Marxism of the Right

By Robert Locke March 14, 2005

Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive
political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of
ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society
presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a
consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American
history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains
substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.
There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to
anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many
are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varietiesI recently heard a
respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianismenter a gray area where it is not
really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one
encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace
street libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar
libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when
challenged philosophically. Weve seen Marxists pull that before.
This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the
delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the
mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact
requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like
Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account
of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires,
overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical
myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their
society.
The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing,
is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can
possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that
it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a
Victorian tycoons wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the
emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or,
once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But
security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the
principal issues that concern governments.
Libertarians try to get around this fact that freedom is not the only good thing by trying to reduce
all other goods to it through the concept of choice, claiming that everything that is good is so
because we choose to partake of it. Therefore freedom, by giving us choice, supposedly
embraces all other goods. But this violates common sense by denying that anything is good by
nature, independently of whether we choose it. Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not
because we choose to eat them. Taken to its logical conclusion, the reduction of the good to the
freely chosen means there are no inherently good or bad choices at all, but that a man who chose
to spend his life playing tiddlywinks has lived as worthy a life as a Washington or a Churchill.
Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices presupposes that all goods are
individual. But some, like national security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently
collective. It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts can be comically
inefficient. Do you really want to trace every pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted
it and sue?
Libertarians rightly concede that ones freedom must end at the point at which it starts to
impinge upon another persons, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So
even if the libertarian principle of an it harm none, do as thou wilt, is true, it does not license
the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted
because if someone doesnt like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he cant do is choose
not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it.
Libertarians in real life rarely live up to their own theory but tend to indulge in the pleasant parts
while declining to live up to the difficult portions. They flout the drug laws but continue to
collect government benefits they consider illegitimate. This is not just an accidental failing of
libertarianisms believers but an intrinsic temptation of the doctrine that sets it up to fail
whenever tried, just like Marxism.
Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free society needed to draft its
citizens in order to remain free? What if it needed to limit oil imports to protect the economic
freedom of its citizens from unfriendly foreigners? What if it needed to force its citizens to
become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society? What if it needed to deprive landowners
of the freedom to refuse to sell their property as a precondition for giving everyone freedom of
movement on highways? What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap
foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth
redistribution?
In each of these cases, less freedom today is the price of more tomorrow. Total freedom today
would just be a way of running down accumulated social capital and storing up problems for the
future. So even if libertarianism is true in some ultimate sense, this does not prove that the
libertarian policy choice is the right one today on any particular question.
Furthermore, if limiting freedom today may prolong it tomorrow, then limiting freedom
tomorrow may prolong it the day after and so on, so the right amount of freedom may in fact be
limited freedom in perpetuity. But if limited freedom is the right choice, then libertarianism,
which makes freedom an absolute, is simply wrong. If all we want is limited freedom, then mere
liberalism will do, or even better, a Burkean conservatism that reveres traditional liberties. There
is no need to embrace outright libertarianism just because we want a healthy portion of freedom,
and the alternative to libertarianism is not the USSR, it is Americas traditional liberties.
Libertarianisms abstract and absolutist view of freedom leads to bizarre conclusions. Like
slavery, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into it. (It has been possible at
certain times in history to do just that by assuming debts one could not repay.) And
libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with the problem of children,
whom it treats like adults, supporting the abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific
laws, like those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the insane and the
senile.
Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs, would not shred a libertarian
society because drug users who caused trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their
jobs or homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people were abolished. They
claim a natural order of reasonable behavior would emerge. But there is no actual empirical
proof that this would happen. Furthermore, this means libertarianism is an all-or-nothing
proposition: if society continues to protect people from the consequences of their actions in any
way, libertarianism regarding specific freedoms is illegitimate. And since society does so protect
people, libertarianism is an illegitimate moral position until the Great Libertarian Revolution has
occurred.
And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their
free choices? While it is obviously fair to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and
suffer the costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these outcomes. People
are allowed to become millionaires, but they are taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they
are not then forced to starve. They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in order
to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative would be perhaps a more glittering
society, but also a crueler one.
