'Modal' Libertarians

[Bono]

Murray Rothbard showed great disdain for people he called "Modal libertarians".

Here is he's description of them:

ML is indeed a he;...The ML was in his twenties twenty years ago, and is now in his forties. That is neither as banal, or as benign as it sounds, because it means that the movement has not really grown in twenty years;...The ML is fairly bright, and fairly well steeped in libertarian theory. But he knows nothing and cares less about history, culture, the context of reality or world affairs. His only reading or cultural knowledge is science fiction,...The ML does not, unfortunately hate the State because he sees it as the unique social instrument of organzed aggression against person and property. Instead, the ML is an adolescent rebel against everyone around him: first, against his parents, second against his family, third against his neighbors, and finally against society itself. He is especially opposed to institutions of social and cultural authority: in particular against the bourgeoisie from whom he stemmed, against bourgeois norms and conventions, and against such institutions of social authority as churches. To the ML, then, the State is not a unique problem; it is only the most visible and odious of many hated bourgeois institutions: hence the zest with which the ML sports the button, "Question Authority." ...And hence, too the fanatical hostility of the ML toward Christianity. I used to think that this militant atheism was merely a function of the Randianism out of which most modern libertarians emerged two decades ago. But atheism is not the key, for let someone in a libertarian gathering announce that he or she is a witch or a worshiper of crystal-power of some other New Age hokum, and that person will be treated with great tolerance and respect. It is only Christians that are subject to abuse, and clearly the reason for the difference in treatement has nothing to do with atheism. But it has everything to do with rejecting and spurning bougeois American culture; and any kind of kooky cultural cause will be encouraged in order to tweak the noses of the hated bourgeoisie...In point of fac, the original attraction of the ML to Randianism was part and parcel of his adolescent rebellion: what better way to reaiontalize and systematize rejection of one's parents, family, and neighbors than to join a cult which denounces religion and which turmpets the absolute superiority of yourself and your cult leaders, as contrasted to the robotic "second-handers" who supposedly people the bourgeois world? A cult, furthermore, which calls upon you to spurn your parents, family, and bourgeois associates, and to cultivate the alleged greatness of your own individual ego (suitably guided, of course, by Randian leadership)...the ML, if he has a real world occupation, such as accountant or lawyer is generally a lawyer without a practice, and accountant without a job. The ML's modal occupation is computer programmer;...Computers appeal indeed to the ML's scientific and theoretical bent; but they also appeal to his aggravated nomadism, to his need not to have a regular payroll or regular abode...The ML also has the thousand-mile stare of the fanatic. He is apt to buttonhole you at the first opportunity and go on at great length about his own particular "great discovery" about his mighty manuscript which is crying out for publication if only it hadn't been suppressed by The Powers That Be...But above all, the ML is a moocher, a bunco artist, and often an outright crook. His basic attitude toward other libertarians is "Your house is my house." ...in short, whether they articulate this "philosophy" or not, [MLs] are libertarian-communists: anyone with property is automatically expected to "share" it with the other members of his extended libertarian "family."

This description fits at least one member of this forum.. :roll:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[John Dibble]

Interesting. Doesn't describe your mainstream libertarian though. I've met one or two like that though. Definitely doesn't describe me for the most part though though(don't hate my parents, family, or society, am a hard worker, relatively knowledgeable about history).

And I assume you mean opebo, though I'm inclined to disagree on the description of him outside of the Christianity thing.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

This description fits at least one member of this forum.. :roll:

Surely you're not suggesting we have an outright crook on this board?

A couple of thoughts come to mind.  The first being that there is now a second generation of teen and twenty-something "modal libertarians."  You can find them on http://slashdot.org and related websites and blogs.  The second is that I find it ironic that a writer whose philosophical bent essentially developed as a reaction to Stalinsm has spawned a cult with such communistic ideals.  My college had a huge Rand cult, and they always scared me.

