What is your opinion on Libertarianism?

The DSA libertarian socialist caucus has reinvented itself the last year or so, they put out some good solid analysis prior to convention, and is doing a lot of work to build a libertarian socialist plurality within the org.

Right libertarians arent politically coherent, their lack of coherence means they are shot through with Nazis who exploit unprincipled movements yo plant the seeds of hate. A libertarian could be your uncle who smokes weed but listens to Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan podcast, or it could be a school shooter, a transhumanist tech accellerationist who always brings up Rokos basilisk after a couple Busch lights, or a neo-Randian objectivist.

As a left-Hegelian, I like discourse around human freedom, but people never concretize what they mean by freedom, and we always end up back to Marx:

Do not be deluded by the abstract word Freedom. Whose freedom? Not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but freedom of Capital to crush the worker.

American Conservatives think they are Libertarian but theyre actually more liberal (towards the right) than they would like to be told they are.

The only Libertarians I fuck with are Libertarian Socialists. Otherwise, Ayn Rand types are cringe as hell

In my experience, libertarianism appeals to a particular type of naive and possibly insecure person, who has some kind of emotional need to make broad declarations about things/people they have no real-world experience with.

My only real take here is basically every single libertarian eventually becomes a technofascist. Why is that? Idk. But it happens over and over again.

It's something you either grow out of by 14, or you grow into a guy with a cheap suit, who takes himself way too seriously, and happens to knows the age of consent in every state by heart while having some very creepy opinions on it.

Libertarianism is a lie for people that want a high trust society without putting in any of the effort and cooperation that it requires. For people who expect things to naturally work while still saying "fuck you got mine".

I share most of the opinions expressed about it already expressed in this thread, so I’ll add one: whenever I’m exposed to libertarian media (podcasts, articles, etc), I’m really struck by just how surface-level the analysis is. It’s like, for anything going on in the world, they simply try to tie it back to “biG gOvErNmENt” and shoehorn everything into that. They won’t even show their work of how they get from A to B. I get that once you start applying dialectical materialism to your analysis of the world around you, other analyses can seem vulgar. But tbh even your typical liberal worldview seems more thought out than libertarians.

As an example, a libertarian I know was complaining about how California is going eliminate plastic carrier bags at supermarkets. I just asked “ok, then how else are we going solve the problem of plastic bags everywhere?” They just sorta shrugged off the question and said the government has no business banning bags.

I actually was a libertarian briefly a long time ago. It was the fact that it offers no real solutions for the biggest problems we face as a species was why I eventually abandoned it.

if you're talking about libertarianism as in minarchism and antiauthoritarianism, i think the state should be downsized before it even withers away under socialism.

as for Libertarianism, that term is being used by anyone who thinks they can get away with doing drugs in public or marrying kids, and it must be reclaimed. seriously!

Libertarians are grumpy indoor cats. They’re violently independent and want to be left alone, but their survival is also entirely dependent on the systems surrounding them, which they completely take for granted.

The grumpy indoor cat doesn’t want your attention, they just want their auto-feeder to activate like it always does. Never mind the fact that you’re the one who keeps the auto-feeder filled. They don’t care about that, they just care that the auto-feeder dispenses food.

On a TV series, a cowboy libertarian explains his being libertarian to a rich evil lady. She smiles and exclaims "you are all a bunch of toddlers! Wanting to suckle on other peoples tits and being treated as adults, while having none of the responsibility of being one".

I see it as an unstable economic model; it will either devolve to capitalism with monopolies capturing most if not all sectors; or devolve into communism with a single state-like entity controlling everything. At which point; no matter which way it went; it will collapse under its own weight.

The way it swings will depend on the people who are there at the start.

The modern version of libertarianism that we see most of; is based off some really bad assumptions:

(1) the market is perfect
(2) barriers to entry are irrelevant
(3) monopoly is not bad
(4) humans are rational actors
(5) if the market can't address the issue, it is irrelevant

(1) The market is perfect:
This leads to the assumption that all regulation is bad; and that it merely works to reduce personal freedoms and the ability of the market to produce things in the most efficient way possible.