Empirically, most people dont actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies dont
elect libertarian governments. Irony of ironies, people dont choose absolute freedom. But this
refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen,
yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.
The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will support libertarianism, a libertarian
government could never be achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind
of authoritarian state, which rather puts the lie to libertarians claim that under any other
philosophy, busybodies who claim to know whats best for other people impose their values on
the rest of us. Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one true political
philosophy and all others are false. It entails imposing a certain kind of society, with all its
attendant pluses and minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of except
by leaving.
And if libertarians ever do acquire power, we may expect a farrago of bizarre policies. Many
support abolition of government-issued money in favor of that minted by private banks. But this
has already been tried, in various epochs, and doesnt lead to any wonderful paradise of freedom
but only to an explosion of fraud and currency debasement followed by the concentration of
financial power in those few banks that survive the inevitable shaking-out. Many other
libertarian schemes similarly founder on the empirical record.
A major reason for this is that libertarianism has a nave view of economics that seems to have
stopped paying attention to the actual history of capitalism around 1880. There is not the space
here to refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the second-richest nation in the world,
Japan, has one of the most regulated economies, while nations in which government has
essentially lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic paradises.
Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail going to the opposite extreme.
Libertarian navet extends to politics. They often confuse the absence of government
impingement upon freedom with freedom as such. But without a sufficiently strong state,
individual freedom falls prey to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a freedom-
respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a chaotic Third-World tyranny.
Libertarians are also nave about the range and perversity of human desires they propose to
unleash. They can imagine nothing more threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon
sadomasochism, followed by some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that
if people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially bourgeois lives, but this takes
for granted things like the deferral of gratification that were pounded into them as children
without their being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population, preaching
maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out
of wedlock. Society is dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into barbarism,
and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically, this often results in internal restraints being
replaced by the external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom, not more.
This contempt for self-restraint is emblematic of a deeper problem: libertarianism has a lot to say
about freedom but little about learning to handle it. Freedom without judgment is dangerous at
best, useless at worst. Yet libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of how
to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free choices are equal, which it cannot
abandon except at the cost of admitting that there are other goods than freedom. Conservatives
should know better. _______________________________________________________
Robert Locke writes from New York City.
March 14, 2005 Issue
MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
Nation Busting
Marxism of the Right
by Taboola
Sponsored Content
We Recommend

14 Benefits Most Seniors Didnt Know They HadNewsmax

North Carolina's New RuleLifestyle Journal

9 Exercises You Must Do If You Want To Lose WeightMy Diet

10 Disastrous Crew Visible Mistakes in MoviesMovies Talk

Eighteen Uncomfortable Engagement Photos Parent Society

10 Universities With The Richest AlumniBankrate
From The WebFrom The American Conservative
The "Real" Reason Why Homeland Is Arming Themselves (Patriot Liberty)
Shocking Tip Saves Mortgage Payers $4.1K per year (Daily Mortgage Monitor)
Michael Jordan's Mega Estate Is Just As Luxurious As You'd Exp (LonnyMag)
We Can't Help But Stare At Miley Cyrus (StyleBistro)
Michelle Obama's Surprising Past (Ancestry.com)
Ostrich America?
Mumford & Sons and the Death of Church Music
Its Over; The Republican Party Hasnt Recovered From Bush
Would Someone Just Shut That Pope Up?
Were Probably at Peak Republican
by Taboola
21 Responses to Marxism of the Right
1. JIM PHILLIPS says:
July 31, 2012 at 9:23 pm
I SEE MYSELF AS STRONG CONSERVATIVE.
HOWEVER, OUR PRESENT CONGRESS SEEMS TO BE OUT OF CONTROL.
THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM.
HOW DO I GET INVOLVED WITH LIBERTARIANS LOCALLY
WILL IT COST ME MUCH MONEY ?
