Why are *so many* Libertarians so smug and annoying?

[vanguard96]

This is reason #534546 why I'm not a libertarian.

because idiots define it in stupid ways and stereotype everyone that doesn't hate it as much as they do?  Did you even read anything but the title?  The OP came off looking like ranting loon with his thumb in his ears mumbling something about basement dwellers, Somalia and Ayn Rand.

Yes, I agree.

I only take ownership of one person, myself.

If one is prone to generalizations then one can do the same about Republicans or Democrats or Socialists or any group, nationality, etc but it is counterproductive.

[vanguard96]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here since I once was a hopefully far less smug or annoying version of what you describe and moved extensively in those circles in my young and reckless days.

Regarding Jefferson and Locke, I think there is a tendency among what I might call the "wrong kind of libertarians" to basically just take a bunch of paragraphs from the Federalist Papers or any other colonial era writing out of context and try to shoehorn it into their very 'Murica view that this country was founded to be all about stockpiling deadly weapons and rebelling against governments and defending our "God-given Constitutional freedoms" (because God totally wrote the Constitution and the world of the Biblical Middle East was such a liberty-lovin' place with its slavery and theocracy and absolute monarchy and high taxes imposed by Caesar). This sort of mentality seems disturbingly common among a lot of ex-military guys, particularly the kind who support people like Ron Paul and Adam Kokesh. Kind of ironic considering they are also the very people who literally personify the notion of the State as the sole holder of the "legitimate" use of force and violence.

What those people adhere to is a bizarre form of what you might call "anti-state authoritarianism."

But if you're interested in what might be called "classical liberal" writing, I would recommend Frederic Bastiat or Lord Acton. There's also that Scotsman by the name of Adam Smith. And, if you're looking for something witty, H. L. Mencken. I also still have a copy of David Boaz's The Libertarian Reader from ages ago, which is an anthology of writings that I think sum up what "real" libertarians actually base their philosophy on.

Wow this answer came out before anyone who openly identifies as Libertarian, yet we are the smug ones?

Most people who agree with Ron Paul also like Bastiat, HL Mencken, Lord Acton, and so forth. Tom Woods mentions Mencken all the time - and Bastiat's The Law and his other writings are definitely supported by Rothbardian / Mises scholars and followers.

The people the radical libertarians have issues with are those like Milton Friedman (monetarist & strong supporter right or wrong of any GOP president), Ayn Rand acolytes like Leonard Peikoff (blind to US foreign policy & imperialism), and John Stuart Mill (utilitarianism leading to socialism).

My LP friend is a friend of Adam Kokesh. I am lukewarm on him due to his attention-seeking exploits though what I've read of his writing is OK - the first few pages of his new essay book - Freedom.

[vanguard96]

I've noticed many libertarians who are young, end up becoming more right-wing in the future. Libertarianism seems the default option for many <20year olds, mostly males.

If you are conservative, but are not afraid of brown people, homosexuals and weed, it's an easy choice to make.

But is it conservative necessarily? Those issues are the sort of cultural libertarian issues that have a wide degree of agreement with the left and many of the Fox Business / National Review republicans.

But when you talk about auditing, limiting the mission of the Fed, not even the Ron Paul mantra of ending the Fed, the bond/stock/housing bubble, or about ZIRP / Q.E. and the negative impacts on small-scale savers then you are delving into a territory that makes you a 'right winger' even if many big-business GOP people as well as the NPR Marketplace / Bloomberg Business Dems are happy to see the Fed managing the economy, the low unemployment figures, and are cheering all the big gains on Wall Street.

Personally, I think that libertarians / classical liberals that strive too hard to force a certain image on society at large are overly idealistic and potentially could have a dangerous repercussion. The ideal for themselves and reality are two different things and to force it on others unwillingly is not a voluntary exchange that is another key talking point.

For instance certain classical liberals may be alarmed by the Catalan secession vote as the future society is decidedly left of center and fear a reduction in personal liberty and want to avoid secession at all costs.

Radical libertarians / purists are more likely to accept self-determination for what it is and hope to have a dialog with some others and perhaps with consistent messaging the person on the other side can be a fellow traveler on being anti-war, anti-imperialist, against subsidies, and so forth despite being so at odds over issues that are at the core of what it means to be libertarian like the non-aggression principle and private property rights.
 

