subscribe or follow us:                    

The Cruel Irony of Political Libertarianism

3 comments

Posted by Ross Kenyon

Thomas Paine wrote — probably to annoy me — that “those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” With the American midterm elections this week, I find myself pensively reflecting on the cruel irony of being a political libertarian. There appears to be a direct correlation between how radical one’s libertarian sentiments are and the amount of resentment felt by being ensnared by American democracy.

Libertarians are nonaggressive and essentially want to be left alone. They don’t (or shouldn’t) seek to hurt or exploit anyone. I personally would like to live in peace with all people and trade. I respect the labor of others in the hopes that they might too respect mine. We libertarians have lives we enjoy leading; friends and family to do things more fun than politicking with, music to create, wilderness to explore, a whole world of delights waiting, and some of us even enjoy moving our bodies rhymically to well-ordered sounds. We would surely all choose such activities, full of spunk and life, over participation in the jaundiced political nightmare we are currently faced with, but alas, we are not permitted to escape the fatigue of supporting our philosophy.

Market anarchists envision a world without poverty or war, where individuals are not forced to subsidize the domination of one another, nor have our own lives paternalistically guided by bureaucrats, politicians, or generals, irrelevant of how they were placed in a position of political power.

This world is possible, and it isn’t really all that complex of an idea: there should be no arbitrary political boundaries and thus no forced collectivization. Political relationships should be based upon consent and problems resolved through decentralized common law negotiation amongst the affected parties, not non-refusable legislative representation based upon geographical lines.

Libertarians form intentional communities in places like New Hampshire through the Free State project, but also inhabit substantial online communities on sites like Facebook and Reddit, where people spend huge amounts of time sharing media related to recent government hijinx, political and/or economic theory, and historical mischief. Unless one just desperately needs this sort of town crier attention, I believe most of us would prefer to leave political libertarianism behind us for good and live our values in real life without unjust interference.

I imagine living some place like Moab, Utah, where I would buy a used four-wheel drive truck and romp into the wilderness for days at a time. When I’d meander back to civilization, I’d strum a guitar, and maybe find a hardword floor to lindy hop over. I don’t imagine having to work all that much either, as I wouldn’t be funding corporate privilege or the deaths of children overseas against my will. My economic competition wouldn’t be artificially advantaged over me through the state as they currently are, and I wouldn’t face onerous regulations, zoning, and licensing laws which entrench the well-connected and severely disrupt low overhead producers such as myself. It’s not that I desire a large amount of wealth, but the American breed of political and economic strangulation is denying me the fullest expression of my humanity, and yours too.

When anarchists come up against a system of voting inside of meaningless boundaries where everyone votes on how much forced labor we should make our neighbors perform and for which ends, not with their explicit permission but through some vague invocation of social contract, we find ourselves especially embittered.

If you see a libertarian or anarchist in the next week, show them some love. Their choices unsavory, the system illegitimate; it makes for a frustrating experience to hope for any semblance of a sane political future. While our ideas might sound utopian, we think it is far more utopian to believe that a political system based upon arbitrariness and forced collectivization can lead to anything worthwhile.

We would never seek to hurt you, another peaceful person, but please, we need to get on with our lives. Help us in ending the cruel irony of political libertarianism, so that all of us Americans might now maintain the countless wasted hours and wealth the political system saps from us, and replace our fatigue once more with the joy of living.

Originally posted at C4SS:  The Cruel Irony of Political Libertarianism

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • Anonymous 6667

    “Libertarians are nonaggressive and essentially want to be left alone. They don’t (or shouldn’t) seek to hurt or exploit anyone.”

    Incorrect. Libertarian Capitalism and its myriad of guises (Market Anarchism, Agorism, Lasseisz Faire economics, Austrian School economics, et cetera) are all inherently exploitative because they all revolve around the system of capitalism– where exploitation of the poor, the weak, the defenseless and all natural resources is not only rewarded as positive behavior, but they are required for capitalism to function.

    It is imperative to note that “minarchists” or people who adhere to the aforementioned ideologies and call themselves “anarchists” cannot be anarchists because there are absolutely no provisions in any “libertarian capitalist” ideology that prevent the formation of monopolies or the existence of a megacorporation as a de-facto “state.” Apple, Microsoft and Fox would all rejoice over the prospect of being able to field their own militaries and their own police forces to secure their profits, to say nothing of their desire to diversify their holdings into food, water and power production.

    The only reason that libertarian capitalism takes a far less authoritarian stance on social issues (drug use, gay marriage, religion) is that these factors simultaneously do not directly affect their profits *and* they can be utilized by the corporation to generate more income through directed marketing. Their “libertarian” social stance is motivated entirely by greed and profit, not out of concern for human dignity.

    • http://www.l1b3rty.com/ P@Riot

      It’s the government that allows monopolies. Take healthcare: Rep. Doggett said they passed the healthcare bill to give the poor people of this country an alternative to the evil monopolies. By creating a government monopoly. This would work because the risk-pool would be much greater, leading to lower premiums. However, without government, I would be allowed to sell health insurance to all three hundred fifty million US citizens. And I could do it with a bottom line in mind, instead of creating a black hole that is set to surpass social security (if it ever really gets off the ground). Nobody forces you to buy from a monopoly, except for that entity with a monopoly on force: government.

    • Freefrog

      Your remarks appear to center around this assertion –

      “…are all inherently exploitative because they all revolve around the system of capitalism–
      where exploitation of the poor, the weak, the defenseless and all natural resources is not only
      rewarded as positive behavior, but they are required for capitalism to function.”

      Perhaps we are confusing state capitalism (what we have right now) with free-market capital-
      ism (a non-existent ideal). I concede that state capitalism exploits everything at hand for the
      sake of the ownership class and does so backed by government force. As we remove govern-
      ment advantages from the ownership class, we move toward the free-market and its promise
      of prosperity, peace, and socioeconomic mobility. How close we can come to the ideal is not
      known, nor is the degree of freedom and prosperity that we may enjoy from this development.
      However, I am willing, as are many, to find out.

      We must be careful with words such as capitalism, anarchism, and libertarianism. These words
      are loaded and fluid, covering a broad spectrum of meaning and understanding. They are not
      fixed points in a black and white world.

      Maybe its best to just say we love and support freedom and want to live as free people to the
      maximum extent possible.