2. ben franklin says:
August 12, 2012 at 12:52 am
this is bullshit the governments sole responsibility is to ensure our freedom
wether it be from foreign invaders, guaranteeing economical transportation to give you
the freedom to get from one place to another, to giving you freedom to do as you please
as long as it doesnt affect someone elses ability to do as they please.
libertarianism is the only governing style that can flourish indefinitely.
America is crumbling because we strayed too far from our libertarian roots.
3. Chris says:
August 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm
I stopped reading after a few paragraphs because if the rest of the article is based on the
premise that all libertarianism is about is individualism and selfishness, then the rest of
the article will be poppycock. Libertarianism isnt about selfishness. It is about self
RELIANCE. It isnt about individualism. It is about individual responsibility. It is about
not relying on the government. The Left and Right alike want government to set the rules
for society where as Libertarians want the PEOPLE to set the rules for society. Until you
understand that, your understanding of Libertarianism is completely off.
4. Rafael says:
September 6, 2012 at 4:00 pm
The sad truth about libertarianism is that they think too much about individuals but
nothing about, people and how contradictory they are.
5. paineite says:
September 10, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Thanks for a thoughtful and perceptive analysis.
6. Vincent says:
October 10, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Aside from what Chris said
People do practice libertarianism every day, even when they dont know it.
Also, the author really has no clue about Marxism if he thinks its anything like
libertarianism; Marxism = neoconservatism: both are two war-like ideologies that have
perverted anything and everything they touch.
7. James says:
November 2, 2012 at 10:55 am
Thoroughly impressed. I loved this article. It is an excellent analysis of the folly of
libertarianism.
8. Jackson says:
November 8, 2012 at 3:17 am
Thoughtful and well-written article.
9. Dave Metric says:
November 13, 2012 at 1:27 am
Locke This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If
Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism,
then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness
and individualism.
This is a typical strawman argument. Confusing Objectivism with libertarianism.
Libertarianism is based on the NAP. Not individualism although many confusedly so
claim that it is since Ayn Rand has been very influential in its upbringing.
Marxism has absolutely nothing to do with altruism. It is based on forcing the upper
class to bend to the egoism of the weak.
Locke Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness
and altruism, to function.
Society may to some extent require collectivism it does not however require altruism.
The only action I know of that is truly altruistic is a solider landing on a grenade for a
buddy. Every other action can be explained in terms of egoism.
Locke Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a
complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical
investigation.
The author is implying that democracy itself is an empirically sound form of government.
Is there any precedent in history than can prove this? I will cede for a moment there is
very little if any empirical evidence to support the theoretical pure libertarian society, but
can we honestly look at the effects of Greece and Rome as evidence to the sustainability
of democracy? How would the author care to explain away the problem of rational
ignorance, or the tyranny of the majority problem, or the problem of dependent class
voting? I highly doubt he will be able to answer any of these long known but rarely
addressed arguments.
Locke The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom,
though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security,
which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it.
I agree there is a problem with the entire concept of freedom, but this authors critique
of it isnt very good. Basing a political movement on freedom is impossible because
freedom is a relative or incoherent idea. See negative rights versus positive rights. This
is why some libertarians now based their philosophy on the NAP rather then on some end
goal of freedom.
Locke Libertarians try to get around this fact that freedom is not the only good thing
by trying to reduce all other goods to it through the concept of choice, claiming that
everything that is good is so because we choose to partake of it. Therefore freedom, by
giving us choice, supposedly embraces all other goods. But this violates common sense
by denying that anything is good by nature, independently of whether we choose it.
Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them.
There is no such thing as common sense. Something either makes sense or it doesnt
and saying something is good by nature makes no sense. It is a categorical mistake to
say something IS good with no reason or standard in which to explain why it is good.
By nature is not a standard. Nothing can be good by nature since you cant get an
ought from an is. You can only get an ought from an IF.
Locke Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices presupposes that
all goods are individual. But some, like national security, clean air, or a healthy culture,
are inherently collective. It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the
efforts can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every pollutant in the air
back to the factory that emitted it and sue?
