The following content was posted by Radley Balko to Facebook — I claim no credit for it. I would normally have just linked to it, but links to Facebook content are often a bit fragile, and this is perhaps one of the most spectacular things I’ve seen for a while and deserves wider viewing.
Now improved! Edited to add headlines from March through July!
Portrait of an obsession: Every Alternet and/or Salon headline about libertarians from the last two years.
As Gene Healy put it, “Never before have so many been so intimidated by so few with so little political power.”
[New articles up to July 2015]
Libertarianism is for white men
What Rand Paulâs libertarian hypocrisy reveals about the GOPâs giant race problem
Americaâs libertarian freakshow: Inside the free-market fetish of Rand Paul & Ted Cruz
Rise of the techno-Libertarians: The 5 most socially destructive aspects of Silicon Valley
Big Dataâs big libertarian lie: Facebook, Google and the Silicon Valley ethical overhaul we need
Elon Musk will not save us: Why libertarians waiting for a superman are wasting everyoneâs time
Beware the Silicon Valley elite: Ayn Rand, Google libertarianism and Indianaâs âreligious freedomâ
I was a troll on the white dude-bro Internet: The dark side of gaming, libertarianism, and guns
Rand Paulâs civil rights fiasco: How Jon Stewart just unmasked him â and exposed libertariansâ perverted view of freedom
Rand Paulâs dystopian America: 6 things to know about the war-mongering, faux libertarian
5 Worst Things About the Techno-Libertarians Solidifying Their Grasp on Our Economy and Culture
Liberland: Hundreds of Thousands Apply to Live in the World’s NewestâVery TinyâLibertarian ‘Country’
Rand Paul, Doofus: The Libertarian’s Embarrassing “Racial Outreach”
Will War Between the Religious Right and Libertarians Tear the Tea Party Apart?
My Personal Libertarian Hell: How I Enraged the Movement and Paid the Price
How Big Business Invented the Theology of ‘Christian Libertarianism’ and the Gospel of Free Markets
Welcome to ‘Libertarian Island’: Inside the Frightening Economic Dreams of Silicon Valley’s Super Rich
It’s Bizarre: Libertarians Are Clueless About the ‘Free Market’ That They Worship
The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda
[New articles up to March 2015]
Libertarianism is for petulant children: Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and the movementâs sad ârebellionâ
The atheist libertarian lie: Ayn Rand, income inequality and the fantasy of the âfree marketâ
Nightmare libertarian project turns country into the murder capital of the world
21 Rand Paul quotes that expose libertarianism for the con job it is
Ann Coulter: Libertarian voters are âidiotsâ who deserve to âdrownâ
My unusual libertarian journey: How a former outlaw broke the political mold
Libertarian Sham: Using the L Word to Hide Even Worse Politics
Ayn Randâs capitalist paradise lost: The inside story of a libertarian scam
The sharing economy is a lie: Uber, Ayn Rand and the truth about tech and libertarians
Rand Paulâs libertarian hoax: Why his latest strategy is a sham
âThatâs something that should make libertarians nervousâ: Inside the tumultuous rise of an American ideology
You’re Not the Boss of Me! Why Libertarianism Is a Childish Sham
Big Economic Theory Underpinning Libertarian Economics Is Total Baloney
The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda
Koch-Tied Group Tries to Trick Stoners Into Voting for Wisconsin Libertarian
Rand Paul’s Quest to Woo Young People — What Does It Mean for Libertarianism?
Koch Brothers: Teach Our Libertarian Claptrap and Get Millions for Your College!
What Happened When Some Libertarians Went Off to Build Ayn Rand’s Vision of Paradise
[New articles up to September 2014]
Confessions of a recovering Libertarian: How I escaped a world of Ron Paul hero worship
Rand Paul gets schooled: Libertarian fantasies donât help kids learn â teachers do
Ferguson brings the libertarians: Why a new coalition has everyone confused
Libertariansâ true identity revealed: Rich conservatives OK with gay people, basically
The GOPâs libertarian time bomb: Why âgoing Randâ would be an electoral disaster
The 7 strangest libertarian ideas
The atheist libertarian lie: Ayn Rand, income inequality and the fantasy of the âfree marketâ
Ann Coulter: Libertarian voters are âidiotsâ who deserve to âdrownâ
Ron Paulâs no Nirvana, and this isnât the âLibertarian Momentâ
Proof the GOPâs newfound âlibertarianismâ is a big olâ sham
Stephen Colbert skewers libertarian scheme: âIâm tired of the whole idea of a melting pot in Americaâ
The GOPâs new holy land: How libertarianism is changing the face of the Republican Party
Rand Paul, Giant Libertarian Fraud
Koch Brothers: Teach Our Libertarian Claptrap and Get Millions for Your College!
How Hanging Out With Libertarians Made Me Stop Being a Libertarian
You Don’t Know What ‘Libertarian’ Means
Some Self-Described Libertarians Can’t Distinguish Libertarian from Communist or Unitarian
What Happened When Some Libertarians Went Off to Build Ayn Rand’s Vision of Paradise
NYT Sunday Magazine Falls Hook, Line and Sinker For Libertarians’ Big Propaganda Lie
Why Are Koch Brothers Trying to Masquerade as Libertarians?