This is by no means a majority of Libertarians in the US.  Probably the bulk of the party is made up of "sagebrush" Libertarians, who tend to be conservative Christians.  My very, very conservative grandmother often votes LP (I think she did in '88 and '92, when the Republican alternative was George "New World Order" Bush).

[stry_cat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Randroids are very scary.

As for Model Libertarians... I don't think the description is correct anymore.  Maybe 25-30 years ago it was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok most Libertarians are male, but from what I've seen there are a lot of females in the party too.  I don't know what the average age is for Libertarians, but in my area almost all of them are in the 25-35 age range and a good 1/3 of them are female. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The most intelligent people I've ever met were at LP meetings.  However also the most stupid people (unless you count the retards I know ) I've ever meant were at LP meetings. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

  I'm a scifi nerd yes, but I'm like the only one in the party in my area.  I do care a lot about history (it's b/c of the U.S.' history that I'm a Libertarian.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huh?  No I disagree.  There aren't very many of the "Question Authority" types from what I've seen.  Most have a very high level of respect for social institutions (after all we are advocating replacing government with voluntary social institutions).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personal experience tells me no.  As far as I can tell, I'm the only atheist in my group.  I have a real dislike for any Christian (or any other religious nutcase) who wants to use the government to enforce their world view on me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The New Ager is less likely to want to use the government to impose her view of morality on everyone.  She just wants the Christians to stop using the government to oppress her. From personal experience most of the people in our group are good Christians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know of many Libertarians who are Randriods.  They are much more of a tiny minority than this description would suggest. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yes there is a high number of computer programmers.  However there aren't as many as one might think.  We draw from other occupations as well.  Actually employed lawyers and accountants, doctors, professors, to truck-drivers, bouncers, and strippers.  One thing I've noticed is a very high number of government employees or people who work for companies that do nothing but service the government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We do have a lot of cooks, but they're generally regarded as cooks even within the Libertarian community.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm guilty of being a moocher, but most Libertarians I've encountered are not like this at all.  While they are almost all willing to share almost all are so self-sufficient that they never need anything.

As I said earlier this description of the ML might have applied 20 or 30 years ago.  In my experience, people like this thankfully are very few and far between.

[opebo]

Sounds like Rothbard was describing any very selfish person or sociopath. 

[angus]

Not sure I buy Murray's analysis either.  I was raised to believe Republicans and Libertarians were selfish plutocratics.  The difference between the two lying mainly in the fact that one is a warmonger and the other is a peacenik.  Obviously, I've outgrown that familial brainwashing.  But I still beat up on libertarians from time to time.  And even I don't say things that nasty (or that innacurate)  And Harry Browne never claimed any disdain for religion in general, or christianity in particular.  Many Libertarians are practicing monotheists.

Those were my initial thoughts.  However, upon reflection, I see that he isn't suggesting LP people fit this description, just that there's a "mode" of libertarianism into which these modal libertarians fit.  What's the mode?  One of anti-authoritarianism.  Not too far off the mark, by my reckoning.  And this is what I like about 'em.  The disdain of religiosity (and in particular monotheism, and most particularly evangelical protestantism) is a major turn-off.  A return to Jefferson's America certainly includes an abiding (or at least grudging) respect for religious tolerance.  I suspect it is this fascistic element within the "mode" of libertarianism which keeps would-be libertarians, myself included, from an embrace of the philosophy.  (As in, I find overtly religious people annoying too, but I don't wish them assassinated.  On the contrary, most true christians I've met tend to be hard-working, trustworthy, and honest.  It's only when they start with the "I'll pray for your eternal soul" nonsense that I start to think they're deluded.)  But, I find many modern Democrats to be at least as full of anti-Christian bigotry as Libertarians.  In fact, usually more so. 

Then there's that and the whole every-man-for-himself plutocratic agrarianist tendency to which libertarians succumb. 

That said, Ayn Rand was, for the most part, correct.  Question Authority!  Always.

