Pedophiles trick children into thinking they’re libertarians because cops are bad and weed is good
Works wonderfully if you’re profit. The free markets love you and will do anything for you.
Oh, you’re a people? Have you heard of our Lord and Savior profit? If you’re not helping profit then you must be hurting it, therefore hurting the market. We don’t take kindly to the likes of you.
It’s dumb.
Hooray for me, and fuck you!
It is an ideology for selfish amoral oppotunists
It’s depends on what you mean…it’s a fraught term, to say the least.
Actual definition of the word…or the Ron Paul (etc) nuts?
It’s funny that in the classic Libertarian novel “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” the rule free society only works because there are no guns and literally everything is controlled by a single giant computer.
Objectivism creator Ayn Rand ended up on welfare after she lacked the will power to give up smoking.
Need I say more?
I can only speak for America, but here they’re all a bunch of corporate-sponsored anarchy LARPers.
I mean…that says it all.
Sure, the seemingly benevolent small business owners feature heavily at the conventions…but behind the curtains it’s really a coalition of rich guys, gun nuts, NAMBLAs, zoophiles, etc. in a stuffed cheap suit.
Depends on how it’s defined.
Current libertarianism is just rebranded reactionary conservatism.
Classically though, “libertarian” simply referred to someone who advocated for maximum individual liberty and minimum state intervention. The term first gained popularity in the US in the wake of the New Deal, when the term “liberal,” which had up until then referred to that position of maximum individual liberty and minimum state intervention, was coopted by leftist authoritarians. Since the classical liberals needed a new term, they shifted to “libertarian.” And notably, at that point, libertarians were at least as likely to be left-wing as right, with the two groups merely splitting on which specific government services should be counted among the minimum.
That started to go wrong when the Libertarian party was established, and finished going wrong when the Tea Party was transformed from a series of protests against the Wall Street bailouts to a traveling carnival of hate.
And there’s also the political compass sense of “libertarian” as simply the opposite of authoritarian, by which I’m as “libertarian” as it’s possible to be. It should be noted though that in recent years, mostly through meme communities, even that conception of “libertarian” has been increasingly characterized as more of an alternate authoritarianism.
So there’s a conception back behind each use of the term “libertarian” that is at least close to mine (I’m actually an anarchist). But IMO not coincidentally, the term has been in all cases warped to refer to some form of authoritarianism, which I unequivocally oppose.
I have to push back a bit that the core of the proper definition of libertarianism is freedom from the state. It’s isn’t/wasn’t. The state plays an essential role in functional libertarianism, for what should be obvious reasons: libertarianism requires a mechanism, aside from power, to resolve tension between competing freedoms.
I have to push back a bit that the core of the proper definition of libertarianism is freedom from the state.
I’m not sure why you feel a need to push back against something I didn’t say.
“…minimum state intervention…” isn’t part of the definition. That’s a value judgement and a concept that gets thrown around by the idealists. The concept of libertarianism was invented to moderate a necessary and ubiquitous state, and can’t exist without one.
You defined classical libertarianism or right libertarianism, which grew up to be what we see as The Libertarian Party in the USA today, for example. It was “rebranded” specifically to add the notion of “minimal state intervention” - to make themselves distinct from libertarians (who functionally existed, at that time). Much like classical liberals, classical libertarians are antithetical to the definition of their namesake.
I don’t think libertarianism works, it relies naively on how the free market is omnipotent, how freedom is everything and how having a small government is somehow good. There are no countries that are entirely libertarian, that also tells a lot about the ideology’s applicability in practice. A brilliant book about why libertarianism doesn’t work is a book “A Libertarian Walks into a Bear”. In the book, a group of libertarians decides to take over the small town of Grafton in New Hampshire en masse as part of their “Free Town Project”. Of course this group cares neither about the town’s original inhabitants nor their rights. What’s the result? They hollow out pretty much everything from the library, to the school, the fire department and the police. No regard is given to any laws on hunting or food disposal, and that lures in bears, who turn so aggressive that they invade people’s homes. In addition to bears, sex offenders and all kinds of criminals are also lured into Grafton. It’s pretty entertaining book, I recommend it.