[vanguard96]

The trouble is, a lot of internet libertarianism was a bit too cutsey with its bumper sticker ideology - you know, the "we want married gays defending their weed with guns!" thing - which in itself was a fairly superficial reflection of the ideology itself. Of course, all ideologies like their meme based mantras, but to me it seems that libertarianism was remarkably glib, all things considered.

One well publicized Libertarian candidate, Larry Sharpe, 2016 LP VP runner up, who is running for governor of NY state is saying he will not use 'taxation is theft' in his campaign. It turns too many people off and they shut down and will not listen to rest of what you are saying as you are deemed a 'crank'.

Personally, I find the Occupy Democrat / Other 98% Facebook liberal sites likewise very inconsistent and guilty of confirmation bias and hyper partisanship - the same thing can be spun as a good thing for Obama but a negative for Trump. I am dismayed that many of my IRL friends & relatives habitually share their articles - if someone is wrong and the person a reasonable one and a simple link - like saying the story is an old one or the data they have is not entirely accurate they may thank me or like my response. Do I change their views - almost certainly not but will they post something with a blatant inaccuracy all the while citing they are following the party that believes in facts and is the party of science - probably they may want to look harder the next time round. And at the end of the day these people are people I know and love and we share common interests and generally want to see each other succeed in life and actively help them out on a personal level.

The conservative pro-police, pro-military, thin blue line followers while not smug are very assuming that the people they are upholding in the military for instance share there hyper-patriotism and worship of the flag and anthem and are taken aback if a veteran thinks twice about the blind platitude of 'thank you for your service' or considers siding with the protesters and does not agree entirely with the 'fighting for our freedoms' line particularly in the post-Cold War era. I have some friends and relatives like this but fewer of them are online - due to perhaps their age.

So as you mention it is a common thing for all groups - perhaps many non-libertarians are uncomfortable with the views that don't support the traditional ones you would see in the NY Times or hear from the Chamber of Commerce?

[vanguard96]

I think the big problem with the bumper sticker Libertarian phrases is they don't really reflect the ideology as a whole, and therefore create the confusion that really showed up the Libs in 2016. I find leftist and liberal mantras annoying and trite as well, but they are "honest" in the sense you get a picture of what liberals like (gun control, minimum wage, lgbt rights, single payer, climate change etc) and what they don't like.

A lot of libertarian propaganda (using the term in its neutral sense) tried to emphasise its role as an almost centrist ideology: the phrase fiscally conservative but socially liberal comes to mind. But unfortunately it's not really an accurate portrayal of libertarianism, and it led the party into a very awkward ticket in 2016, where libertarianism just became a messy coalition of woke conservatives making kissy faced appeals to establishment conservatives while also trying to keep their devotees.

If libertarianism is going to take off as a popular ideology, it needs more mantras than being secular and pro-marijuana, neither of which are going to be huge issues that will swing the population as a whole.

Of course the question is should it become a party to get elected and play the middle like Bill Weld mold or should it continue to be a party of principle unlike either the Democrats or GOP who are in it for power and control of interest group politics.

Milton Friedman said the party that made the most gains over the past 100 years was not the Democratic or Republican party but rather the Socialist party through the gradual growth of the state apparatus and many of their core beliefs into not only the Democratic platform but the Republican platform. Look it up. I am sure you are aware of it.

Many libertarians are pointing out that if the LP just position themselves as moderates between Dem & GOP they will end up fighting the fight on Dem/GOP terms and that is a losing game. Right now is a key time and that's why some are trying to stake the claim of the key voices from within the party to maintain the a good deal of principle and radical aspects that were there from back in 1971 in Murray Rothbard's living room.

Of course we have our own squabbles with pragmatics, socialists, and so on trying to take the party in another direction and inevitably someone who maybe has no knowledge of any of the key figures of the past tradition - like Johnson & Weld will show up again next year and 2020.

[vanguard96]

I think the big problem with the bumper sticker Libertarian phrases is they don't really reflect the ideology as a whole, and therefore create the confusion that really showed up the Libs in 2016. I find leftist and liberal mantras annoying and trite as well, but they are "honest" in the sense you get a picture of what liberals like (gun control, minimum wage, lgbt rights, single payer, climate change etc) and what they don't like.