Ugly Right-Wing Underbelly of the Libertarian Cause on Display at Silicon Valley Conference
7 Libertarian Upstarts Who Might Help Democrats Keep Their U.S. Senate Majority: These beer-swilling, racist, movie junkie, misogynist and plain-jane Libertarians might just help Dems keep the Senate.Libertariansâ Sneaky New Crusade
What would the Founding Fathers have thought about our libertarian crazies?
Death of a Libertarian Fantasy: Why Dreams of a Digital Utopia Are Rapidly Fading Away
How the Libertarian Agenda Drowns Out Rational Approaches to Major Social Problems Like Guns and Auto Accidents
How Libertarianism Would Actually Curtail Human Freedom
Disgraced coal baron rebrands himself as libertarian activist
Libertariansâ anti-government crusade: Now thereâs an app for that
Why I left libertarianism: An ethical critique of a limited ideology
The question libertarians just canât answer
Grow up, Libertarians!
[New articles up to May 2014]
Google shows libertarians the money
Cliven Bundyâs next sick libertarian paradise: Georgia wants you to die from gun violence
Libertariansâ scary new star: Meet Bryan Caplan, the rightâs next âgreatâ philosopher
Fresh Silicon Valley libertarian idiocy: Government is âslaveryâ
The libertarian dream crypto-currency is here â but its fate remains uncertain
Piketty shrugged: How the French economist dashed libertariansâ Ayn Randian fantasiesAstra Taylorâs radical Internet critique: âI donât want to give in to the libertarian logic of our timeâ
Ralph Nader Wants You to Join Right-Wing Libertarians to Solve America’s Problems: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
[New articles up to April 2014]
Don’t Leave Bitcoin to the Libertarians! Why the Progressive Movement Needs Open Source Money
Young, rich and politically ignorant: Sean Parker and the next generation of libertarian billionaires
Cause for trepidation: Libertariansâ newfound concern for prison reform
10 reasons Americans should be wary of Rand Paulâs libertarianism â especially millennials
Libertariansâ delusional âNew Atlantisâ fantasy: Floating ocean city-states
CEO of Reddit: âThe userbase for bitcoin is basically crazy libertariansâ
Game over: How libertarians lost the battle for Bitcoinâs soul
Why We Should Be Suspicious of the Libertarian Right’s Newfound Concern for Prison Reform
3 inconvenient facts that make libertariansâ heads explode
Libertariansâ ethical gap: Why their alliance with Christians is based on contempt
Sorry, libertarians: The IRS is going to levy taxes on your bit coins
[Articles from 2012 to February 2014]
Letter to an Angry Libertarian
The Libertarian Billionaire Agenda Propelling the Tea Party Monster That Has Shut Down Congress
What America Would Look Like If Libertarians Got Their Way
Why Atheist Libertarians Are Part of America’s 1 Percent Problem
Libertarian Writings that Read Like Comic Books
The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda
Latest Major Chemical Spill Exposes Flaws of Libertarian Approach to Govt.
Why Libertarians Are Basically Cult Members
The Terrifying Future Envisioned By Libertarians
Meet Former GOP Public Relations Flak Radley Balko, Now a Libertarian Crusader Against Police Militarization
How a Libertarian Used Ayn Rand’s Crazy Philosophy to Drive Sears Into the Ground
The Libertarian Con: Favorite ‘Rebel’ Ideology of the Ruling Class
Libertarian Developer’s Ayn Rand Fantasy Is Detroit’s Latest Nightmare
How an Ayn Rand-Loving Libertarian Destroyed The Company He Runs With His Cultish Objectivist Theories
Exposed: How a Lot of the Libertarian Outrage Over Govt. Spying Is Just Shilling for the Private Surveillance Biz
Don’t Be Fooled by Pot-Loving Libertarian Gary Johnson — He Works for the 1%
Libertarian Activist Openly Loads Shotgun and Calls for Revolution in D.C.
Are Right-Wing Libertarian Internet Trolls Getting Paid to Dumb Down Online Conversations?
The Really Creepy People Behind the Libertarian-Inspired Billionaire Sea Castles
A Rand Paul Presidential Campaign Would Teach Americans Just How Vicious and Anti-Social the Libertarian Agenda Is
The Ultimate Escape: The Bizarre Libertarian Plan of Uploading Brains into Robots to Escape Society
Jon Stewart Eviscerates Free-Market Libertarianism in Bit on Illegal Foreclosure
Libertarian Suggests Children Should be Trained to Tackle Shooters
Exposed: How a Lot of the Libertarian Outrage Over Govt. Spying Is Just Shilling for the Private Surveillance Biz
Ayn Randroids and Libertarians Join Forces: Will Her Noxious Philosophy Further Infect America?
Libertarians in 2013: The Even Whiter, Wealthier, WASPier Bastion of Republican Party
Politically Isolated Libertarians Go Literal, Consolidating Plans For Man-Made Libertarian Islands
Why Libertarians Play the Clowns in the Circus Show Called the Republican Party
Libertines v. Libertarians: Dominique Strauss-Kahnâs Rejection of Sexual Restraints
The secret libertarianism of Uber & Airbnb
Great Disawakening: A Burgeoning Libertarian Contagion?
