Is libertarianism opposed to democracy?

[Del Tachi]

Does the political ideology of libertarianism stand in opposition to the idea of democracy?

Throughout the course of American history, the federal government has been given more power and authority through a democratic process.

In a truly libertarian society, why would it be wrong for citizens to collectively forfeit some of their rights to a larger, more intrusive government if it was achieved through a democratic process?

Does the libertarian therefore challenge the legitimacy of democratic processes if these processes result in a "bigger" government?

[dead0man]

no

[ElectionsGuy]

no

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No, but it has elements that smack of anarchy to me.

[Gustaf]

Anyone who doesn't support a decent system of universal public education with a mandatory civics component doesn't really support the democratic process.

I think that's an uncharitable interpretation of libertarianism.

[dead0man]

A few libertarians may not support such things, but most of them do.  We also don't think Somalia is a libertarian paradise. 

I know.  Shocking.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Capitalism is inherently opposed to democracy.

[MadmanMotley]

We like our constitutional republics, with democratically elected leaders.

[Horus]

No, populism/statism whatever you call the ideology of a positive social PM score and negative economic score is opposed to Democracy.

[TNF]

Liberalism and it's derivatives (libertarianism being one of those derivatives) are inherently antidemocratic because they do not fundamentally believe that the people should govern themselves. They instead cling to the fiction that electing representatives (who all just happen to come from the same class in society) to carry out the "will of the people" (which always coincides with the interests of members of said class) is how democracy is translated from theory to process. It isn't. Democracy means, if anything, delegation or direct rule, not representation. Power should stem from the bottom to the top and everyone should be allowed to participate, especially the "unwashed, ignorant masses" that liberals and libertarians alike fear.

[dead0man]

A few libertarians may not support such things, but most of them do.  We also don't think Somalia is a libertarian paradise.  

I know.  Shocking.

As far as I'm aware there's no consensus in support of universally provided education in libertarian circles. (It's not as if I have no idea what libertarians discuss; I've been a regular reader of Reason in the past and I still keep up with some libertarian writers.)

Nor have I said anything about all self-identified libertarians. I realize that there is plenty of diversity within that group. Otherwise my response would have been a simple yes or no. Are you arguing that opposition to universally available education is a fringe position even among libertarians?

In my defense, there is a ton of ignorance about libertarianism from the anti-libertarian people on this board and I may have knee jerked a bit with you.  I don't know if being anti-public schools is a fringe position or not, but it's certainly not a key part of the platform.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If you mean by "democracy" simple majority rule with no limits on what that majority can do, then sure.

[SPC]

Does the political ideology of libertarianism stand in opposition to the idea of democracy?

Yes, but not for the reasons you describe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That does not mean that libertarians are opposed to said democratic process, any more than social conservatives are opposed to democracy because tolerance of alternative lifestyles has increased under a democratic regime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To paraphase Ben Franklin, I believe any libertarian would object to the morality of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, regardless of whether a fair election was held to achieve the predetermined outcome. Again, you could apply this logic to any ideology. Even the most ardent social democrat would most likely find it wrong if a National Front or Communist government came to power, even if it was achieved through a fair election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Libertarianism does not challenge democracy only if it disagrees with the results. A libertarian would challenge democracy due to the inherent injustice of having the legal code be subject to the arbitrary whims of the mob at worst, although in reality this is just a facade to cover up the slightly lesser evil of having policy made to cater to disproportionately influential interest groups, as rent-seeking is the inevitable result of a democratic system.

[Del Tachi]

Does the political ideology of libertarianism stand in opposition to the idea of democracy?

Yes, but not for the reasons you describe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That does not mean that libertarians are opposed to said democratic process, any more than social conservatives are opposed to democracy because tolerance of alternative lifestyles has increased under a democratic regime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To paraphase Ben Franklin, I believe any libertarian would object to the morality of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, regardless of whether a fair election was held to achieve the predetermined outcome. Again, you could apply this logic to any ideology. Even the most ardent social democrat would most likely find it wrong if a National Front or Communist government came to power, even if it was achieved through a fair election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Libertarianism does not challenge democracy only if it disagrees with the results. A libertarian would challenge democracy due to the inherent injustice of having the legal code be subject to the arbitrary whims of the mob at worst, although in reality this is just a facade to cover up the slightly lesser evil of having policy made to cater to disproportionately influential interest groups, as rent-seeking is the inevitable result of a democratic system.

I was expecting these responses.

Isn't libertarianism a bit "different" than other ideologies because of the extreme emphasis it places on individual freedom?

Libertarians basically argue "People should be able to do whatever they want to, but they can't decide to not be able to do whatever they want to.  FREEDOM!!1!!1"

Other ideologies place not so high regard democratic freedoms.  A totalitarian conservative or communist regime is okay, but a totalitarian libertarian regime is a terrible contradiction of terms. 

[SPC]

Isn't libertarianism a bit "different" than other ideologies because of the extreme emphasis it places on individual freedom?

Libertarians basically argue "People should be able to do whatever they want to, but they can't decide to not be able to do whatever they want to.  FREEDOM!!1!!1"

Libertarians generally respect negative liberty, one example of which would be the use of recreational substances. If I want to not partake in recreational drugs, for instance, all I have to do is refrain from using them. You describe it as though I would not be free if I could not force other people to not use recreational drugs, an argument that does not gain any more legitimacy if I accomplish the same end through a ballot box. A better summary of your straw-man libertarian argument would be "people should be able to do whatever they want to [so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same], but they can't decide to not let other people do whatever they want to [so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others]." Viewed properly, the argument you present as a contradiction is actually a tautology.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems like the problem here is that you assume that democracy and totalitarianism are mutually exclusive, or the only two options available. One could have a totalitarian democracy or an undemocratic liberal regime. While one could comment on perceived correlations between the liberal nature of a regime (substantive freedom, if you will) and the fidelity of said regime to democratic processes (procedural "freedom"), there is no reason that they must be intertwined.