A lot of libertarian propaganda (using the term in its neutral sense) tried to emphasise its role as an almost centrist ideology: the phrase fiscally conservative but socially liberal comes to mind. But unfortunately it's not really an accurate portrayal of libertarianism, and it led the party into a very awkward ticket in 2016, where libertarianism just became a messy coalition of woke conservatives making kissy faced appeals to establishment conservatives while also trying to keep their devotees.

If libertarianism is going to take off as a popular ideology, it needs more mantras than being secular and pro-marijuana, neither of which are going to be huge issues that will swing the population as a whole.

The problem is that being secular and pro-marijuana is already popular - especially among the younger generations, including among younger Republicans to an increasing extent. So what else can Libertarians campaign on?

It's hard enough for a remotely coherent small third party to develop among Libertarians. Imagine them trying to build a mass party (or "realistically", take over one of the two major ones).

IMO the future of Libertarianism in mainstream American politics is them becoming a competing faction (or rather, factions - Libertarians are like modern Marxists in that sense) within the Republican Party, while their most popular ideas (which are few, as you alluded to) are completely assimilated into the coalitions of both major parties, to one extent or another.

I don't think it is realistic as a elected party on a wide scale. However for me it is for outreach with others to share ideas and promote the free market and decentralized lives for many particularly on a local and issue by issue level. For instance interjecting a different take than the established view on Michigan's overpriced no-fault insurance reform is a classic point. In the GOP that view is tempered by interest politics and maybe you never get that view out to the wider public in news articles and other publications as you are swallowed up by the GOP person tied to big medicine interests.  Dems too are heavily tied to appeals to emotion to keep the status quo once a big benefits package is extended to another voting block.

I thought about it, but I don't have enough in common with the great majority of the GOP to cede on so many issues to the majority in a play to keep power.

The issue is that the Libertarian party's main tenet is to not have power centralized in their hands. It doesn't mesh well with the current corporatist state pay to play model, unfortunately.

If it ceases to serve the function of providing an exchange on ideas that are important on a personal level for liberty then I don't think I will be involved but for now I get a value out of it.

If pragmatics or heaven forbid libertarian socialists start to have too great an influence I may have to reconsider too. Fortunately the latter is a very small group so we focus attention on the Bill Weld defenders and their ilk.

[vanguard96]

Mini-bump:

In my not-so-humble opinion, there's something disturbingly authoritarian (not merely undemocratic) about Libertarianism (as American businessmen and their many allies and advocates - paid and unpaid - in certain economics departments and on the Internet, etc. define the term) in its insistence that the only legitimate functions of the State are (a) national defense, and the closely related (b) protection and upholding of private property rights.

These are literally the most authoritarian functions of the State: punishing people who are or are deemed to be security threats as well as punishing people who infringe on the legally and politically defined and enshrined rights of property owners. Can anyone honestly dispute that dogmatically upholding private property rights will inevitably protect a tiny, already extremely powerful economic elite (ie. the people who own the most property - land, wealth, financial assets, means of production/capital, etc.) from everyone else?

What good is "freedom" or "liberty" when you have to pay-to-play to have it in the first place -
- or any substantial amount of it, at least, especially in terms of economic and political power and influence? Is this state of affairs not inherently authoritarian?

In principle I lean heavily toward the anarchist/capitalist strand though I can definitely understand the arguments for a minimal state given the current realities.

The Austro-libertarians / an-caps / Rothbardians would agree to an extent the keeping of the state apparatus for military, police, and courts leaves behind its most authoritarian vestiges. In For a New Liberty Murray Rothbard makes some very interesting points about the courts being appointed by the very people they are going to supposedly check. He also illustrates examples of private police & fire departments and explores hazards of someone refusing said services or not being able to pay and then compares it to what we've seen with police in both the US and abroad. Mutual aid insurance plans and competition with arbitration seem to be his ideas to settle possible cases of separate police forces and he dispels the notion of private security forces duking it out. It's a grand idea particularly as we see the increased militarization of the police, abuse of minorities, crackdowns on protesters, and a judicial system that seems to very loosely interpret the Constitution at almost every turn. He was very thorough in covering a lot of the usual objections over the course of his manifesto. It's not his most revered work but it is very straightforward in rolling out the cases against these 3 areas.