When libertarianism fails
Libertarians with money, scarier than a black man with a gun
Christie slams ‘libertarian’ trend on security
Libertarianism’s Amorality
Colonial Americans Were Not Libertarians!
Why Libertarianism Loses Me (Hint: Because I Love Steak)
Bringing back feudalism-Is libertarianism an unwitting tool?
The question libertarians just can’t answer
Why I fled libertarianism â and became a liberal
Confessions of a former Libertarian: My personal, psychological and intellectual epiphany
5 libertarian oligarchs who made fortunes off the government they want to destroy
GOPâs epic internal struggle: The modernists vs. libertarian fabulists
âThe Daily Showâ destroys Fox News libertarian Andrew Napolitano for blaming the Civil War on Abraham Lincoln
Edward Snowden: A libertarian hero
Donât ally with libertarians: Ideologues co-opt an anti-NSA rally
11 questions to see if libertarians are hypocrites
A Bitcoin libertarian disaster: The Silk Road gets busted
5 bogus libertarian talking points
Libertarians are very confused about capitalism
A libertarian nightmare: Bitcoin meets Big Government
Libertarians: Still a cult
The screwed generation: Libertarian, not liberal
Grow up, Libertarians!
âThe Walking Deadâ: Anti-libertarian critique
A libertarian man’s surprising proposal: Gender quotas!
âLibertarian populismâ = Ayn Rand in disguise
Sorry, libertarians: You’re still hypocrites
How to beat libertarians on the economy
Antonin Scalia, civil libertarian?
Judge behind Verizon order tied to free trip from libertarian think tank
Hereâs whatâs wrong with Ayn Rand, libertarians
Libertarians are even whiter and wealthier than the GOP
The libertarian/marijuana conspiracy to swing the election
Libertarians name North Dakota âmost freeâ state
Is Werner Herzog a libertarian?
âThe Libertarian Case for Mitt Romneyâ is hilarious
Rand Paul tries to sell social conservatives on libertarianism
Thom Hartmann: Libertarians are pushing us over a cliff
Liberals should unite with Libertarians (sometimes)
Libertarians who don’t understand liberty
Ann Coulter gets booed by a roomful of libertarians
Libertarians fear Obamacare so much they closed the government
How Libertarian-Style Capitalism Killed My Father and My Best Friends
The people (libertarians) are fake; the politics is real. Or is it the other way around?
Ya know – if they keep advertising this stuff it might catch on. Obsessions will do that to you.
Must be a slow day round the Metzger gaff.
While various libertarian policy positions are moderately popular among the general electorate, they are disconnected from any coherent political philosophy. The more doctrinaire, formal Libertarian Party is insignificant in electoral terms, both locally and nationally. Their members tend to be rigid and bizarrely intolerant of any opinion that is not right down the party line.
The link between the Libertarian group and the overall Tea Party movement is tenuous at best, mainly because the formal Libertarian platform is much too abstract for the more practical Tea Partiers, and the TP’ers are much too disorganized and non-doctrinaire for the big L Libertarians.
It should also be noted that Salon, et al, are the mouthpieces for the progressive movement, and, as such, would naturally slander and mischaracterize any non-statist groups on a regular basis. It is doubtful that any of their writers or readers has ever seriously considered an actual libertarian idea, instead reflexively reacting to the strawmen and misrepresentations that constitute the progressive view of anything that opposes the primacy of the state and political class.
As in so many of our societal problems, the collapse of our educational system, which teaches little or nothing which might encourage or reward coherent, logical thought in any non-technical area, has graduated class after class who have never been exposed to any clear moral or philosophical thought. The most obvious example of this is the utter incoherence of the major media, who exalt people for their celebrity status, while ignoring or slandering anyone who attempts a more thoughtful analysis of political/social problems.
The progressive movement has enjoyed the reputation of being some sort of revolutionary, innovative vanguard, gained when they were protesting the aristocratic system in Europe, and transferred to the the wealthy economic class in America. But that was over a century ago, and since the mid-20th century they have been the status quo group, not any sort of revolutionary or innovative force.
This is the reason their ideas are so threadbare and stale—they have been preaching the same sermon from the same pulpit for over a century, regardless of the problems or issues facing our society. They’re a one-trick pony, whose solution to every problem is to increase the power and revenue of the state, and diminish the freedom of choice and personal liberties of the individual.
Are they obsessed with libertarianism? Only as it allows them one more punching bag upon which to throw jabs against the idea of personal liberty, and in support of the expansive state.
They are the main problem facing our society.
vr,
I dunno if “mouthpiece” is the right word. A lot of people sincerely believe progressive ideas so to is much more organic. It is not an enormous conspiracy in the classic sense. It is how people think. That they are wrong doesn’t change that simple fact but they are not an organisation as such. They represent views more than directly create them as you hint with your comments on education. They represent a common social viewpoint more than creating that and with ref to Alisa that is really our problem.
In short we have to make libertarian ideas “cool”. We have to be “cool”. We have to get the kids. We have to get the kids to not think we are a bunch of fuddie-duddies going on about blokes in peri-wigs. We have to be “relevant”. We have to fight on their battlements rather than always regress to charges over the Potomac (one is long overdue mind).
