Gripes and info about Libertarianism, from an economist

Post Reply New Topic

Hello -

I am writing this to rant about the pervasive popular identity amongst males I often meet. That is "libertarianism."

The flat out misunderstandings about it that are perpetuated by the same people who pretend to be libertarian is enough to make me write a post like this to feel like I did something.

We have a saying in the "leftist" world - "Libertarians are Republicans that like to smoke pot."

Did you know that there is a type of libertarian called "progressive libertarian?"

Did you know that Hayek, the author of "Road to Serfdom," supported a Universal Basic Income (UBI) as well as health insurance mandates?

True libertarians are worried about all sources of power that can infringe on our rights. If you are worried about the government only, its because you are consuming media funded by rich people that want you to look the other way while they pick your pocket.

If you thank cops, you are not a libertarian. If you aren't for legalization of cocaine and other hard drugs - you ain't a libertarian. It doesn't mean "free for all" as you can actually be for regulation and still be a libertarian. Its a concept called "harm minimization." You legalize something but set the legal boundaries and requirements such that it minimizes the harm done to others and society. This would also apply to guns by the way!

A progressive libertarian would want to use regulations to "nudge" people in the right direction to do the right thing. In fact, a progressive libertarian won the Nobel Prize in 2017, he is the author of a book called "Nudge," (look it up, great read).

The modern strand of libertarianism you see that is popular is actually a bastardization of libertarianism. Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not because he was racist, but because he wanted "freedom of association." In other words, libertarianism became anti government because they don't want to be forced to rent to black people. This is the same type of argument the South used to breakaway - "its states rights!" (A state's right to do what? Enslave people).

But the other original types still exist in academic circles. Noam Chomsky considers himself to be a progressive libertarian as well. By the way - if you hate Noam Chomsky for made up or fake reasons - you are actually proving Noam Chomsky correct.

I am writing this as someone that considers myself "progressive libertarian" adjacent. I tend to think market provided goods provide a small fraction of our total well being. Belonging to a state, community, and family provides most of it and I think the degradation of the community and the scattering of family that has taken place due to the modern economy is not something to be ignored. In short, I think often we should do things collectively in order to have a sense of community even if it doesn't make sense. Pure libertarians would focus more on prices and markets.

---

By the way, argue with me as much as you want. I like to argue. My day job is basically arguing with people about statistics and data. The only rule I have that makes me ignore you completely is if you personally attack me. I will not personally attack you. I see so many times the #1 go to for people is to attack people personally. In my field, that would get you fired. We have to have a mountain of evidence before we try to prove someone wrong.

This is awkward. You confuse left libertarianism with what in America call libertarianism. They are two unrelated ideologies that share only the common name. Originally libertarianism was a term associated with anarchists in the 19th century. It's in n that way that Noam Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian. On the other hand the word was appropriated by american conservatives who wanted to stress their classical liberal believes but who could no longer use the name liberal because it was appropriated by the modern liberals who are more akin to social democrats. So in Europe, liberal means classical liberal (libertarian in the U.S.), libertarian means anarchist. In the U.S liberal means social democrat (similar, not exactly), libertarian means Classical liberal (actual liberal). Europe, being the birthplace of both ideologies, uses still their original names.

Maybe libertarianism is a spectrum. And there's so many libertarians telling other libertarians that they aren't true libertarians, because they don't understand it's a spectrum.

Maybe the real libertarians were the friends we met along the way.

Some of the "classical liberals," such as Thomas Paine, also were much more akin to social democrats than to today's right wing libertarians. And the U.S. founding fathers certainly were not free market absolutists. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to "regulate interstate commerce."

Interesting.There is even a test online by Bryan Caplan that will tell you how libertarian you are based on your answers to the questions.Its called the libertarian purity test.

I am specifically calling out libertarians who go around thanking cops and actually want authoritarian laws. I have met many of those.

I call them the Joe Rogan Libertarians.

Yup, and he is in favor of more or less open borders.

Most libertarian identifying people would flip out about that.

No, I am specifically talking about the trends since Hayek, Mises, etc in the US.

No, libertarian in the us in the current sense tends to mean a right winger who wants to smoke pot. It has only lose relation to Hayek and all those writers.

In the US saying you are a libertarian is extremely common. More often than not, when I talk to those types it turns out they are authoritarian. They want militarized police to go after their enemies, stuff like that. That is not libertarian or liberal in any sense of the definition. I often get told "I am more of a libertarian" by dudes I just meet and want to talk politics but want to make it seem like they aren't hard core right wingers. Its so common that I can almost predict what they all say next.

I am not a libertarian, I tend to be nationalist. As part of my American nationalism, I refuse to acknowledge other countries exist. jk. I don't favor open borders like libertarians in the us like Caplan.

Isnt he anarcho-capitalist also.I think that may be too far out for me.Also there are some things on economics that I may disagree with libertarian orthodoxy on and the two or three issues are labor unions possibly,anti-trust and protectionism/free trade.I dont know how i feel about protectionism vs free trade in relation to libertarians.

What economics says about labor unions is that there is a place for them. It doesn't say "unions all the time."

Your standard case of "you need to form a union" is when you have an employer that has labor market power because they are the only buyer of that labor.

That's why professional athletes join unions in the US. The NFL/NBA/MLB players face employers who are the only buyers of their labor. The owners of those teams can collude to keep wages down. The solution to that is for the players to form a union to collectively bargain to try to keep the owners from doing that.

Its called "monopoly and monopsony" in a market. The same argument tends to apply to public sector workers such as police and teachers.

For most workers forming a union doesn't really get much benefit.

Oh okay thank you for the detailed economic explanation.

I don't know about Thomas Paine being a social democrat. I think that might have been too early in history for that.

What "No"? You called Noam Chomsky a libertarian, which he is not. He is a libertarian in the sense of anarchism as I explaind. You are also talking about some sort of "progressive" libertarian which only you seem to know it's definition. I think that you only have a vague idea of what libertarianism is and you are engaing in debate based on incorrect assumptions.

Left libertarians aren't exactly an outrageous out-there idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

I explained above what left libertarianism is.