Another reason why I dislike libertarianism is that it can function as a gateway to fascism. This is a known phenomenon. Several key figures in the alt-right for example used to be libertarians. I stumbled into a clip from some American Libertarian Party convention among figures like Ron Paul was Richard Spencer. I had to rub my eyes a bit.
You forgot to mention that the book is nonfiction, this really happened.
If you mean the Statesian, pro-capitalist kind, it’s mostly a silly ideology pushed by small business owners and other highly individualist classes that are nonetheless pushed towards the working classes by competing against ever-growing monopolies.
The left wing version, I disagree with as you can’t dismantle the state without removing the basis of the state, class, and you can’t remove class without collectivizing production and distribution. Small, local cells loosely organized in a decentralist fashion would still result in class struggle and thus a form of state to hold one class over the others. That said, the leftists are valuable allies at times despite disagreements.
See The first “definition” doesn’t fit the group you’re trying to define. If you’re talking about American (using the US as shorthand)…they are by no means restricted to or feature small business owners, that’s but a small (albeit with outsized power) enclave in the “coalition”. ie you can’t mention small business owners without also mentioning that the largest business owners also may be “libertarians”. Their policy ideologically and thus empirically opposes the working class.
There’s no left wing version of the word, or rather, the proper definition is leftist. What you’re describing seems to be an ideological axe you have to grind with Marxism, or socialism something. Actual libertarianism is simply a school of thought - a collection of philosophies - that prioritize individual liberty (freedom). In other words…it’s a criticism - a way to moderate - a necessary capitalist system. Generally these philosophies aren’t related to American libertarianism/freedom…it’s more of a freedom from rather than a freedom to thing…to oversimplify: leftist (real) libertarians believe power structures shouldn’t impede the (not obstructive and lawful) acts of the people - it’s very conscious of power differentials, while American libertarians believe in an absolute right to individual freedom that may or may not conflict with other peoples’ freedoms - after that point of tension it comes down to functional power (thus it’s antithetical to the proper definition and why the prioritization of power pairs so well with - rather than moderates - capitalism and even fascism). Some of the groups that American libertarians welcome into their coalition are grotesque perversions of the concept - even if they put the small business owners on stage at the convention.
First off, you’re a bit confused here. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, my critiques are from that framework.
As for the libertarian movement in the States, I was referring to who makes up the basis of that movement. The wealthiest capitalists are usually not libertarians, they enjoy strong state control and regulations that they can fix in their favor. The basis of libertarianism is in the small business owners, the petite bourgeoisie, who see little of the systems benefits while trying to retain their privledged positions over others.
I’m well-aware of what you define as “actual” libertarians, and my critique of them is from a Marxist point of view. I’m not an anarchist, while I enjoy working with anarchists and share a common enemy, our strategies and analysis end up in fundamentally different areas.
The reason I broke them up as I did was because OP was vague enough that they could be asking for either, so I answered both.
I think Libertarianism is incompatible with the way that humans operate as a society. Almost all flavors of libertarianism puts an individual’s right to live as they choose as long as that doesn’t violate the rights of others through force or fraud. Humans like to associate themselves into groups, and in almost any group there will be an imbalance in power, whether that’s economic power, physical power (strength), or even something as abstract as eloquence or how outgoing you are. The issue then becomes that someone somewhere has to enforce the right to not be forced into giving up rights. In the classical construction of how libertarians view government, it is very easy to become more powerful than those meant to enforce limits on power. Even in our current political system, you see this when companies will spend more on their anti-trust court cases than the entire FTC spends total in a decade. Libertarianism has no mechanism to keep the enforcer the most powerful party involved
Sounds great on paper, in practice it’s almost entirely old white men who want to get rid of age of consent laws or people who want to be able to do insane, dangerous to others shit like feeding bears without anyone being able to stop them.
In summary, the ideology of selfish jackasses at best and pedophiles at worst.