We have to engage. Otherwise we are a howl in hurricane. We have to not sound like we are bitching from the sidelines but actually get in the kerfuffle. If that means not being doctrinaire (can a libertarian be doctrinaire?) then so be it. Has to be said. We don’t live in the World we would like but the point is to change it and if that means, at some level, engaging rather than sniding so be it.
As I said elsewhere, upon reading the headline:
“You’re not the boss of me”: Damn straight. Either that is the fundamental political code of your society, or else the fundamental code is that some men are inferior to others and were born to be slaves. If AlterNet and Slate are too dumb to work out why this is so (and it’s explained a thousand times all over the Net), that’s their problem.
Most libertarians, of course, do believe that benevolence is a virtue. As did Miss R. One of her very important points was that if “charity” (an act of benevolence) is forced, it is not charity because it is not the result of the will of the man who is providing it. (Even if, left to himself, he would do the exact same thing.)
Actually, there is another way to make an imprint in this world. Australia has only 24 million people on it. They are about a third ‘left-wing’, a third ‘right-wing’, and a swinging middle ground. Australia is also open to immigration, so if millions of libertarians were to settle here over the years, you could, despite being small in percentages of the world, make a real difference HERE! We need numbers, and don’t worry about your politics when you are let in. In a few years, all those decentralist voters would be making a big difference, in a country which, because of its size and resources, will make a big impact in the future.
So, G’day to all you future strines!
Oh, and don’t worry if you’re Americans. If you behave super-politely, we’ll just assume you’re Canadians, and not hassle you too much!
Well. Excuse me! Not Slate, Salon.
I’m so humiliated…. đ
Haven’t hunted up the article, but the title is absolutely correct — for instance, the Bleeding Heart Libertarians in at least some respects (not that they follow out the logic all the way, and verify the results against the historical record), and “libertarian” proponents of the Basic Guaranteed Income (ditto). Well, about “Communist” anyway. Maybe by “Unitarian” they mean Deist? Actually, in theory you can believe in even the traditional Christian God and be a Unitarian in good standing. As long as you don’t believe in any other God.
Unless it’s changed in the last five years or so.
. . .
I must say I like the quote from Gene Healy.
. . .
Actually, it’s not as if I haven’t seen more-or-less this story from assorted pundits of the “libertarian,” “conservative,” and “right-wing” persuasions:
But then Lefties and anti-Lefties have a regular ritual dance in which they throw the same poop at each other. It’s so fun, having chimps in the family.
. . .
UPDATE on the first title I mentioned above: The piece (if the title is unique to it) is at
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/some-self-described-libertarians-cant-distinguish-libertarian-communist-or
It’s based on a Pew Research survey, which is written up at
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/
and is entitled “In Search of Libertarians.” Actually, the headline isn’t as inflammatory as might appear at first. And it’s technically accurate — the truth per Pew, though not the whole truth.
Libertarians ate my hamster.
Sorry, I thought your hamster was a workhorse designed by a committee, which I was free to put to any use that seemed good at the time. At last! A horse the right size to put in a pie!
I’ve become a little hesitant about offering quotes, ever since Abraham Lincoln observed that 80% of the quotes attributed to him on the Internet were made up.
That said, didn’t Gandhi say something like “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.” Seems that, at the least, we’re on our way out of the ignoring stage.
Ah yes, that would be Justin Raimondo and the Ba’athist wing of ‘libertarianism’ who have appropriated von Mises đ
Yes – “AlterNet” and “Salon” are far left sites run by people who hate us, and who lie about just about everything.
I suppose, in a way, it is good they are constantly attacking us – as this gives us publicity.
Better than silence.
By the way – the comments (by very retired and so on) are very good.
I followed the link of that Pew Research article and after a few more clicks came to the poll it was based on. The poll was terrible it forced you to make a choice between being either a Democrat or Republican caricature and made me wish desperately for a “disagree with both statements” option.
When we grow up, we realize that we play fair, while everyone else does not, and we begin to have some small appreciation for how Pinochet handled things.
What I can’t help noticing is the focus on perceived leaders (assorted Pauls, Kochs and others) and ideological guides (Rand – apparently no other libertarian every wrote anything, at least according to the headline writers in question…). This might tell us a lot – the only way in which these ‘liberal’ commentators can understand a movement is in terms of following people, either as part of a movement or as part of an ideology. I suspect a survey of equivalent (if there are such a thing) liberatarian blogs would pick on a wider range of individuals and have much more focus on individual actions – and if here, also a fair number of holiday snaps and occasional literature references…
I think the problems for those of a ‘liberal’ mindset is they can’t grasp the fact that libertarianism isn’t really a thing (hear me out here those of you who like self-labelling). Libertarians exist, but there is no common ideology, and not all libertarians will agree on anything, especially if the label is used as ‘liberals’ like to do as including people like me who probably allow for more small government than many libertarians, including minor things like gun control (sorry – not the place to discuss this though). Ayn Rand is not universally regarded as a guru – she is not the libertarian Marx, fun as it would be to wind up the self-rightous by pointing out that our messiah was at least female and an immigrant, and not every libertarian wants to vote for Rand Paul or agrees with the Koch brothers funded schemes. Because we think for ourselves, and don’t attach ourselves to ideological labels or follow leaders; we disagree, and some of youwill probably disagree with this, but that is our strength. Even if like me you may not appreciate the label libertarian (primarily because it may or may not fit, and I can’t be bothered working out whether anyone else thinks it applies), if you may get grouped as one it is worth noting that this is your intellectual opponent (at least in terms of worldview – if you are doing a pub quiz they can be on your team, as libertarians tend not to be exclusive in who they associate with…) trying to understand you in their own terms, and to group you in terms of those you follow. It says more about them than us I suppose.
