I’ve been somewhere in the big Democrat-anarchist-libertarian nexus since I was a teenager. I’ve definitely noticed that negative depictions of libertarianism are 90% based on the “if you don’t want something done by the state, you must not want it done at all” fallacy. The core concept people don’t get is that a state is a critical point of institutional failure, and libertarianism/anarchism of all different flavors mostly just advocate non-coercive means to accomplish the things a state does that we still do want. Honestly, it’s the same basic concept of centralization vs. decentralization by which Reddit failed and Lemmy offers a better alternative - the state centralizes coercive power susceptible to abuse, which is a fact of our daily lives (read: lobbying).
People brush right past these core concepts and try to make it about single-issue things like guns, abortion, etc. - they have no idea what they’re talking about. The problem here is all about what methods of social organization are ideal, and how the power of the state can be abused for private gain.
What do you think is embarrassing about libertarianism? What is so objectionable about resisting oppression? What is so objectionable about maximising each individuals rights, and freedoms?
You’ve hit on exactly what I think is embarrassing - Libertarians claim to champion those things but in practice they are all cover for ultra individualist ‘I got mine’ ways of thinking. I’ve seen that kind of thinking take over in some towns near me where they weren’t sure how they were going to repair streets or keep the streetlights on because “private entities will have a natural interest in handling those things” but they never do.
I’m a huge fan of half of the libertarian platform - legal abortions, legalized drugs, etc. - but those are the things Libertarians seem the least interested in actually enacting. And that’s because sure maybe some of them support those ideas, but they like the idea of fewer taxes and fewer regulations to help their bottom line a lot more.
It’s embarrassing because it is conclusive that we are better when we work together and combine our efforts, and Libertarianism only drags us apart.
they are all cover for ultra individualist ‘I got mine’ ways of thinking.
Maximizing individual freedoms is not implying that it is at the expense of the freedoms of others.
I’ve seen that kind of thinking take over in some towns near me where they weren’t sure how they were going to repair streets or keep the streetlights on because “private entities will have a natural interest in handling those things” but they never do.
Hm, streetlights would fall into a category of something called a natural monopoly. A Georgist would probably say that natural monopolies should be owned, or tightly regulated by the state – a monopoly is inherently anti-competitive, as a result, it is fundamentally opposed to a competitive free market.
legal abortions
I will say, with certainty, that there is borderline zero consensus across all libertarians on how abortions should be handled. This is a tricky issue. I personally think that any solution will lie entirely within the grey, rather than the black and white. I suspect that no solution will be agreeable to all.
Libertarians seem the least interested in actually enacting
This is a dubious statement – it falsely generalizes to all libertarians. It entirely depends on who you talk to.
And that’s because sure maybe some of them support those ideas, but they like the idea of fewer taxes and fewer regulations to help their bottom line a lot more.
While, yes, fewer taxes, and regulation increase profits, that’s not their only purpose. Reductions in those result in increases in scale of the free market. It could be argued, dependent on circumstance, whether such decreases are actually beneficial, or not, but, at any rate, reductions in taxes and regulations don’t only serve the purpose of lining the pockets of special interest groups.
It’s embarrassing because it is conclusive that we are better when we work together and combine our efforts, and Libertarianism only drags us apart.
While, idealistically, it would be great if all humans could work together, real life is unfortunately far from ideal.
I appreciate your point by point response but I need to clarify that I am not arguing with you about Libertarianism in theory but in a tual practice. it is one thing to get behind it theoretically, but to see how it works in practice and still support it is what I find embarrassing.
I often say that the only thing more embarrassing than being a Libertarian is not growing out of it
I’ve been somewhere in the big Democrat-anarchist-libertarian nexus since I was a teenager. I’ve definitely noticed that negative depictions of libertarianism are 90% based on the “if you don’t want something done by the state, you must not want it done at all” fallacy. The core concept people don’t get is that a state is a critical point of institutional failure, and libertarianism/anarchism of all different flavors mostly just advocate non-coercive means to accomplish the things a state does that we still do want. Honestly, it’s the same basic concept of centralization vs. decentralization by which Reddit failed and Lemmy offers a better alternative - the state centralizes coercive power susceptible to abuse, which is a fact of our daily lives (read: lobbying).
People brush right past these core concepts and try to make it about single-issue things like guns, abortion, etc. - they have no idea what they’re talking about. The problem here is all about what methods of social organization are ideal, and how the power of the state can be abused for private gain.
I like this take, I don’t agree entirely with it, but I totally get the energy here, thank you for sharing kind of made me lol.
What do you think is embarrassing about libertarianism? What is so objectionable about resisting oppression? What is so objectionable about maximising each individuals rights, and freedoms?
You’ve hit on exactly what I think is embarrassing - Libertarians claim to champion those things but in practice they are all cover for ultra individualist ‘I got mine’ ways of thinking. I’ve seen that kind of thinking take over in some towns near me where they weren’t sure how they were going to repair streets or keep the streetlights on because “private entities will have a natural interest in handling those things” but they never do.
I’m a huge fan of half of the libertarian platform - legal abortions, legalized drugs, etc. - but those are the things Libertarians seem the least interested in actually enacting. And that’s because sure maybe some of them support those ideas, but they like the idea of fewer taxes and fewer regulations to help their bottom line a lot more.
It’s embarrassing because it is conclusive that we are better when we work together and combine our efforts, and Libertarianism only drags us apart.
Maximizing individual freedoms is not implying that it is at the expense of the freedoms of others.
Hm, streetlights would fall into a category of something called a natural monopoly. A Georgist would probably say that natural monopolies should be owned, or tightly regulated by the state – a monopoly is inherently anti-competitive, as a result, it is fundamentally opposed to a competitive free market.
I will say, with certainty, that there is borderline zero consensus across all libertarians on how abortions should be handled. This is a tricky issue. I personally think that any solution will lie entirely within the grey, rather than the black and white. I suspect that no solution will be agreeable to all.
This is a dubious statement – it falsely generalizes to all libertarians. It entirely depends on who you talk to.
While, yes, fewer taxes, and regulation increase profits, that’s not their only purpose. Reductions in those result in increases in scale of the free market. It could be argued, dependent on circumstance, whether such decreases are actually beneficial, or not, but, at any rate, reductions in taxes and regulations don’t only serve the purpose of lining the pockets of special interest groups.
While, idealistically, it would be great if all humans could work together, real life is unfortunately far from ideal.
I appreciate your point by point response but I need to clarify that I am not arguing with you about Libertarianism in theory but in a tual practice. it is one thing to get behind it theoretically, but to see how it works in practice and still support it is what I find embarrassing.
What, specifically, do you think is impractical?
deleted by creator