It completely ignores history and the reason regulatory bodies were created. It also ignores that the market is not a thing unto itself; but is composed of people (see 4).

(2) Barriers to entry are irrelevant:
This follows directly from (1); even the simplest business has some barrier to entry. You have to buy somethings that your business needs to run. These are real costs, and will provide a barrier. Obviously, the bigger the barrier then more entrenched players have an advantage (see 3)

(3) Monopoly is not bad:
This is a subtle acknowledgment that (1 & 2) are completely false. Basically it is a cope, that even if monopolies form; clearly this is the market producing the most efficient production framework.

This ignores history; the major monopolies that were broken up. The crazy shit that went on to protect their monopoly status.

(4) Humans are rational actors:
Most economic models assume that consumers will make rational choices; they will make the most economically rational choices. Libertarians (in my experience) love this.

This ignores so much of reality; it also assumes that the values of all are the same as their own.

There is really too much in this point to cover here. So many things that we actually do make no sense if you were a rational actor, such as brand loyalty.

(5) If the market can't address the issue, it is irrelevant:
There are many things that the market cannot address; but in the libertarian model these things are ignored.

e.g. fire fighting; this is the classic example where a market solution didn't work.

But equally; policing; education; major infrastructure; functional health systems. There are so many examples; where if left to a purely market solution, simply would not get done.

Crikey, very well-written and well-reasoned! I would just add:
(4)(b) Human have perfect information about the world.
In order to make rational choices, producers and consumers need perfect information. This also ignores so much of reality. Again, there are so many examples, but even in a simplified model transaction of buying a loaf of bread includes so many variables that it would be impossible to know them all: All of the bakeries offering bread, the prices they ask for their loaves, the sensory quality of the bread, the nutritional quality, the bakeries' food safety standards, and so on. Imagine trying to investigate the food safety record for the producer of each item in your typical grocery cart—an impossibility.
- Thanks.
  4 was such a big one; I knew I couldn't do it justice in a shortish post. But it is a fundamental assumption that is very wrong.
  You are correct; information asymmetry is one big driver of people making "non-rational" choices.

🔫

In Poland most libertarians are at best petty bougie failchildren thinking they would be billionaires when they grow up, those that do grow up without touching grass (or too dense to feel the grass) are usually turning into unhinged austrian cultists with monarchist and nazist inclinations. Deeply unserious people

An end result of liberalist idealism. (plus what others have said)

They're ~~almost like~~ Republicans except they smoke weed.

Big L, I see. The american Libertarian Party is a combination of 99% of the people who still want to vote but can't fit in with the dominant two, with 127 reasons per 5 members. Lots of them are just looking for a way to be allowed to do whatever they want that is currently illegal, whether that's as banal as recreational drugs or as oppositional to society as child slave torture-rape. Whatever their 'thing' is, they want to be allowed to do it, the rest of society be damned.

It's funny that in the classic Libertarian novel "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" the rule free society only works because there are no guns and literally everything is controlled by a single giant computer.

Objectivism creator Ayn Rand ended up on welfare after she lacked the will power to give up smoking.

Need I say more?

It's a wolf and a flock of sheep all inside a fenced-off meadow, thinking that everyone can do whatever they want and it will all work out to everyone's favor.

Awesome, let everyone freely enter into any contract they'll agree to, instead of a government enforcing rules at gunpoint!
Except the contract is written by a multi-billion-dollar conglomerate, and the one "agreeing" to it is a single mom who will lose her income, apartment and access to child care if she "freely" refuses.

I can only speak for America, but here they're all a bunch of corporate-sponsored anarchy LARPers.

I mean…that says it all.
Sure, the seemingly benevolent small business owners feature heavily at the conventions…but behind the curtains it’s really a coalition of rich guys, gun nuts, NAMBLAs, zoophiles, etc. in a stuffed cheap suit.

Naive idiots at best genocidal Maniacs at worst.