I will cede that all of the above except a healthy culture are weak points in libertarian
philosophy (the idea the government can promote a healthy culture goes against all
empirical evidence. It always leads to economic dependence and millions in jail), but I
will expect the author to answer the weak points in democracy I outlined earlier.
Libertarians rightly concede that ones freedom must end at the point at which it starts to
impinge upon another persons, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens.
So even if the libertarian principle of an it harm none, do as thou wilt, is true, it does
not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it
should be permitted because if someone doesnt like it, he can choose not to view it. But
what he cant do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it.
Vulgar is an opinion.
Locke- Libertarians in real life rarely live up to their own theory but tend to indulge in
the pleasant parts while declining to live up to the difficult portions. They flout the drug
laws but continue to collect government benefits they consider illegitimate.
Apparently, the author doesnt seem to understand that the government is paid with taxes
and that libertarians are probably going to be paying these taxes.
I think Ill stop here. I think Ive given the author plenty of fireballs to deal with for one
sitting.
10. gbuddha2012 says:
February 23, 2013 at 9:03 am
I asked a libertarian one time why he was a libertarian. The answer i got chilled me to the
bone Isnt it obvious that the weak must perish. There you have it, libertarianism in
one sentence.
11. SGT Caz says:
April 30, 2013 at 1:47 am
What most people call libertarianism is based on a structural idea: the individual holds
authority over the self, and all interactions with others are based on the concept of
consent. This is foundational to Western thought, and nowhere does it require that the
individual not be responsible for the consequences of interacting stupidly in their social
environment. The natural order of reasonable behavior comes about through incentives,
not wishful thinking. And society has run like that quite often in the past.
While there are certainly utopians who call themselves libertarians, most of them are not
the idiotic freedom fetishists conjured up here. Most of them will accept the notion of
communities restraining problematic behaviors, albeit through tools other than the
government, which basically exists for the sake of property rights. Other disciplinary
structures can emerge with this as the base establishment. Im thinking church and family
to start.
Its tricky to endorse this, especially in a society made so large scale with
communications technology, and with so many government support systems for the
individual that voters generally like. The most attractive thing about those systems is that
they do not require the individual bending to, or even respecting, the opinions of those
around them. That excessive freedom is becoming the problem, the absurd irreverence for
the close, dynamic relationships with others nihilistic to the core.
Ill take libertarianism precisely for its disciplinary potential. Certainly, Ill take it at the
federal level, with state and local governments holding the legitimate scale for the
promotion of cultural values. Empathy is not for bureaucrats, particularly on the national
level.
12. Bill N says:
May 5, 2013 at 7:22 pm
This writer completely PWNED libertarianism.
Listen to people like Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, Jesse Ventura, and
John Stossell and detect the underlying elitism, subtle urging of revolution, wacko
economic theories, and a huge silence on civil rights, morality, racism, the impoverished,
the disabled, and countries with huge human rights violations.
I understand why this cult philosophy is so cool among fellow netizens and college
student, after all both liberalism and neo-conservatism have failed us. But lets not kid
ourselves and think by worshiping an absolute free market, ignoring terrorism, and
obstructing law enforcement will make a better society.
Once you get past the revisionist history from libertarians, you can see it is a truly
heartless political theory.
13. RanDomino says:
June 4, 2013 at 11:38 pm
Left-Libertarianism (Anarchism) answers most of these questions by doing away with the
archaic capitalist system of property and replacing it with use-based property rights,
organizing labor syndicates and communities for mutual aid and defense, and letting
people produce and distribute goods and services based on need rather than deifying
profit. Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is
slavery and brutality.
14. SinisterCulturalMarxist says:
July 14, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Nice little straw men about Marxism. Here is a good advice to all reactionaries and
conservatives: if you dont know what it means dont try to speak about it.
15. canteluna says:
July 19, 2013 at 9:15 pm
libertarianism is the only governing style that can flourish indefinitely. (comment from
B Franklin)
- and yet, ironically, has never flourished or existed at all.
some libertarians now based their philosophy on the NAP rather then on some end goal
of freedom. (Dave Metric)
Ah, yes, the non aggression principle. Sounds nice. This minor prerequisite to
voluntarism reminds me of the Steve Martin joke, How to become a millionaire: First,
get a million dollars.