[swarch]

I don't know of many Libertarians who are Randroids. They are much more of a tiny minority than this description would suggest.

True, because Rand loathed libertarians, calling them "right-wing hippies", and "hippies" were way down there with Kant as far as Rand was concerned. Her main beef was that, although libertarians shared her political and economic views, many of them didn't reach those views in what she considered to be a philosophically sound manner. She also believed that far more people had to be educated as to the benefits of a free society before there was any point to having something like a Libertarian Party. Although I agree with most of her views, I think she was out to lunch on these points. However, saying so would be heresy to a Randroid, and so most of them are, in fact, Republicans.

[angus]

I don't know of many Libertarians who are Randroids. They are much more of a tiny minority than this description would suggest.

True, because Rand loathed libertarians, calling them "right-wing hippies", and "hippies" were way down there with Kant as far as Rand was concerned. Her main beef was that, although libertarians shared her political and economic views, many of them didn't reach those views in what she considered to be a philosophically sound manner. She also believed that far more people had to be educated as to the benefits of a free society before there was any point to having something like a Libertarian Party. Although I agree with most of her views, I think she was out to lunch on these points. However, saying so would be heresy to a Randroid, and so most of them are, in fact, Republicans.

intelligent synthesis, and simply stated.  I think you hit the nail on the head.  You need only replace the independent clause "I think she was out to lunch..." with "And she was exactly right..." and you'd have it perfectly correct.

[John Dibble]

I don't know of many Libertarians who are Randroids. They are much more of a tiny minority than this description would suggest.

True, because Rand loathed libertarians, calling them "right-wing hippies", and "hippies" were way down there with Kant as far as Rand was concerned. Her main beef was that, although libertarians shared her political and economic views, many of them didn't reach those views in what she considered to be a philosophically sound manner. She also believed that far more people had to be educated as to the benefits of a free society before there was any point to having something like a Libertarian Party. Although I agree with most of her views, I think she was out to lunch on these points. However, saying so would be heresy to a Randroid, and so most of them are, in fact, Republicans.

intelligent synthesis, and simply stated.  I think you hit the nail on the head.  You need only replace the independent clause "I think she was out to lunch..." with "And she was exactly right..." and you'd have it perfectly correct.

I wouldn't say either Rand or stry are 'exactly' right, probably middle ground. I'd hardly call libertarians hippies, same as I wouldn't call them pacifists(which normally have similar philosophies as far as violence goes), simply because when push comes to shove libertarians will fight back - break into a Libertarian's house if you don't believe me. Overoptimistic idealists might be a more accurate description. I'll agree that some libertarians don't arrive at their views in a rational manner - idiots exist in every group, after all. Overoptimistic idealists might be a more accurate description. I personally think I arrived to my viewpoints in a philisophically sound way - it took months of consideration, reasoning, and thought. She was definitely right that more people need to be educated on the benefits of a free society to have there be a successful LP, but how exactly would that come about without a LP or similar group working to educate the public? One person would be unable to do so, and the Republicans and Democrats aren't going to do it, so the only logical thing is a group such as a new political party that would advocate such changes - namely the Libertarians.

[angus]

yes, fair enough.  The hyperbole was intentional, in fact.  But the point made by swarch (an excellent restatement of Rand) struck me as precise.  Even having read and enjoyed several Ayn Rand works, I never quite framed it that way in my head, but nevertheless, but then Rand never came out and said that to me.  (I must admit that I'm more familiar with the fiction than the historical and political essays.)  The implication that Jeffersonian idealism can be taken selectively, in the hands of a gun-toting, tax-evading, binge-drinking, pot-smoking, whore-chasing Joe Sixpack, so as to form a general danger to the cultural whole, is a relevant consideration.  (here I'm bordering on authoritarian/socialistic pervasiveness, which you may regard as heresy)  Then again, I'm not a true rightist, but rather a centrist, and too little government doesn't hold the appeal to a "moderate" republican the way it would to Ayn Rand. 

