Greedy Goblin

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Why libertarians are dead?

I promised that I won't write political punditry because whatever I figure out was already written by Ann Coulter. But this is too good, despite she literally told it first. Short version: young, self-identified libertarian girl asks why the state has the right to stop her taking drugs and Ann answers that because she doesn't want to pay the welfare for the girl after she ruined herself.

Libertarians are social liberals (your rights are only limited by the rights of others, they are pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-multiculturalism) but fiscal conservatives (small government, low tax, personal responsibility). They are very popular among young people. They never win elections.

The reason is simple: "because morons and slackers would just die". If you give personal freedom to M&S, they get into trouble. They take drugs. They don't spend money on health insurance or pension fund. They waste their money on some "get rich now" scam. If you give them no help, the trouble kills them. Social people don't want to see fellow people, including family members dying. There are two ways out of it:
  • Stop M&S doing stupid stuff by preaching and enforcing moral behavior, that's social conservatism
  • Let them do stupid stuff and then save them from the consequences, that's liberalism/socialism
Libertarians are dead because their system would let M&S die and not even self-proclaimed libertarians want to watch that.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

> Libertarians are social liberals ... they are pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-multiculturalism

That's a bit misleading. It would be more accurate to say that they're anti-state. They want the government to be too weak to discriminate against minorities. Hence, the Nazi policy of "send the gays and Jews and Roma to death camps" would be impossible in a libertarian world. But they also want the state to be too weak to punish any private citizen (or corporation) which discriminates against minorities.

Some libertarian writers treat bigotry as a sign of irrationality or error, but they don't support the use of force in order to "punish" or "correct" the bigot's unpleasant behavior. Until he directly harms a gay person, the bigot is free to do whatever he wants. If people dislike the bigot, then they can attempt to boycott his business or shun him socially. The question of whether or not a libertarian writer *personally* likes gay people isn't especially important. They're not going to deny you membership merely because you think that queers are icky.

At least one prominent libertarian theorist (Hans-Hermann Hoppe) is pretty open about being *opposed* to multiculturalism. If HHH's dream became real, then he'd happily move into a covenant community which admits only heterosexual white people. HHH is socially conservative, but that doesn't stop him from believing in (or advocating for) a libertarian form of society.

Camo said...

I would not watch, but I totally want them to bear the consequences of their actions - because life is better without M&S.
The only difference between a random M&S and a potential family M&S is that I might try to get some sense into them, but if they are a real M&S, then I am certainly not going social on them.
Social conservatism is punishing all smart catapult riders to keep the stupid ones in line. It helps to reach a goal, but the goal has become to keep the stupid ones in line.
There is a third option and it is setting man free from man: asociality.
But that endangers bloated governments, religions and "get rich now" scammers. Leeches have no interest in losing their host, leeches in power will do everything to prevent their host from rejecting them.
It is a difficult and uphill battle to overcome the monkey genes, but it is worth it.

Carson 63000 said...

"Libertarians are social liberals but fiscal conservatives"

Not the so-called Libertarians in US politics. Like Ron Paul. Lower taxes? Sure! Smaller government? Sure! Freedom to have an abortion? Um, that's a state issue not a federal one, sorry, no comment. Same sex marriage? Um, the government shouldn't be involved in marriage, no comment.

Those "libertarians" are conservatives who are slightly more isolationist on foreign policy.

Anonymous said...

This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.

Gevlon said...

@Camo: of course, that's what I'm preaching, but it only works individually. You can't force asociality on anyone. You can force him conservative rules or you can let him die. But other socials (the majority) won't let him die.

Hanura H'arasch said...

Is this the same interview of Ann Coulter?

Anonymous said...

Libertarians are dead? I am fairly sure a bunch of them just elected the president of the USA.

The reason "Socials" don't let people die is because you are judged by how you treat the weakest members of your society. That, and, even the most advanced nation like Hungary is able to turn into chaos in a very short period of time, so, any one of us could become the next set of people needing someone else to look after us. You really think everyone fleeing Syria is a pauper in their own nation?

Gevlon said...

@Hanura: no, it was a Q/A with audience

Hanura H'arasch said...

Ah, then it's probably this.

Hanura H'arasch said...

Better version: link.

luobote kong said...

Libertarians are to a greater or lesser degree against authoritarianism. Full on authoritarians demand social compliance using emotional rather than rational criteria (skin colour, religion, culture, gender etc). In your terms they are biggest M & S out there incapable of individual thought and the epitomy of being a social

Gevlon said...

@Hanura: YES

Phelps said...

Vox Day put it better than most yesterday in a post. Libertarianism is a result of a well ordered society, but it can never create one.

maxim said...

Most things Coulter says was already said by Ayn Rand over a decade ago. This doesn't seem to be stopping her :D

Libertarians are dead because they have so far failed to produce any sort of an actual system for organisation of effective, productive and meaningful work. And the reason they failed is because they can't overcome the contradiction of talking about how freedom is the best thing ever while simultaneously telling everyone to limit their freedom strictly to expressions of rational self-interest.

NuTroll said...

This isn't true at all. Libertarians (including myself) are actively anticipating seeing the M&S suffer the consequences of their actions.

Our argument has always been that trying to protect people from themselves harms society more than letting so called M&S suffer the consequences of their actions.

It is the non libertarian that cannot suffer this to be so.

NuTroll said...