Society may to some extent require collectivism it does not however require altruism.
The only action I know of that is truly altruistic is a solider landing on a grenade for a
buddy. (Dave Metric)
Altruism cannot be forced, so (your implication that) the wealthy paying a higher % of
taxes is not an example of altruism, but rather an example of collectivism. That a
progressive tax structure is required for the good of the society means that
freedom/opportunity is extended to more people, resulting in a freer society. To imply
that freedom is measured on an individual basis or that one individual or one class of
people can enjoy the highest level of freedom/liberty while others enjoy less, depending
on wealth, is not how most people want their society to be structuredit is not their
choice, and as Locke notes, most of us to not choose Libertarianism.
How would the author care to explain away the problem of rational ignorance, or the
tyranny of the majority problem
The tyranny of the majority tends to be more of a talking point philosophically than
an actual problem. There is more of concern in referendum politics, which is, perhaps
ironically, generally supported by Libertarians. Milton Friedmans concern that in a
democracy 51% could kill the other 49% hasnt been an issue, partly because we dont
have pure democracy, we have a constitutional democratic republic, and mostly because
majorities and minorities switch categories depending on the issue, so MFs example is a
straw man.
One scenario of majority tyranny has had to do with racist and apartheid policies. This,
however, is not the result of real democracy and, in fact, occurs due to a lack of
democracy. A democracy means that everyone has a voice & can participate (regardless
of whether they are in a majority on any given issue). Racist policies are an assault to
democracy and are the result of an elite power using the state to disenfranchise a weak
minority, usually so that the powerful can continue to economically exploit the weaker
group.
Another scenario is war, and civil war but this is not the result of democracy. It is
usually the case of an elite in favor of the war, somehow forcing it on the rest of us. War
tends to be a problem for states that are not democratic (I include the US and Israel in this
category). Since WW2 most democracies have had no war.
Vulgar is an opinion. Yes, but social norms exist for a reason, to promote the
social good. This is not to say that norms are always justified (in the case of racism,
sexism, homophobia, etc.) when they infringe on the liberty of others, but some norms
should be, and have been, challenged by the state (e.g. persecution of or discrimination
against minorities). In a Libertarian society, anyone is free to discriminate as he/she sees
fit. The only antidote to discrimination is if harm can be proved (defined how & judged
by whom?) or through the market (the idea being that rational behavior will trump
prejudicial behavior, though history (empiricism) shows another story).
we honestly look at the effects of Greece and Rome as evidence to the sustainability of
democracy? (Metric)
- We neednt look to Greece or Rome as models of democracy only as versions of it that
we can learn from and build on. Democracy should be about inclusion of all and the
participation of all. Locke makes an excellent point when pointing out that a prerequisite
for a democratic society is education.
How would the author care to explain away the problem of dependent class voting?
Youre begging the question. A better question is what is meant by a dependent class
and why does it exist? We are all dependent, on natural resources, on each other. So, to
say that there is a dependent class as if this represents an underclass burden to society
needs to be explained, not explained away or assumed.
Metric is taking a page from Romneys 47% idea here. The 1% is dependent on the rest
of us galley slaves to row their boats. The outrage should not be against the 47% but
against the ruling elite who create the 47%. The 47% would be fine if resources and
opportunities were made more equally available.
The natural order of reasonable behavior comes about through incentives, not wishful
thinking. And society has run like that quite often in the past. (SGT Caz)
Whats your point? Libertarians did not invent the concepts of freedom or reasonable
behavior. There is no natural order and to suggest there is, is wishful thinking.
Reasonable behavior may indeed be a result of incentives while the incentives may not be
reasonable. Welfare State government provides incentives to encourage a desired
behavior. For example, we want people to be healthy so we provide free immunization
(yet not free health care because most illness is not contagious). We want a strong
economy so we provide free education (though only to a certain level because we
(business) also need ignorant, desperate laborers).
excessive freedom is becoming the problem, the absurd irreverence for the close,
dynamic relationships with others nihilistic to the core. (SGT Caz)
- Interesting coming from a Libertarian or someone sympathetic to the philosophy given
that it contradicts their core principle.
after all both liberalism and neo-conservatism have failed us.