Indeed, so long as it only collectivists and illiberal fools grouping us as a single movement we are fine. If we start to really try and do this ourselves, we’re fucked though…
August,
I somehow doubt appreciating someone who used the mechanisms of the state outside the rule of law is ever a good idea really, regardless of whose ‘side’ he was on. Wrong is wrong and evil is evil after all.
“Some Self-Described Libertarians Canât Distinguish Libertarian from Communist or Unitarian.”
To be fair, it was only a tiny handful of people who (reportedly) had a problem making those distinctions, and I suspect that the problem was more with understanding the wording of the question than not comprehending the differences. And I further suspect that most of the ones checking “Unitarian” were confusing that word with “utilitarian” (which certainly isn’t libertarian, either, but it’s a lot closer). Pew probably used “Unitarian” precisely for that reason; how else can you explain lumping one (pseudo-) religion in with a bunch of political philosophies?
“the Baâathist wing of âlibertarianismâ” Love it! I’m no fan of Raimondo, although he occasionally does get something right.
As to the basic point of this post, the fact that libertarianism is now drawing so much attention and criticism (and not just from progressives; right-wingers such as Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter and Bill Bennett love to attack it, too) merely proves that it’s beginning to make serious inroads into the political debate. That apocryphal Ghandi quote cited by the other rob seems apt. I think we’re well past the “ignoring” stage, and are now somewhere between “ridicule” and “fight”.
Watchman,
As long as the fools think the hill is valuable, they will try to be king of it. Ideally, we would be able to convince them there is no hill, but barring that, we’ve got to convince them taking the hill is impossible. There is no other way. You have to be in power to implement your principles. Unfortunately, most people who are in power have no principles, and most people who have principles seem hell bent on being a noble loser.
21 Rand Paul quotes that expose libertarianism for the con job it is
How can one politician who’s only marginally libertarian-ish expose the political philosophy as a “con job”?
It’s cute how Alternet (I’m going to assume that’s an Alternet one; Salon usually has better headline writers) is so desperate to undermine libertarianism as a worldview.
I suspect it’s because most of their staff literally have no idea what libertarian theory actually refers to, any more than “some dude who just heard some Rand Paul quotes and is now TOTALLY a libertarian” does.
At least the latter guy is likely to probably learn a thing or two eventually.
August,
I hope that comment was in response to my first post, not my one directed to you – if it was the latter you seem to be advocating seizing power for the good of implementing an ideology (never works well) at the expense of the principle of do no harm (obviously, as stated my first post, you would be free to not agree with that princple, but it is one of my red lines). Anyway, in both cases my argument would be that it is better not to be in power but to continue to press the current trend towards the breakdown of centralised power (the unions failing, nationalised industries disappearing, the birth of the internet, free markets spreading etc) so that even if those without principle hold the hill that gives power they have no ability to wield power, because they cannot actually do anything.
It is difficult to dismantle government. It is fairly easy to make it irrelevant over time though. And maybe that explains the left-wing/collectivist fixation with libertarianism – they are looking for a bogeyman to try and justify government, and if they can show libertarianism to be a dangerous internal threat (they mostly allow it to be a democratic movement, so it is not a fake bogeyman like ‘Nazi’ which they can’t even use) it justifies there attempts to use government to ‘protect’ others. We threaten their view of government as the provider and protector, and they therefore use us to justify that view…
If you think the Left is hating on Ayn Rand, wait till they discover Lysander Spooner…
I can tell the different political theories apart; one only has to contemplate the way each one treats human nature.
Socialism attempts to suppress it.
Capitalism merely exacerbates it.
Libertarianism tries to ignore it.
QED
Watchman,
I don’t have an ideology. I have principles. Your determination not to ‘seize power’- something very unlikely for me to be able to do- means you are forever cast as one of the pro-degenerate forces. Your means of creating change amounts to blowing on other people’s houses of cards. Have you noticed in Greece, Iceland, Spain, etc- the people return this spectrum of Communist to National Socialist? They may win a few small battles, perhaps even break larger states down, but they have not learned. These are not leaders. At some point, and at some scale (likely a very small scale) people with principles need to rule so that we can have decent lives rather than constantly having everything around us fall apart. If it gets bad enough, you will learn of the need to protect the fields, so that you and your friends can harvest the crop.
I want to create something meaningful, not just watch the world fall.
Salon is written for the stupid, the poor stupid apparently since they’ve NEVER turned a profit either in the whole of their existence nor in any individual year of their existence. Quite literally, not even the left are “buying it”.
Anyone not an idiot should already know that…
Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian, and despised Libertarianism. Nor was she a friend of conservatives.
Rand Paul is not an Ayn Rand Objectivist.
The Koch Brothers are not Libertarian.
Libertarians didn’t “close the government”, nor is libertarianism “basically a cult”.