//Libertarians are social liberals ... they are pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-multiculturalism//

Hans Herman Hoppe ?
Lew Rockwell?

Tell me the difference between Ron Paul's immigration policy and Donald Trump's?
Theres only one, the wall. Other than that identical.
Eliminate birthright citizenship / anchor baby . Check
No subsidy/welfare for immigrants. Check

All libertarians are pro-choice? No its about a 50/50 split. Some libertarians (pro life ones) argue that the Mother is violating the rights of the fetus by killing it.

Pro-Gay? Libertarians want the state out of marriage and freedom of association. If followed, the right of your church to exclude Gays would be sacrosanct. as would the Gays have the right to exclude you from their bakery, or to not employ you.

Please learn more about Libertarians before commenting on it.

Anonymous said...

Socialism only ever works in MMOs (clans/guilds) because you have control over who is allowed "in" and it is an accepted practice. Kick out the M&S and keep those who are competent and responsible. For the real world, socialism can never work, because we do not have that control or it becomes a human rights issue. You need an ideal society (moral, educated, etc.), which is impossible, but the M&S of the world are hell bent on fighting for their utopian dreams.

Anonymous said...

Portugal decriminalized drugs a while ago, and from my 5 minutes research it has not bankrupted the country, in fact the opposite, lots of drug related problems decreased.

Why not question Coulter's implied assumption "legal drug use costs more welfare"? And even if welfare was to remain or go up, the $trillion+ saved from the failed "war on drugs" would cover it easily.

As for libertarianism, I think it works as a pressure group but obviously not as a ruling party. I don't want to wade through homeless slums to get into the opera. But the notion that a government action must be very much justified, or not exist, is sound I think.

Halycon said...

Gevlon, I am well aware the US has an outsized impact on world politics and economics. I do not in any way take it lightly that the world has a stake in what happens here. That being said, you really need to stop talking about US politics. Your understanding of it is tinted through a stained glass window of your upbringing with your country's system and problems. You heavily discount the most important factor in US politics. Race and Religion. It's not economics, or sexuality, or freedom to do whatever, or any of those things you talk about. It's race and religion, it's always been race and religion here.

That btw is not hyperbole. You can see it in how voting lines split, what states are red and what states are blue. How we go about gerrymandering districts. It's all the mathematics of keeping votes and power.

Liberal and Conservative are inept labels that do not explain US politics. 50 years ago Republicans were the liberal party. Democrats were the conservative ones. They flip flopped demographics after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took exactly one election cycle after that bill passed for well educated college voters to start voting for a Democrat, George McGovern, and the Solid South Dexi-crat to vote in Richard Nixon. Race completely changed the face of what American Politics had been for 150 years in 8. Directly after the Communist Block fell in the 90s and gave your country independence our next presidential election wasn't won on international politics or economics, or any of the stuff you talk about. It was won because Bill Clinton pulled an unprecedented percentage of black voters.

You don't live here Gevlon, you don't talk to everyday Americans. Your news is distorted through news media that's packaged for us with the understanding that however deeply buried or vague it may be, internally we have social context to understand it by that you don't. And never will. You didn't have half a semester of HS covering Laissez Faire and the Robber Barons, and another half covering The New Deal. We did. All of us did, even if we forgot most of it.

You didn't get to grow up talking to people that actually participated in the race riots. We did. I live in a city that when I moved here still had tank tread marks in the streets that hadn't been repaired from when the National Guard was mobilized after the Martin Luther King Jr assassination happened downtown 40 years before. Until I moved to the suburbs of the city I drove past the hotel he was shot at 5 days a week, and one week out of four it was vandalized by hate speech. These are things you don't get to see Gevlon. No one talks about them, no one reports them on the news. But we all know about it and that it's there.

Provi Miner said...

It's always the economy at the base though, social, racial, religious issues tend to blur into the back ground when the economy is good throughout. Note how to measure the economy is a bit of slick willy maneuvering do you count those that are not looking for work? if yes unemployment jumps up if no unemployment stays low.

Anonymous said...


Halycon said ... Your understanding of it is tinted through a stained glass window of your upbringing with your country's system and problems. I have been wanting to say this for some time now but have not found a way to properly open dialogue without it sounding like an attack ... thank you.

99smite said...

@ Halcyon:
Well and nicely said. Pretty decently said and on spot regarding the "election mechanism".
There is another factor in US politics that many Americans tend to overlook on a regular basis. And that is the unhealthy influence of "BIG BUSINESS", of which the so-called military-industrial-complex is only a part (see D.D. Eisenhower's speech on this 60 years ago).
Running for presidency is expensive and huge companies have been allowed to give money to candidates after that specific laws was changed (late 70's?). Lobbyists are giving the Senate directions and form the Senator's opinions. This is a rather schizophreniac situation: politicians need real people for their votes and big companies for their money. One would assume that a politician should always be in two minds about how to decide on a specific issue in politics. Unfortunately, most people perceive their decisions as only biased towards money and big business. These decisions are then sold as decisions for the greater good or in other words "trickling down". If we pamper the big businesses, then they will prosper and create more jobs... Well, this was kind of true for a long time, only that these jobs were mostly created outside the US.

thenoisyrogue said...

Libertarians were never alive to begin with. The reason is that libertarianism is an effect not a cause of a well ordered society. Libertarians are the sucker-fish on the host of a democracy with a free market economy.