took some stones from the economic free-market wall to strengthen one of the walls currently under attack: buttressing nationalism through protectionism.

Precisely

This leaves libertarians less than happy.

That's a tactful way of putting it.

so do this regrouping and enlisting white working class allies, and storm the economic wall again

That's not going to happen.

The new conservative coalition has much less regard for the market economy than the last, and the last had very little indeed.

It is other people on the walls now, most notably the frog-men. Libertarians could use this pause in fighting for some strategic thinking.

The appropriate strategy for libertarians is to maximally differentiate themselves from and undermine the frogmen, so as to then replace them.

Cooperation between libertarianism and the alt-right (nationalist leftism) means the total subsumption of the former by the latter.

Hence articles like this.

 

[euphemia]

Libertarians need to make their peace with religion. It is a Constitutional right. And there is a lot of common ground between secular libertarians and religious libertarians. A lot of the tenets of religious faith are also part of liberty thought. This is why the palatable libertarians are religious people, most notably Dr. Ron Paul. Respect life, respect property, respect other people. <----Gary Johnson didn't do that.

Seems simple, doesn't it?

 

[Swordsmyth]

"PURE" libertarians are just a different kind of barbarian that got inside the gates by offering to defend one of the walls, then they started tearing down other walls while our backs were turned.
The "Alt-Right" will do the same.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Libertarians need to make their peace with religion.

The most popular strain of libertarianism (Paulian) largely has.

The militant atheist libertines libertarians are reduced to irrelevance in the LP.

"PURE" libertarians are just a different kind of barbarian that got inside the gates by offering to defend one of the walls, then they started tearing down other walls while our backs were turned.
The "Alt-Right" will do the same.

Which "walls" do you think "pure libertarians" tear down?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Which "walls" do you think "pure libertarians" tear down?

Primarily Cultural and Religious ones.

 

[William Tell]

The OP has some decent points. But to use the 20th century analogy the libertarians could and should find where they can work with social/paleo-cons. The Alt Right, is not paleo-conservative, in fact the Alt Right does not stand for anything concrete. They are most comparable to a little pagan religion with their pantheon of minor gods , they sacrifice to Trump, Pepe, Milo, Kek, and so on. One day they might decry social liberal SJW's, the next they will whoop and holler about how the Alt Right is the real pro homosexuality movement because they love Milo, and the SJW's want to impose Sharia law. The main tenants of the alt right cult is immaturity, one can't have an alliance with them because they are brainless turds who know even less about how to succeed in politics than libertarians do.

Mature individuals from the old paleo-conservative Right like Pat Buchanan have something to offer. The Alt Right is nothing but reverse feminists and reverse antifa. Perhaps some of them will move towards liberty but right now they are hopeless.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Primarily Cultural and Religious ones.

Which specific aggressions do you think the state ought to commit to preserve/create culture/religion?

The OP has some decent points. But to use the 20th century analogy the libertarians could and should find where they can work with social/paleo-cons. The Alt Right, is not paleo-conservative, in fact the Alt Right does not stand for anything concrete. They are most comparable to a little pagan religion with their pantheon of minor gods , they sacrifice to Trump, Pepe, Milo, Kek, and so on. One day they might decry social liberal SJW's, the next they will whoop and holler about how the Alt Right is the real pro homosexuality movement because they love Milo, and the SJW's want to impose Sharia law. The main tenants of the alt right cult is immaturity, one can't have an alliance with them because they are brainless turds who know even less about how to succeed in politics than libertarians do.

Mature individuals from the old paleo-conservative Right like Pat Buchanan have something to offer. The Alt Right is nothing but reverse feminists and reverse antifa. Perhaps some of them will move towards liberty but right now they are hopeless.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to William Tell again."

 

[Swordsmyth]

Which specific aggressions do you think the state ought to commit to preserve/create culture/religion?

Abortion is MURDER and should be prosecuted as such.
There are other issues but they are more complex.

 

[Madison320]

This is slightly off topic but I think until we get a dollar crash, libertarianism (smaller government in general) is not going to be very popular. Why would anyone want smaller government while we're getting so much stuff for free?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Abortion is MURDER and should be prosecuted as such.

Libertarians are split on abortion, but most are against it in my experience.

Anyway, apart from the pure ethical issue, what consequences does the legality of abortion have?

Do you think legalized abortion undermines liberty in some way?