Nevertheless, though I enjoy impugning the Libertarians, I respect their general purism and lack of hypocrisy (so rampant in the two major US political parties.)  I'm still a bit bothered by some of the more fringe planks in the party's platform. 

What's your position on maintaining a standing Army/Navy?

And, if I may ask, although the US constitution certainly doesn't justify them, is the concept of the public school an offense to you?

Those two issues, and a third, abolition of the IRS, are the main points of inhibition for many would-be libertarians I suspect.  (plutocrat is a fighting word, and I apologize for using it so frequently and inaccurately.)

[John Dibble]

Nevertheless, though I enjoy impugning the Libertarians, I respect their general purism and lack of hypocrisy (so rampant in the two major US political parties.)  I'm still a bit bothered by some of the more fringe planks in the party's platform. 

What's your position on maintaining a standing Army/Navy?

And, if I may ask, although the US constitution certainly doesn't justify them, is the concept of the public school an offense to you?

Those two issues, and a third, abolition of the IRS, are the main points of inhibition for many would-be libertarians I suspect.  (plutocrat is a fighting word, and I apologize for using it so frequently and inaccurately.)

1. I agree that I like our lack of hypocrisy. I think the libertarian ideology is probably the most consistant, since all positions are based on the premise of individual rights. I will agree that some of our planks can looks scary, I don't agree with everything on them, though I think incrementalism would be the best way to do any of them.

2. Most libertarians are perfectly for a standing army/navy. Some are for decreasing spending on it, some aren't, but we realize that it is necessary to have one - it is in fact one of the few absolutely legitimate and necessary functions of any government(not to mention one of the few things it does well). Most of us would prefer the army be mainly for defense and retaliation purposes only, no preemptive wars like Iraq. My personal position is that our spending level, though high, is fine. I would like to cut some spending, but not at the cost of quality. Our military kicks ass - I'd like to keep it that way. We could make cuts by bringing troops home from the various unnecessary bases in foreign countries(do we really need troops in Europe?), or cutting down on inefficient beauracracy.

3. No, the concept of public school doesn't offend me, and I think in today's modern world it may be a necessary thing for government to be involved in. However, I definitely think it is unconstitutional on a federal level, so they should not be involved at all in administrating education - but the tenth amendment would allow the states to do as they like in this matter. I would prefer to localize control of schools as much as possible, to keep accountability when schools go bad as local as possible - right now the local school boards could blame the state and federal government for their own problems, rather than fixing the problem themselves, and they thusly stay in office and continue to screw up. Indiana Libertarian guberntorial candidate Kenn Gividen has an interesting idea - make all schools charter schools, in which the parents receive vouchers($4500 in this case) and can send their children to any school they wish, and the parents elect a board of directors to run the school, it's a system New Zealand uses if I'm not mistaken.

4. Yeah, I agree, sometimes our position on the IRS is a bit extreme, though I would like to get rid of it ONE DAY. I'm an incrementalist when it comes to implementing libertarian solutions, so we'd have to replace the income tax somehow and cut down on a lot of government spending before we could actually consider doing it, and doing those things would take time. It took a long time to get government as big as it is, it will take a while to shrink it back down as well.

[ilikeverin]

I am a Model Young Democrat.  I am very rebellious... just not against the government.  I still think that the government is generally out for the good of the people, because I have not encountered something known as the 'IRS' yet.  I think, in general, hippies were good-minded people, nevermind what happened after the Vietnam War.  I think that Communism is a good system, unfortunately tainted by Stalin and Mao and the like.

[John Dibble]

Communism is a good system? It's an unimplementable system, how could it be good?

[angus]

I am a Model Young Democrat.  I am very rebellious... just not against the government.  I still think that the government is generally out for the good of the people, because I have not encountered something known as the 'IRS' yet.  I think, in general, hippies were good-minded people, nevermind what happened after the Vietnam War.  I think that Communism is a good system, unfortunately tainted by Stalin and Mao and the like.