I've known a bunch of them and I think their ideology is fine on the surface, but full of small contraddictions, for example:

they believe freedom is the utmost important thing, but their freedom is always threatened so they always should do what they do want, even if that limits other people freedom. For example: I should not be forced to pay taxes if I don't want to because noone should be forced to pay for a "service", it should always be a choice (but if my country gives me healthcare without paying taxes, I should also use the service). However, things like paying tolls for private highway is also bad, because one should be able to go wherever they want withou paying.
they don't believe in "rights" as anything imposed from the top is bad. If a category is persecuted (black people, gays, whatever) they should not be protected, but fight on their own
according to them, in true capitalism, free market is perfect and the most just, and monopolies will not never happen, now they do only because laws allow them to "manipulate" the market.
they often spiral down alt-right conspiracies theory with a libertarian flavour, like a deep-state working hard to limit even more your freedom, or everything even remotely "politically correct" (even things like protection against protection against being fired because you are homosexual) is woke propaganda and also aimed to limit your freedom.

That's my experience with a few tens of people, so I don't know if that's representative of the whole community, bu my own little consipracy theory is that libertarianism as I know it was crafted by the US alt-right to subtly manipulate people into fascism, the premises are all there: hatred for the current state, bigotry, extreme victimism, a willingness to strip down thenselves of hard-fought rights and a hustle/grinding mentality to slave yourself down to work and enrich other people

Absolutely bat shit insane you say?

Hooray for me, and fuck you!

Left libertarianism is great and serves as an effective counterbalance to many issues. Right libertarianism is often foolish at best and rarely includes the freedom to do things like live your life as you please

In this thread.... People arguing about multiple strawman definitions of Libertarianism.

My opinion is that it's a useless term because nobody agrees on what it means.

Left wing (actual OG) Libertarianism is great. Right wing Libertarianism is basically a bunch of antisocial/intellectually lazy people who think the ideal society is one where everybody has a few acres of land with a little shack that they built themselves where they subsist on potatoes, carrots, and chicken eggs and stockpile gold and silver to trade with another libertarian twice a year.

That description looks too close to some videogame.
I consider myself pretty left (at least in comparison to the average German), but that lifestyle sounds quite tempting to me. I'd skip chicken though.

Depends on how it's defined.

Current libertarianism is just rebranded reactionary conservatism.

Classically though, "libertarian" simply referred to someone who advocated for maximum individual liberty and minimum state intervention. The term first gained popularity in the US in the wake of the New Deal, when the term "liberal," which had up until then referred to that position of maximum individual liberty and minimum state intervention, was coopted by leftist authoritarians. Since the classical liberals needed a new term, they shifted to "libertarian." And notably, at that point, libertarians were at least as likely to be left-wing as right, with the two groups merely splitting on which specific government services should be counted among the minimum.

That started to go wrong when the Libertarian party was established, and finished going wrong when the Tea Party was transformed from a series of protests against the Wall Street bailouts to a traveling carnival of hate.

And there's also the political compass sense of "libertarian" as simply the opposite of authoritarian, by which I'm as "libertarian" as it's possible to be. It should be noted though that in recent years, mostly through meme communities, even that conception of "libertarian" has been increasingly characterized as more of an alternate authoritarianism.

So there's a conception back behind each use of the term "libertarian" that is at least close to mine (I'm actually an anarchist). But IMO not coincidentally, the term has been in all cases warped to refer to some form of authoritarianism, which I unequivocally oppose.

I have to push back a bit that the core of the proper definition of libertarianism is freedom from the state. It’s isn’t/wasn’t. The state plays an essential role in functional libertarianism, for what should be obvious reasons: libertarianism requires a mechanism, aside from power, to resolve tension between competing freedoms.
- I have to push back a bit that the core of the proper definition of libertarianism is freedom from the state.
  I'm not sure why you feel a need to push back against something I didn't say.

I've been a libertarian for 25 years, but that and the recently improved Green Party didn't gather enough signatures in New York. I wouldn't vote to let millions of people starve (instead of taxing the very rich) or not regulate monopolies.

If you mean the Statesian, pro-capitalist kind, it's mostly a silly ideology pushed by small business owners and other highly individualist classes that are nonetheless pushed towards the working classes by competing against ever-growing monopolies.