The idea from the limited government, classical liberal, even night-watchman state advocates is that if things like 'victimless' crimes (such as arresting rather than treating drug users) were not prosecuted like they were and that if the US was not so set on deposing any and all tin pot dictators who have no immediate threat to the US that the system would be run in such a way that more people have the opportunity to prosper.

I feel the one area where the limited government folks have a considerable argument is that the current system allows for a complex division of labor and specialization across international lines. The division of labor is one of the key talking points of Ludwig von Mises. Many classical liberals and libertarians view that it could be diminished if a major nation no longer had an internationally recognized system of law and that decisions in the new location was not recognized outside of that area. This is where Mises and Hayek to name a few stayed behind with the idea of not totally abolishing the state.

Generally speaking many libertarians regardless of whether they are an-caps, minarchists, or even pragmatic centrists of the Johnson/Weld fold contend that we're a long way off from that departure point. Libertarians largely agree on moving in a decentralized direction away from authoritarian policies. They want to do this without eliminating the pursuit of happiness that comes from being able to create economic opportunities for oneself and one's family and friends. To libertarians under the N American definition, private property rights and a basic agreement with the idea of the non-aggression principle are core values. 

I'd like to believe not dispatching a system that has lifted a billion people out of abject subsistence level poverty in recent years is a good idea. Thus saying that private property should have limits like only 1 modest home and a small corner shop is OK but that a factory should be owned by its workers  is a poor one. This example was an actual comment from a British far left socialist (non Marxist IIRC) on another message board. There really are people like this who say maintain are non-authoritarian but would want to enact policies like this on a massive scale. These people would make the decision be left to those who only know how to weld rivets or inspect for defects but don't have an inkling of financing or investment or hiring or insurance or construction. Perhaps they can vote for their representatives. Of course this voting would create very poor relationships and the hierarchies that the anarchist left despises. I would doubt such a place would succeed in a large scale operation with many complex relationships.

Likewise, people such as within our own party that are civil libertarians and advocate the falling away of the state power but say that 'rent is theft' are at odds with the core value of the party based on voluntary contracts. In a rental situation one person takes the risk of the other using their property and thus is justified to charge rental fees for wear and tear, lack of better opportunities, repair costs, and the lost time they could be spending doing something else rather than fixing a light. The other person is benefitting from not being permanently tied to a place that they have to go through a lengthy process to trade.

Interestingly so many of the talking points on why rents are so high are often ignorant of issues that are at their worst in the most liberal of places like San Fran, Boston, NYC, and  DC. You'd think that the opposite would be true. Rent controls, zoning restrictions, height restrictions, subsidies, etc increase demand and reduce supply in markets that are impacted by limited geographical space. These actions are often seen as a case of 'doing something' for the poor - and the politician pats herself on the back as being for the people. But instead they often have the opposite effect.


Now, there are a number of people of all political sides that are taking a hard look at the data and rejecting policies that artificially limit supply or give incentives for honest landowners to exit the market and exploiters and corner cutters to enter it. When emotions fade and you take a look this is what you find and there is a rational explanation. Don't take my word for it - look it up there is considerable objections to zoning restrictions favoring single family homes and height restrictions as well as on rent controls from non-libertarian/conservatives in many large cities.

Overall, I see no issue with someone having 3 houses or a large company - they were the ones who took the risk in creating the company - it was their will and actions that brought it together. Particularly if they are creating opportunities for others to improve their lives through investment and innovations. If they are continuously asking for the government to grant them special favors, though this is where I depart from the big business types who just want the government to be their benefactors. I don't think there should be any standard or vetting - so even if a person was able to amass a personal fortune there's no reason why they can't give it to their relatives.

Interestingly enough many young people in the US agree with socialism but when you ask the same people if they want to pay more taxes even more people don't. Basically, it's OK to do it as long as it is someone else who's paying. This attitude is similar to the rich who ply for government favors by lobbying for their industry but howl if a tax affects them.