I mean, is it really a crucial part of the "castle"? (I don't think so)

There are other issues but they are more complex.

I've all day.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Libertarians are split on abortion, but most are against it in my experience.

That is why I said "PURE" libertarians.

Anyway, apart from the pure ethical issue, what consequences does the legality of abortion have?

Do you think legalized abortion undermines liberty in some way?

I mean, is it really a crucial part of the "castle"? (I don't think so)

I said they tore down cultural and religious walls, these have less of an immediate effect on liberty, but they engender moral rot which leads to a reaction towards statism.

I've all day.

We have discussed Immigration before, "PURE" libertarians don't want public roads etc., "PURE" libertarians join the ACLU in attacking government acknowledgement of the majority and foundational Judaeo-Christian culture.

And those are just what I can think of off hand.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

That is why I said "PURE" libertarians.

Well, if you define "pure libertarian" to mean "libertarian who thinks abortion should be legal," then sure. But by "pure libertarian" I mean one who rejects all aggression, and these are split on abortion, because some don't view abortion as aggression (the entire question revolves around whether an unborn child is a person possessed of rights like already born persons - which question is really outside the scope of libertarianism, hence the differences of opinion among libertarians).

but they engender moral rot which leads to a reaction towards statism

The legalization leads to "moral rot" in that in encourages promiscuity, I suppose?

Alright, granting that, how does that lead to (more) statism?

We have discussed Immigration before

Yes, and I won't beat that horse again here. Suffice it say, this is only a problem (if at all - and I don't think it is) if the people get to vote.

"PURE" libertarians don't want public roads

That's true, but I'm not sure how that's a cultural/religious issue, or how it could encourage the state to grow.

"PURE" libertarians join the ACLU in attacking government acknowledgement of the majority and foundational Judaeo-Christian culture.

What specific "attacks" are you talking about?

If you mean the efforts to apply the CRA to sexuality and force private property owners to serve gays, no "pure libertarian" supports that.

FYI, Gary Johnson is not a "pure libertarian."

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The entire tone of the article focuses on being defensive and reacting. You need to be offensive. You can't score in sports if you don't have the ball.

Liberty minded people need to be offensive. They need to be assertive. They need to make noise and be loud. That doesn't mean you have to be obnoxious. I know that is discouraging for people who point to Ron Paul's demeanor, but being loud is partly how D Trump won. It is what it is.

Liberty minded people also have to think big and act small. That means making an impact where you live. You are not going to change much focusing on all the entertaining cable TV debates and hoping someone far removed votes your way. Things can, and do, happen locally. One step at a time.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The legalization leads to "moral rot" in that in encourages promiscuity, I suppose?

Alright, granting that, how does that lead to (more) statism?

On the one hand it encourages hedonism/humanism which always leads to the majority using government to satisfy any whim, if there is no GOD and no right and wrong then why shouldn't they use force to take what they want?
On the other hand it creates a reaction by those who are revolted that their society is turning into Sodom and Gomorrah, this reaction tends to be excessive and statist.

Yes, and I won't beat that horse again here. Suffice it say, this is only a problem (if at all - and I don't think it is) if the people get to vote.

In your system it is dangerous if they are democrats or republicans who will begin agitating for reforms or insurrection.

That's true, but I'm not sure how that's a cultural/religious issue, or how it could encourage the state to grow.

It is cultural, without freedom of movement (ensured by public roads) you either get corporate feudalism or a reaction towards communism.

What specific "attacks" are you talking about?

Attacks on Ten Commandments displays at court houses, crosses at war memorials, Nativity scenes at Christmas etc.
Pushing for acceptance of Satanic monuments etc.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The entire tone of the article focuses on being defensive and reacting. You need to be offensive. You can't score in sports if you don't have the ball.

Liberty minded people need to be offensive. They need to be assertive. They need to make noise and be loud. That doesn't mean you have to be obnoxious. I know that is discouraging for people who point to Ron Paul's demeanor, but being loud is partly how D Trump won. It is what it is.

Liberty minded people also have to think big and act small. That means making an impact where you live. You are not going to change much focusing on all the entertaining cable TV debates and hoping someone far removed votes your way. Things can, and do, happen locally. One step at a time.