The appropriate response to the ridiculous is riducule.
NickM, The Progressive “common social viewpoint” didn’t pop out of a vacuum. The “Frankfort school” and Critical Theory is indeed an action plan of sorts. Make no mistake, the “progressive left” are neo-marxists.
August wrote,
Granted, there is a segment of the population to whom phylosophy is beyond. But there is no reason we shouldn’t be able to teach the priciples of voluntary trade or cooperation to mutual benefit…win-win. Traders/cooperators are political/legal equals, whereas those with a lose/win mindset support conquering, or preach losing and anti-ego as a virtue. (And their greatest loser was tortured and crusified for the sake of people who even admit that they’re not worth it and don’t deserve it). Yes, anti-ego, as that dreaded ‘ego’ is Latin for “I” or “self”. They preach humility (self humiliation) and “service” instead of self esteem and personal achievement.
Laird, one of Ayn Rand’s heartburn over Libertarianism was their considering freedom as an irreducible primary. We can see the fallout of this with a quick glance at the wiki page on Libertarianism. I’m not suggesting that wiki is in any way authorative. I’m suggesting that it give a bit of insight how everyone from the extreme totalitarians to the extreme liberty anarchists claim to be doing what they’re doing in the name of “freedom”. Even Marx claimed to fight for the freedom of the proletariat.
The Other Rob,
I think what you’re referring to is, “At least eighty percent of quotes on the internet are fake” ~ Abraham Lincon. Gotta get these things right my friend.
đ
August wrote: “When we grow up, we realize that we play fair, while everyone else does not, and we begin to have some small appreciation for how Pinochet handled things.”
“Appreciation”? No. The battle is for minds and hearts, not forced compliance.
Not if you principles include the objection of people having power over other people. If they do, the way to implement them is to explain to common people that other people should not have power over them, and that the only reason governments have power over them is that they, the common people, willingly gave them that power. That is true even in totalitarian states, let alone in democracies.
Reason hit it: http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/16/libertarians-theyre-just-like-us-playboy
hits it
Alisa,
I’m not sure August is going to be swayed be the simple realisation that power is only possible through consent – he probably takes the much more normal but misled view held by many revolutionaries that force equates to power. But if that was the case, we would have to answer simple questions about why most totalitarian regimes over time have to concede more and more freedom to the people (and those that don’t, eventually cannot coerce any more). Even North Korea allows domestic-level markets now…
I always loved the realisation that power shares a root with French pouvoir, ‘to be able’ – and this is the root of understanding what power is, the ability to do things. You can only do things if you have the consent of the population (not necessarily explicit consent, but simply not active dissent – the mistake a lot of Guardian readers make). It is possible to use force to impose your will, which seems to be August’s desire, and indeed for German speakers (where power tends to be expressed by macht) this seems to be how it is understood. Which perhaps means it is easier to debate with those socialists who prefer Foucault to Weber or Marx…
In reality, the French government should in the view of someone like August be hugely powerful, but note how little power it really has if even a section of the French population object to something – that is the consent issue. The Germans have built their governments (now) not to be powerful, and therefore seem to have consent to be governed in this way. In Britain our government is both hugely potentially powerful and hugely constrained, but again attempts to do things that do not have any consent (poll tax is the last major one, although one might also argue the totally ineffective hunting ban) just do not work. Note that even most of the fairly totalitarian regimes on the planet have consent – Putin powered by Russian peculiarism, the religious government of Iran and also perhaps ISIS drawing on the faith of their population, and even the supporters of the Latin American economy-destroyers – all of these use force at times, but rely essentially on consent most of the time.
Very good points indeed, Watchman, especially the distinction between power and force.
Pinochet understood those who tried to engage in political action were dangerous, possibly congenitally so, since it seems once the revolutionary fervor is felt, it becomes extremely hard to understand the concept of peaceful, free trade.
I have not consented to the insane people who currently have power. I doubt you have either. Political action is attempted theft, for the most part, which you would notice if a few folks showed up at your house and voted on how they would divide up your property amongst themselves.
You do realize a libertarian project must be ‘enforced?’ If, in your particular area, you do not specifically bar and exclude political action, political- and in short order force- action will be done unto you. Ideally, you have a good system of entry/exit, so that the people who consent are there, and those that don’t are not. But the world is not always a clean little place.
This especially important to consider if you are in fact the sort of person who has a principle that states- people shouldn’t be in power over other people- because that principle makes you massively different from most other humans. Some want power, other seem terrified to be free. We are outnumbered. And, obviously, the headlines the post is comprised of shows they refuse to learn from us. Those are allegedly smart people who might learn from us- many simply can’t. You have no strategy by which your principle is implemented because, apparently, anyone who holds it is forbidden to implement it, while everyone else happily goes about coercing and/or encouraging coercion.
If we don’t figure this out, we deserve the laughter.
August, first a remark: enforced is not the same as forced. To your main point, of course you are correct and most people are not like “us”. That, however, does not mean that you or I can force on them our views and convictions. I repeat Watchman’s point: one cannot have power over others without their consent – there are no shortcuts. Pinochet tried it and failed. Yes, you read that right: he succeeded in forcing his views on the people of Chile for a few decades, and now that he is gone, widely (and in many ways rightly) vilified, Chile is gradually reverting back to its default typical Latin-American statist self.
