Libertarianism - What's the appeal?

[Superman]

After reading a bit of the the "idiocy" thread, it made me wonder; what's the appeal of libertarianism? Is it the idea of an almost complete lack of government in their lives? It seems that every libertarian type I've ever had a conversation with is a little wacky (many are evangelical nutjobs like Kent Hovind), so I'm sure there's a common thread somewhere in this concept.

[Darth Raptor]

Self-absorbed avarice. "I've got mine, and fuck everybody else."

Seriously, that's the crux of it. I'm not even trying to be flippant. That's the appeal of libertarianism. To be as independent as possible while having as little obstacles as possible between yourself and personal gratification. Your common thread is either a disgusting lack of compassion for others or a disgusting naivette vis a vis human morality and charitability. Neither of which is exactly an admirable characteristic.

[Junghalli]

It appeals naturally to the fear of government and macho self-reliance culture common in American society. And what Darth Raptor said. Stupid people go for it because it appeals to the antiauthoritarian ideas they've been absorbing constantly since early childhood, and selfish people go for it because they naturally gravitate toward an ideology of "I've got mine, and fuck everybody else!" (and they're usually also stupid and arrogant enough to think they'd be the ones to do well in such a system, as opposed to being one of those damn lazy bums that rightfully starve).

[Superman]

Good points. It seems that much of the psychology involved has to do with greed, selfishness, a lack of empathy, arrogance, etc. No wonder many of these types fit nicely into the schema of evangelical retardism.

The fact that these idiots have nothing but contempt and anger toward the government has always perplexed me. It's almost as if they don't mind the concept of a pretend "higher authority," as in their religious crap, but a real one, like say... the IRS, really gets under their skin.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Besides what's been mentioned, libertarianism is appealing to people who've bought into the demonization of government, and the fetishization of the free market. Government is always the problem, never the solution. And it's the only problem. Not corporations or religions or plain old nasty human individuals. If government just got out of the way the magic invisible hand of the free market will make everything right in the world. And The Market Is Always Right; the free market would never let bad things be profitable. It might look like it has, but that's only because the government interfered with it.

The fact that these idiots have nothing but contempt and anger toward the government has always perplexed me. It's almost as if they don't mind the concept of a pretend "higher authority," as in their religious crap, but a real one, like say... the IRS, really gets under their skin.

Actually, it fits in perfectly with their absolute selfishness and arrogance. Since God is imaginary, "God's" will is actually their will; just a means of stamping a seal of approval on their own desires. A government might tell them "no"; God won't, because "God" is just another word for themselves.

[Superman]

Actually, it fits in perfectly with their absolute selfishness and arrogance. Since God is imaginary, "God's" will is actually their will; just a means of stamping a seal of approval on their own desires. A government might tell them "no"; God won't, because "God" is just another word for themselves.

Another way of putting that might be that it's hard to be wrong when God is on your side.

[Flagg]

I can tell you what I find appealing about Libertarianism. The idea that I'm responsible for myself and my own actions and that I should be free to do whatever the hell I want as long as it doesn't directly harm someone. That the government should get out of my life unless it's something of the utmost importance. I still find that base idea extremely appealing. But it just doesn't work. Morally or realistically. And in the end it just does away with government meddling only to replace it with corporate meddling, which is far worse.

That said, I'm still somewhat of a social Libertarian. In the sense that I think a government should justify infringements on the peoples liberty, rather than the people having to justify their liberties to a government.

[Superman]

I can tell you what I find appealing about Libertarianism. The idea that I'm responsible for myself and my own actions and that I should be free to do whatever the hell I want as long as it doesn't directly harm someone. That the government should get out of my life unless it's something of the utmost importance.

Being an independent who probably leans more to the left, I can still agree with that. I just don't feel the same need to make it a focal point of my political persuasion, and I've never really experienced any government intervention that has affected my life.

I wouldn't say that I love our government, but I don't loathe it either. It seems that a lot of libertarians literally despise it. It seems that this is a fundamental quality of libertarianism.

[Superman]

Bah, hit "send" too early...

I was going to add that I was just reading about a group of libertarians who have banded together and are trying to form their own community somewhere in the north-eastern U.S. This particular group is almost becoming a religious group of sorts...

[Flagg]

I can tell you what I find appealing about Libertarianism. The idea that I'm responsible for myself and my own actions and that I should be free to do whatever the hell I want as long as it doesn't directly harm someone. That the government should get out of my life unless it's something of the utmost importance.

Being an independent who probably leans more to the left, I can still agree with that. I just don't feel the same need to make it a focal point of my political persuasion, and I've never really experienced any government intervention that has affected my life.

From an economic and political standpoint I'm more of free market socialist. You know, a realist. I just think that there are certain things government (particularly law enforcement) should stay the fuck out of, as it seems to do far more harm than good.