Oh, yeah, hippies are good:  trashed Max Yasger's farm, showed about as complete environmental insensitivity as is humanly possible.  Wasted fuel, drugs, minds, their own lives in many cases.  Glorifying communism is one thing.  I'll stipulate that "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs" is a humanitarian philosophy, at least in principle.  But don't glorify hippies.  They were foul-smelling, lazy, environmentally insensitive, self-righteous sellouts who grew up to become Reaganites.  I can't think of any demographic who shouldn't have a serious beef with the "tune in, turn on, and drop out" culture.

[ilikeverin]

*ahem*

*end ahem*

[angus]

  gotcha! 

(damned hippy communists!)

been to the corner of haight and ashbury streets lately, by the way?
very yuppified.  I think there's a "Galactically great brownie store" which sells a seven dollar cup of coffee on one corner, a book store on another which does well with Hillary Clinton bios, an upscale clothing store that'll sell you a tie-died Tee made in an indonesian sweatshop, and a little curio shop on the fourth corner.  (it's usually closed, but priced way beyond the reach of most folks).  Also, you can watch the tourists and born-again "hippies" move their Suburban Assault Vehicles occassionally when it's street sweeping time.

"Are you going to San Francisco?
Are you going to put flowers in your hair?"

"Naw, thought I'd have a latte and chew on a $3.50 bagel while speaking on my mobile phone to Michael Moore about an anti-Bush rally and maybe download some anti-Bush flyers on my IBM thinkpad for posting on Ashbury street."

[Bono]

Bump for fun.

[David S]

His depiction of Libertarians doesn't seem to fit. With regard to religion, Libertarian philosophy is live and let live. I am a Christian so I am most assuredly not anti-Christian.
 
I've never heard of a Libertarian communist before. That seems like a contradiction in terms. Most Libertarians are opposed to socialism and communism, and are avid supporters of capitalism.

[Bono]

His depiction of Libertarians doesn't seem to fit. With regard to religion, Libertarian philosophy is live and let live. I am a Christian so I am most assuredly not anti-Christian.
 
I've never heard of a Libertarian communist before. That seems like a contradiction in terms. Most Libertarians are opposed to socialism and communism, and are avid supporters of capitalism.

I posted this as a reference to a cetain poster. I bumped it because it became even more relevant now.

[David S]

Rothbard did not regard all Libertarians this way. I did a little digging on this and found the following which helps to explain "Modal Libertarians";

Self-Explanatory?
by Karen De Coster

Libertarian guru Murray Rothbard called them "modal libertarians." They are an assemblage of leftover Marxists, 60s-70s drug users, cultural leftists, assorted members of the Arts-and-Croissant crowd, and Christian-hating atheists. They latch onto the libertarian name because, somehow, they think "libertarian" means "do-whatever-the-heck-you-want" in the name of freedom.

Full article at http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster59.html

[Bono]

Rothbard did not regard all Libertarians this way. I did a little digging on this and found the following which helps to explain "Modal Libertarians";

Self-Explanatory?
by Karen De Coster

Libertarian guru Murray Rothbard called them "modal libertarians." They are an assemblage of leftover Marxists, 60s-70s drug users, cultural leftists, assorted members of the Arts-and-Croissant crowd, and Christian-hating atheists. They latch onto the libertarian name because, somehow, they think "libertarian" means "do-whatever-the-heck-you-want" in the name of freedom.

Full article at http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster59.html

I'm not sure you realize, but I am an ideological libertarian. I just prefer not to support that exercise of political onanism tht is the libertarian party. No offense.

But anyways, this was never aimed to you.

[David S]

No offense was taken. The article threw me a little because it seemed that Rothbard , a libertarian, was taking a position very much opposed to Libertarians. But what he was referring to as "modal Libertarians" is a very different brand of critter than the average garden variety Libertarian.