I dont accept that Liberalism has failed us, weve barely begun to realize a liberal
society and lag behind Scandinavia, much of Europe, Canada, Australia. I think the
failure of our biggest institutions to function democratically is our current challenge,
most significantly our businesses and economic system. Half of our society functions as
an oligarchy and prevents us from realizing true democratic socialism.
16. tripletwentyy says:
July 21, 2013 at 11:59 am
How does half a society function as an oligarchy?
17. Rob Graham says:
July 27, 2013 at 12:26 pm
My own view of libertarianism is that it is a marketing ploy, a rebranding of an existing
product. Since the central idea of libertarianism is that all forms of authority save
personal are illegitimate it seems to me the original product was anarchy.
So why the rebranding? In my opinion there are two reasons.
The first reason is to cut libertarianism off from history. Anarchy has a very bad rep from
an historical perspective. From what I have read anarchists were frequently terrorists in
the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. The rebranding means libertarianism no longer
carries anarchys historical baggage. Its new and improved.
The second reason is rhetorical. By using liberty as the root word for the new product
name it makes it appear that any person arguing against libertarianism is arguing against
the very idea of liberty itself. Any one who dissents from or criticizes libertarianism
appears to be an enemy of freedom. A ridiculous assumption but one many ignorant
people fall for.
Its been many years since Ive seen libertarians as anything other than anarchists, and
dishonest ones at that.
18. tripletwentyy says:
July 29, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Its been many years since Ive seen libertarians as anything other than anarchists, and
dishonest ones at that.
So what other things have you seen them as (just honest anarchists?) And when? Who?
19. Rob Graham says:
July 31, 2013 at 2:44 pm
Arg! A touch! I do confess it! I fear I breathe my last!
20. Jackryanvb says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:36 am
Agreed. This was a very well reasoned essay highlighting the dangers of libertarianism.
I will go a step further and call true believing Libertarianism a cult, a very dangerous cult
that e traps many high IQ White Americans and it seems that only White Americans fall
down in to this terrible individualistic cult, all other racial, ethnic, religious (Muslims)
groups understand that they must promote the interests of their group or they will be
conquered, dominated by other groups who do work, vote, fight for the collective power,
wealth of their group.
Libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson push insane, suicidal open borders
immigration, it seems to be some fundamentalist commandment of Libertarianism.
Ive written some strong articles exposing the immigration treasons of the libertarian cult.
Would the American Conservative be interested in publishing them?
Jack Ryan
21. GB says:
April 24, 2014 at 10:42 am
The opening two paragraphs are extremely clever, while at the same time being
extremely dishonest and demagogic. The author defines libertarianism as essentially
libertinism with references to sexual eccentrics and drug users. Next comes the assertion
that the philosophy itself is primarily concerned with constructing an ethical framework
which the believers can use as a moral justification for engaging in hedonistic behavior.
In the second paragraph, the author acknowledges the existence of various strains of
libertarianism, then proceeds to assert that they are virtually all the same. The clever trick
the author uses is to suggest that if one disputes HIS definition of libertarianism, viz.
street libertarianism (what this means I have no idea, nor does anyone else because it is
literally meaningless from a philosophical perspective), one is himself engaged in
sophistry. The authors contrived definition of libertarianism, reduced to aesthetic rather
than philosophical parameters, is fundamentally unrepresentative of libertarianism. As a
result, the rest of the article is utter nonsense that discredits his straw man but does little
to advance truth.
The core of libertarian philosophy centers around self-ownership, property rights, and the
non-initiation of force. Most libertarians I associate with develop their philosophical
convictions after reading the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Adam Smith, Spooner, Tucker,
Menger, Mises, Mencken, Hayek, Nozick, Friedman, Rothbard, Hoppe etc. These are
hardly men of the street.