The left wing version, I disagree with as you can't dismantle the state without removing the basis of the state, class, and you can't remove class without collectivizing production and distribution. Small, local cells loosely organized in a decentralist fashion would still result in class struggle and thus a form of state to hold one class over the others. That said, the leftists are valuable allies at times despite disagreements.

See The first “definition” doesn’t fit the group you’re trying to define. If you’re talking about American (using the US as shorthand)…they are by no means restricted to or feature small business owners, that’s but a small (albeit with outsized power) enclave in the “coalition”. ie you can’t mention small business owners without also mentioning that the largest business owners also may be “libertarians”. Their policy ideologically and thus empirically opposes the working class.
There’s no left wing version of the word, or rather, the proper definition is leftist. What you’re describing seems to be an ideological axe you have to grind with Marxism, or socialism something. Actual libertarianism is simply a school of thought - a collection of philosophies - that prioritize individual liberty (freedom). In other words…it’s a criticism - a way to moderate - a necessary capitalist system. Generally these philosophies aren’t related to American libertarianism/freedom…it’s more of a freedom from rather than a freedom to thing…to oversimplify: leftist (real) libertarians believe power structures shouldn’t impede the (not obstructive and lawful) acts of the people - it’s very conscious of power differentials, while American libertarians believe in an absolute right to individual freedom that may or may not conflict with other peoples’ freedoms - after that point of tension it comes down to functional power (thus it’s antithetical to the proper definition and why the prioritization of power pairs so well with - rather than moderates - capitalism and even fascism). Some of the groups that American libertarians welcome into their coalition are grotesque perversions of the concept - even if they put the small business owners on stage at the convention.
- First off, you're a bit confused here. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, my critiques are from that framework.
  As for the libertarian movement in the States, I was referring to who makes up the basis of that movement. The wealthiest capitalists are usually not libertarians, they enjoy strong state control and regulations that they can fix in their favor. The basis of libertarianism is in the small business owners, the petite bourgeoisie, who see little of the systems benefits while trying to retain their privledged positions over others.
  I'm well-aware of what you define as "actual" libertarians, and my critique of them is from a Marxist point of view. I'm not an anarchist, while I enjoy working with anarchists and share a common enemy, our strategies and analysis end up in fundamentally different areas.
  The reason I broke them up as I did was because OP was vague enough that they could be asking for either, so I answered both.

"libertarians generally advocate for minimal government regulation, believing that businesses should operate freely and regulate themselves through voluntary exchange and competition. They argue that over-regulation can stifle innovation and economic growth."

So in my opinion, they are dumbasses. Yeah let's get the Nestles and Monsanto's of the world to regulate themselves. Honestly just unserious people with no critical thinking skills in my opinion.

I don't think libertarianism works, it relies naively on how the free market is omnipotent, how freedom is everything and how having a small government is somehow good. There are no countries that are entirely libertarian, that also tells a lot about the ideology's applicability in practice. A brilliant book about why libertarianism doesn't work is a book "A Libertarian Walks into a Bear". In the book, a group of libertarians decides to take over the small town of Grafton in New Hampshire en masse as part of their "Free Town Project". Of course this group cares neither about the town's original inhabitants nor their rights. What's the result? They hollow out pretty much everything from the library, to the school, the fire department and the police. No regard is given to any laws on hunting or food disposal, and that lures in bears, who turn so aggressive that they invade people's homes. In addition to bears, sex offenders and all kinds of criminals are also lured into Grafton. It's pretty entertaining book, I recommend it.

Another reason why I dislike libertarianism is that it can function as a gateway to fascism. This is a known phenomenon. Several key figures in the alt-right for example used to be libertarians. I stumbled into a clip from some American Libertarian Party convention where Richard Spencer was with Ron Paul. I had to rub my eyes a bit.

"Omnipotent market and little government"
Sounds like Somalia.
You forgot to mention that the book is nonfiction, this really happened.
- What a fun read, ty. I went to the Talk page hoping for some back and forth about ensuring the description of the project was unbiased. Nope, nada, surpised there aren't any free state project fans within the ranks of Wikipedia editing volunteers who would have something to say.