Now, I am not saying that Pinochet and his supporters should have just rolled over for the Socialists to take over their country. I am also not arguing that they could have successfully resisted the latter by means other than they actually did. I don’t know whether they could or not, and I am not about to judge them, certainly not from the comfort of being decades and miles away from those events. What I am saying is that they ultimately failed at making their country freer in the long run, because they failed to change the minds of enough of their people in order to get their consent for the changes that they wanted to implement. They failed to change the culture. It may well not have been their fault, but that is the sad reality. You can’t force freedom on people, just as you can’t force slavery on them. You either get their consent, or you kill them – there is no other way.
Worse, it’s not that these smart people can’t. They don’t want to. Why should they, when they have everything to gain? It’s the strongman at the head of a bunch of willing thugs that’s probably the reason no anarchic or libertarian community has lasted – they all got conquered soon enough.
So a common understanding is always needed for a community, a society to be a coherent whole and able to defend itself and its members.
A better way to state it (no pun intended) is minimal coercion, not lack thereof. Where to draw the line? Always to be constantly debated on.
The effort to overthrow and disgrace Pinochet was an international project. Now, global forces may be arrayed against you, should you ever manage to get anywhere, but that will not mean that your people weren’t giving you consent. If you can provide decent governance you’ll get quite a lot of consent; most people would be quite relieved, and they may even be happy when the political ads disappear.
We are not having the argument you think we are having. The likelihood of getting anything done is small. The most likely way of me getting anything done is by becoming wealthy enough to do real estate development at a scale necessary for it to provide for itself if necessary. Take advantage of the ‘local’ fad. The largest I could make it would be a small city and its hinterlands, but it would likely be a lot smaller. Have my principles as part of the framework- people agree when they buy in. The trick, if there is one, is to be able to have the place go opaque to the statists, when and if they choose to- and I think they would choose to eventually, if I did it right. You can put certain principles right into the built environment, and then you don’t have to argue with people about them. Lead people who like to be led, keep off the radar of people who like to take, and then to whatever extent you can, teach the next generation- not only ideas, but habits.
Where libertarians fall down is the Non Aggression Principle. The more strenuously it is defended the weaker the polity.
It is not just strength that matters. You HAVE to be seen as willing to use it. And that means a certain amount of preemptive force.
I think every libertarian should do a few years in an OLaw MC gang before being allowed to expound on the nature of humans in relation to force.
Inside the gang is a pecking order to keep the violence down. Between gangs there is fear. The occasional murder helps keep the peace.
=========================
The ME would be a more tractable place if every “Death to America” rally was bombed. And every major speaker of such was put on a hit list. You can’t stop the thinking of such thoughts. But you can make expounding them have a cost.
Colonialisim is way underrated.
“and now that he is gone, widely (and in many ways rightly) vilified, Chile is gradually reverting back to its default typical Latin-American statist self.”
Wrong.
Pinochet implemented far reaching, even revolutionary, free market policies. His successors recognized the great achievements of these policies, and kept the free market reforms, mainly, intact. Even the leftist (popular front) presidents, including the current one, Bachellet,(on her second term) stick to the successful formula. There is erosion, of course, gradual and consistent erosion. But, no counter-revolution. Though Pinochet was vilified by half the Chileans (and all foreigners), his policies had and still have a deep and lasting and clear positive impact. Chile is considered the best managed country in Latin America, better than the bigger and richer, Argentina or Brazil.
And that is said without considering counter-factuals: what would have happened without Pinochet – a Cuba or a Venezuela in Chile? And how would human rights have fared under such regimes ?
” ultimately failed at making their country freer in the long run”
Well Chile is much freer now (at least in the economic sense) than it was before Pinochet. It has a stable and orderly and decent government (no small feat in LatAm). Is it “for the long run”? I don’t know. 40 years is pretty long. Nothing lasts forever.
MSimon, I don’t think the Non-Aggression Principle means what you think it does. It is more properly understood as the non-initiation of force; responding to someone else’s initiation of force is perfectly proper. And the use of pre-emptive force is certainly within its parameters under the right circumstances (i.e., when there is a credible threat of force being used against you). The NAP doesn’t require you to give the other fellow the first punch.
Libertarians aren’t (all) pacifists.
Says Jacob:
Oh well, another day on the interwebz đ
Many libertarians live in an rarefied world of abstract ideas. They believe you have to convince people in the validity and truth of your fine ideas, and, when enough people will be true believers will the libertarian utopia be established on earth.
In this respect, many libertarians, and possibly Ayn Rand herself, are like the communists ideologues – communists are great believers in educating and re-educating the ignorant masses – to make them see the light.
Ultimately, facts are more important than abstract ideas – they are, in fact, the only thing that matters. They are the ultimate educators.
Communism didn’t fall because of a failure of education (or re-education), it fell because it wasn’t able to provide the material goods.
Pinochet succeeded in Chile not because he was beloved or perfect, or a great teacher of fine ideas, but because his policies worked (and he had the power to implement them). Another free market success story is Singapore, and there too, it was implemented not by “the people” but by an authoritarian regime. And, the success is long lasting, well beyond the demise of the original founder.