I wouldn't say that I love our government, but I don't loathe it either. It seems that a lot of libertarians literally despise it. It seems that this is a fundamental quality of libertarianism.

I don't love or hate our government or government in general. But I don't trust government, and niether should anyone else. The government isn't deserving of our trust, but more importantly, trust in government is harmful. Everyone should be skeptical of any person in a position of power over others and they should be questioned and made to justify their actions every fucking step of the way. Otherwise you end up in the situation we're in now, with a bunch of authoritarians running things who cast questioning them as an evil that weakens society.

[Covenant]

Bah, hit "send" too early...

I was going to add that I was just reading about a group of libertarians who have banded together and are trying to form their own community somewhere in the north-eastern U.S. This particular group is almost becoming a religious group of sorts...

In small groups, a Libertarian ethic could work wonderfully. Small groups don't have the same kinds of internal/external pressures that a nation would have (or in the case of Libertarian Anarchy, the advantages it would provide), and if you think about it, if you have enough money or flexibility to be able to move somewhere freely, a Libertarian place is where you might want to go. It's always been favorable with people with assets to divorce themselves from the system that helped them gain it, afterall.

I'd love to hear that they were devolving into communal self-government though, with a 'Tribal Elder' or Shaman--perhaps a Seer of the Invisible Hand--at the head. That'd be awesome.

[Superman]

I'd love to hear that they were devolving into communal self-government though, with a 'Tribal Elder' or Shaman--perhaps a Seer of the Invisible Hand--at the head. That'd be awesome.

That's true. I think the fundamental problem still remains though; the smaller libertarian group still needs the protection of the larger one.. at least that would apply to any group in this country.

[The Yosemite Bear]

you know the other thread made me sick, especially first hoplite than doz. The whole fuck everyone else, neocon bullshit is really awful, night I have to go to bed....

[Covenant]

I'd love to hear that they were devolving into communal self-government though, with a 'Tribal Elder' or Shaman--perhaps a Seer of the Invisible Hand--at the head. That'd be awesome.

That's true. I think the fundamental problem still remains though; the smaller libertarian group still needs the protection of the larger one.. at least that would apply to any group in this country.

Yeah. These little communities work fine, like the Amish for example, or the more extreme versions of the Mormon 'Latter-Day Saints' groups, because they exist under the aegis of the govenrment. I think as soon as you spread the system outwards, the Libertarian community would fall apart pretty fast. You'd need to be alert to punting people out of the group if they showed signs of Ideological Weakness.

You may need a Kommisar of the Invisible Hand, for example, to work with the Shaman. Not as a government of course, perish the thought. But we can't have people destroying the fabric by acting outside of it's rules. Honestly, I bet most of these things would fall apart as soon as one of the rich people's houses got robbed and nobody else gave a shit.

[Junghalli]

Also, there are relatively sane people who call themselves libertarians, I think we should distinguish between them and pie-in-the-sky plutocratic anarchists.

I'd consider myself something of a libertarian, since I'm distrustful of government power on principle and think the government should stay out of people's lives whenever possible. At the same time I recognize government is necessary and can do good things as well.

[Covenant]

Also, there are relatively sane people who call themselves libertarians, I think we should distinguish between them and pie-in-the-sky plutocratic anarchists.

I'd consider myself something of a libertarian, since I'm distrustful of government power on principle and think the government should stay out of people's lives whenever possible. At the same time I recognize government is necessary and can do good things as well.

This is, I think, the big difference though. I'm not sure that the idea of Small Government is the sole soverign authority of the Libertarians. You can be a Small Government anything, basically. Wanting the government to not hassle you a lot is pretty much common sense, and I think it's way too convenient for people to call themselves Libertarians in the US. I think a lot of us would agree with Libertarians on some points, just as we may agree with Republicans on something (I think) but that hardly makes it a Libertarian idea. They aren't about small government, or leaving it to the authority of a state or something. They're about non-governance, which is something most people have a hard idea comprehending. It wouldn't be a Libertarian system whatsoever until the compulsion systems are gone.

[Starglider]

Self-absorbed avarice. "I've got mine, and fuck everybody else."

Seriously, that's the crux of it. I'm not even trying to be flippant. That's the appeal of libertarianism.

There are plenty of those, but there are also a fair number of people genuinely convinced that market fundamentalism will create a utopia for everyone (because 'government is evil' is an article of faith for them and it follows that everything wrong with the world is the fault of one or more governments). I think it's basically an inherent inability to deal with compromise, shades of grey and complexity in general. They desperately want the world to be simple, issues to be solvable with soundbites - they're just like religious fundamentalists in fact. It's a form of ignorance-worship, denying that the world is a complex place and demanding hopelessly oversimplified answers to everything.