The “I can’t bring myself low enough to identify as republican anymore”. Still a conservative if not even now leaning harder to the right. They are petulant house cats. Utterly reliant and totally dependent upon a system that they have absolutely no appreciation or respect for.

It’s depends on what you mean…it’s a fraught term, to say the least.

Actual definition of the word…or the Ron Paul (etc) nuts?

Housecats.

I do support the basics of Libertarianism, but I can't support the extreme-versions of it left or right sides.

American "libertarianism" is a correct identification of the issue with oppressive use of force by the state, coupled with a somewhere-between-ambiguous-and-incorrect interpretation of when force is oppressive and when it's not. It's my stance that American libertarianism (based on the NAP definition) with a properly calculated ethical interpretation of justifiable "property" simply reduces to anarchocommunism, as many unexamined assumptions about when a "property" claim is justifiable and when it is not simply accept a capitalist market economy, and any inequality that may result, out of sheer laziness. A lot of people find this way of looking at it jarring, usually because they just try to cram it somewhere on the "left/right" scale without really examining each ideological underpinning, or by really examining the range of thinking within the space. And some of that results from fascist groups trying to coopt the label as well. Good litmus test for that is asking a self-identified "libertarian" what they think about immigration, or the justifiability of a given war. The "MAGA LINO" types will justify immigration crackdowns and wars, the dyed-in-the-wool "libertarians" will oppose them, and so on with other oppressive policies that leftists also oppose. Which leaves the main point of contention being how the economic system works and how property distribution works, something which the "NAP" is ambiguous about. Therefore...

Sounds great on paper, in practice it’s almost entirely old white men who want to get rid of age of consent laws or people who want to be able to do insane, dangerous to others shit like feeding bears without anyone being able to stop them.

In summary, the ideology of selfish jackasses at best and pedophiles at worst.

I think Libertarianism is incompatible with the way that humans operate as a society. Almost all flavors of libertarianism puts an individual's right to live as they choose as long as that doesn't violate the rights of others through force or fraud. Humans like to associate themselves into groups, and in almost any group there will be an imbalance in power, whether that's economic power, physical power (strength), or even something as abstract as eloquence or how outgoing you are. The issue then becomes that someone somewhere has to enforce the right to not be forced into giving up rights. In the classical construction of how libertarians view government, it is very easy to become more powerful than those meant to enforce limits on power. Even in our current political system, you see this when companies will spend more on their anti-trust court cases than the entire FTC spends total in a decade. Libertarianism has no mechanism to keep the enforcer the most powerful party involved

Either incredibly selfish /self centered people, incredibly uninformed on the real world, or a combination of both.

Pedophiles trick children into thinking they're libertarians because cops are bad and weed is good

Cops are badly out of control and weed should be allowed if someone chooses to do it but yes I agree that libertarianism is stupid.

afaik it was originally about freedom from oppression. as with so many things, it has been hijacked by bigots and they've twisted it to now mean their freedom to oppress others.

Anyone I've ever heard talking about the non-aggression principle spat red flags faster than a machine gun.

At best, they're truly so dense and unsympathetic they don't recognize actions that aren't directly or intentionally causing harm do still cause harm (example, the free state project people leaving food out for black bears "because they can" without thought for their neighbors who then have to deal with more bears). At worst, it's rape apologia (crap like statutory rape doesn't exist because that minor "totally asked for it" and the rape didn't cause physical damage).

I think it's nonsense.

The "free market" is never truly free, and if there isn't something holding the capitalist class back, they will always dominate the working class until the system just breaks. The only way for a stable society to exist is for checks and balances.

The best right wing libertarians end up being left wing libertarians.

It's dumb.

Works wonderfully if you're profit. The free markets love you and will do anything for you.

Oh, you're a people? Have you heard of our Lord and Savior profit? If you're not helping profit then you must be hurting it, therefore hurting the market. We don't take kindly to the likes of you.

It is an ideology for selfish amoral oppotunists