Of course, the most extensive and far reaching free market reforms were implemented in China itself, by a communist regime. They had an enormous impact – in lifting out of poverty hundreds of millions of Chinese. I’m not sure the Chinese were re-educated in libertarian doctrines.
“Communism didnât fall because of a failure of education (or re-education), it fell because it wasnât able to provide the material goods.”
First of all, communism didn’t “fall”, the Soviet Union did. That was due to the failures of its leadership: years of accumulated misrule combined with the inherent economic inefficiency of that system eventually pushed its people over the edge and they demanded change (especially once they could clearly see how much better people’s lives were in the more-or-less free market west). But that did nothing to overturn the idea of communism, which persists to this day.
Communism (and its bastard offspring socialism, which is merely communism-lite) fails, and always will fail in implementation, because it doesn’t comport with reality. However, communism (and socialism) is a resounding success in terms of continuing to win adherents to its demonstrably false tenets (witness the moron currently occupying the papacy) and in its ability to be attempted over and over again despite its 100% failure rate. That success is directly attributable to teaching people its abstract ideas; in other words, to education. Contrariwise, libertarianism has never really been tried because it has never succeeded in attracting the attention and support of sufficient numbers of people; in other words, because of education. So yes, to a large extent libertarians do “live in the world of abstract ideas.” I make no apology for that.
Ultimately, it depends upon one’s definition of “success” and “failure”. If your definition of success is simply “delivering the goods”, then almost everyone would agree that a free market system does that best, and communism is an abject failure. However, many people have a broader definition, which encompasses such notions as “equality”, “fairness”, “social justice”, etc. Of course, ultimately communism fails at those, too, but that can take a very long time to become evident. And until it does, many people will be content to live with fewer material possessions and creature comforts if they believe their society is in pursuit of those laudable non-material objectives. So is communism truly a “failure”? Not necessarily.
According to somebody, and I’m sorry to say I forget who, Gorbachev himself said that the people of the U.S.S.R. had long since ceased to believe in Communism, and that in the end what happened was that he and the rest of the Old Guard, who also had lost the faith, were just too old and tired of the whole thing to try to keep up the façade any longer.
Alisa, of course, would be the on-the-ground witness to confirm or deny this…at least about “the people.” Not that the opinions of “the people” are ever uniform, for any “people.”
Julie, unfortunately for my ability to be a witness (although rather fortunately for myself) I left too early in both the course of events on the ground and in the course of my own life.
Thanks for your reply, Alisa. And I am very glad you were able to leave when you did. I trust Israel is more to your liking. :>)
I do wish I could remember the source of Gorbachev’s statement.
đ
Alisa – the idea that government depends on opinion was one of David Hume’s many mistakes. Opinion is (yes) vitally important – but only if translated into action (real action).
Government depends on force – people may disagree with what it does, but unless they translate their disagreement into action their disagreement is not relevant.
There are (basically) two ways to change government policy in relation to taxes and regulations.
To defeat the government forces in battle – i.e. to kill them.
Or to vote the government out of office – and have a new government that taxes and regulates less.
Everything else is just Morris dancing and Bit”coin”.
Mr Hampden had to do more than “disagree” with Ship Money in order to end the tax – he and his friends had to kill lots of people (as the King could not be voted out of office). Just refusing to pay (and losing a court case) would not achieve anything on its own.
Kill the government people – or vote them out of office.
Those (not Morris dancing)are the serious alternatives – although one must be careful that the people one votes for are not “RINO” types who will be little better than the people one has voted out.
But real reform is possible – as various State Governors in the United States have proved (although they have had to fight the media, and mobs on the streets, and the courts….. tooth-and-nail).
As for “Salon” and so on.
This is the mainstream establishment left – the university crowd.
And they HATE us – h-a-t-e.
This shows, yet again, that the project of the “Bleeding Hearts” (and other such) to try and win-over the university crowd (the establishment) is an utter waste of time.
“We care about the poor as much you do” is not going to achieve anything.
And neither is “we support civil liberties as much as you do” (that will just inspire private laughter – as the modern university crowd despise the First Amendment as much as they despise the Second Amendment.
Ditto “we oppose racism” or “we are against war – bash Bush!”
They h-a-t-e us – nothing is going to change that.
This conflict is about power – and to “opt out” is to LOSE.
As with the conflict in Wisconsin over Act Ten and Governor Walker (and so on). There is only victory and defeat – winners and losers.
Politics is war by other means (not the other way round).
And if one side refuses to engage – the other side wins.
It is that simple – and that brutal.
Libertarianism represents a threat to the authoritarian status quo, which is why they’ve been working so hard to stamp it out.
“First of all, communism didnât âfallâ, the Soviet Union did. That was due to the failures of its leadership: years of accumulated misrule combined with the inherent economic inefficiency of that system eventually pushed its people over the edge and they demanded change (especially once they could clearly see how much better peopleâs lives were in the more-or-less free market west). But that did nothing to overturn the idea of communism, which persists to this day.”
Yes, communism is making a threat right here in America once again via Bernie Sanders. The people of Alternet and Salon have also openly advocated communism many times. It is quite scary the times we are living in, and if something is not done soon we are going to be living in a country more similar to Cuba, Venezuala, or worse-North Korea.