That said, there are plenty of moderate libertarians who embrace a positive rights-based agenda and just want more privatisation and a somewhat smaller government. As with all other movements, the extremist nuts tend to drown them out - though to be fair, the 'extremist nut' faction seems to be proportionally /much/ larger for libertarianism than say the hard-left-wing communist faction is for the 'liberals' (as much as that can even be considered a real group in the US, as opposed to the far right just grouping together everyone they don't like).


To be as independent as possible while having as little obstacles as possible between yourself and personal gratification. Your common thread is either a disgusting lack of compassion for others or a disgusting naivette vis a vis human morality and charitability. Neither of which is exactly an admirable characteristic.[/quote]

[Ted C]

I'd say the appeal is the idea of "total freedom". Dedicated libertarians oppose virtually any form of government control. There's not really much to separate them from anarchists.

The government doesn't take your money with taxes, doesn't restrict your leisure activities, and generally doesn't tell you what to do. Only the most blatant infringements on the rights of others are forbidden (you can't murder, steal, or otherwise impose your will on others). "If you're not a threat to anyone but yourself, do whatever you like."

I can see where it would be appealing, in a way, but I also think it would be extremely impractical. There are certainly many areas of human activity that need some regulation, even if you think many are over-regulated.

[Darth Wong]

You guys are overthinking this. The appeal of libertarianism is simple: everyone has had dealings with the government, and those dealings are generally unpleasant. Nobody ever comes back from any interaction with the government saying "Wow, that was great! I want to go again!"

The problem is that libertarians take this natural dislike and turn it into an over-arching philosophy, with no recognition whatsoever of the reasons why unpleasantness might occasionally be necessary. They're like bratty children (in fact, I strongly suspect that most of them were bratty children).

[DavidEC]

Can I suggest individualism, in a sense of a Weltanschauung rather than specific policy points?

I used to be quite libertarian. Not Ayn Randian-level, thank God, but much more capitalist than the average dude. Part of the reason is its logical implications that everybody be recognised on their individual merits, which by definition is anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, etc and also on an intensely personal level to teenagers and youngsters such as myself, it appeals to a sense of uniqueness and individualism.

This is not the same as arrogance; it is hardly arrogant to want to have your arguments judged on their own rational merit and not have them automatically dismissed because you are young, or black, or female, etc. It transforms into the arrogance and extremism associated with libertarianism in your minds because the attractive abstract principle of individualism is dogmatically applied to policy. Some of you have proposed a belief in market fundamentalism or flat-out selfishness; I propose just as basic a human need, and something arguably much more admirable, the need for individual recognition.

I'm not economically libertarian anymore; frankly I don't know what to think. But I do, as I'm sure my fellow rational, scientific materialist atheists like you do, wish to be recognised on my own intellectual merits or lack thereof. Libertarianism's appeal is inextricably linked up with abstract individualism.

[Darth Wong]

The idea that "free-market capitalism = meritocracy" is very seductive ... until you get some life experience and you realize how completely false that is. Sure, you can do better if you work harder or have certain abilities, but the same is true of politics. Is politics a meritocracy? In both cases, it's much better to have connections than abilities. And in both cases, the most valuable ability is salesmanship, not industriousness or even productivity.

Old joke from the auto industry: why will Andy never get promoted? Because he works so hard that the department could never get along without him.

Free-market capitalism is yin to the yang of government. They must be in balance. Destroy that balance, and you cause problems. This is where the eastern philosophy of balance works much better than the Judeo-Christian philosophy of Good vs Evil.

[DavidEC]

The idea that "free-market capitalism = meritocracy" is very seductive ... until you get some life experience and you realize how completely false that is.

I wouldn't say they are the same thing even in my inexperienced position - they grow from the same root of the worldview of individualism, but it is not inevitable. A case in point being the possibility of a command economy which is meritocratic rather than equal.

[K. A. Pital]

This is where the eastern philosophy of balance works much better than the Judeo-Christian philosophy of Good vs Evil.

Eastern philosophy in general is more grey-shaded than Western philosophy which is, for the most part, absolutist and produced a large number of absolutist doctrines.

[Jaepheth]

I would liken it to the appeal of being a pirate (idealized Hollywood version).

Absolute freedom to the point of anarchy. Take what you can, do what you want, etc.

[Vendetta]

From an economic and political standpoint I'm more of free market socialist. You know, a realist. I just think that there are certain things government (particularly law enforcement) should stay the fuck out of, as it seems to do far more harm than good.

Out of interest, who the fuck else would you like to see perform law enforcement? Vigilantes? Mob rule?

Government in some form is the only body that can be held accountable for their involvement in anything. Any alternative is infinitely worse, because it lacks accountability.