Yes but that is about re-taking those areas of the castle that have fallen in the OP's metaphor. If and when we restore society we will have nowhere to charge, we will be defensive by definition.
Incidentally the Castle needed a little remodeling to start, the errors in it's design created weaknesses that gave the barbarians footholds.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yes but that is about re-taking those areas of the castle that have fallen in the OP's metaphor. If and when we restore society we will have nowhere charge, we will be defensive by definition.
Incidentally the Castle needed a little remodeling to start, the errors in it's design created weaknesses that gave the barbarians footholds.

Fair enough. I agree you have to stop the other side from scoring, but I also have to take the ball and score yourself. My observation is that liberty minded people are too passive. You have to be assertive.

I was in a meeting the other day where we were discussing where to put our funds. We were discussing a bank account under the organization's name. The president started talking about the IRS and reporting. That is when I cut in and said something like, Forget the IRS. If you involve government, then you're just asking for trouble. It was dropped and decided that we would have a personal account under the names of the treasurer and another person. I later chimed in on another point and said, "Everything the government touches, it fouls up." I don't know how some people took that, but I am not going to be involved in something that involves government.

I know the above might seem inconsequential, but all of this really starts at an almost molecular level. That means words are important. That means even the tiniest details are important.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

if there is no GOD and no right and wrong then why shouldn't they use force to take what they want?

The basic problem with this reasoning (as we discussed at some length a few weeks ago) is that it ignores the possibility that of religion being used to justify statism, as it has in historical fact frequently been used (e.g. the American progressives of the late 19th/early 20th century, or the pre-Marxian Christian communists). Certain religions at certain times might be liberal, others at other times statist. Religion in general is neither.

It is cultural, without freedom of movement (ensured by public roads) you either get corporate feudalism or a reaction towards communism.

Well, that's certainly a novel argument...

Without getting into those rather fantastic alleged consequences of lack of freedom of movement, private roads =/= no roads.

Attacks on Ten Commandments displays at court houses, crosses at war memorials, Nativity scenes at Christmas etc.
Pushing for acceptance of Satanic monuments etc.

I don't think libertarians really care what religious symbols, if any, are allowed on public property; I know I don't.

Anyway, this is a crucial wall of the castle? Really?

 

[Swordsmyth]

The basic problem with this reasoning (as we discussed at some length a few weeks ago) is that it ignores the possibility that of religion being used to justify statism, as it has in historical fact frequently been used (e.g. the American progressives of the late 19th/early 20th century, or the pre-Marxian Christian communists). Certain religions at certain times might be liberal, others at other times statist. Religion in general is neither.

But Anti-religion is always statist.

Well, that's certainly a novel argument...

Without getting into those rather fantastic alleged consequences of lack of freedom of movement, private roads =/= no roads.

No it equals corporate controlled roads, which leads to the consequences I stated.

I don't think libertarians really care what religious symbols, if any, are allowed on public property; I know I don't.

You are not one of the Radical "PURE" libertarians I referred to.

Anyway, this is a crucial wall of the castle? Really?

Yes it is, On the one hand it encourages hedonism/humanism which always leads to the majority using government to satisfy any whim, if there is no GOD and no right and wrong then why shouldn't they use force to take what they want?
On the other hand it creates a reaction by those who are revolted that their society is turning into Sodom and Gomorrah, this reaction tends to be excessive and statist.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

But Anti-religion is always statist.

Untrue

A large number of libertarians are atheists (even militant atheists), probably more per capita than among leftists.

Moreover, among libertarians, the anarcho-capitalists (i.e. most virulently anti-state people) tend to be most atheistic.

No it equals corporate controlled roads, which leads to the consequences I stated.

So what and no, resp.

You are not one of the Radical "PURE" libertarians I referred to.

Libertarian philosophy is indifferent to the decor of state owned property. Libertarians qua libertarians have no opinion. And, in my experience, libertarians by and large don't even have incidental opinions on the matter (I don't recall many debates on the topic over the years), and what opinions they do have are split: with Christian libertarians naturally favoring Christian decor, and atheist libertarians naturally favoring secular decor. Anyway, the important point about this subject is that it isn't actually important.

Yes it is, On the one hand it encourages hedonism/humanism which always leads to the majority using government to satisfy any whim, if there is no GOD and no right and wrong then why shouldn't they use force to take what they want?
On the other hand it creates a reaction by those who are revolted that their society is turning into Sodom and Gomorrah, this reaction tends to be excessive and statist.

You already said that. See my response above.